EU learning the hard way

[vetran]

It only looks wrong to you because you don't know what is going on in the background.

That was what NAT pointed to to justify the ban so that's what we based it on. What we saw appeared to be one of NAT's poorer decisions.

If there is more to it then sorry to hear it. NAT should have indicated as such.

[SueEllen]

That was what NAT pointed to to justify the ban so that's what we based it on. What we saw appeared to be one of NAT's poorer decisions.

No that is what you have based it on.

Like yesterday when I was arguing with you are assuming things that not everyone is seeing.

If there is more to it then sorry to hear it. NAT should have indicated as such.

The moderators don't have to and as part of their job is being discrete they aren't allowed to.

[NotAllThere]

Quite an assumption you've made there. Hence the bemusement at the lack of consistent moderating.

Whatchatalkingabout? People have been complaining about the lack of consistency for years. It's about the only thing that is consistent.

What you're suggesting could lead to witch-hunts - if we want to get someone banned, we could group together and report posts en masse.

Some details of how it works.

We get a complaint. We look into it. If we feel it has merit we take action that we think is appropriate. If a number of people complain, then that obviously adds weight - but none of it is definitive. Pre-emptive action is often taken without complaints being received. Sometimes we discuss before taking action, other times not. All decisions are subjective.

That was what NAT pointed to to justify the ban so that's what we based it on.

And you could do no more, which is why I'm not really bothered if people think I've got it wrong. If enough people do, and they're people whose judgement I've come to respect, then it will be taken on board. That's why, unlike some places, we do allow moderation decisions to be discussed. And as for the insults - I think some people confuse me with someone who gives a damn.

If there is more to it then sorry to hear it. NAT should have indicated as such.

I used to do that, but for various reasons I don't anymore. I also won't say if there is not more to it than that.

[LondonManc]

One question then NAT - why 7 days rather than 24 hours?

Seems very heavy-handed for the offence.

If it's because he's a pimp, fair enough. Please don't use that as your only get-out now I've suggested it though.

[vetran]

No that is what you have based it on.

Like yesterday when I was arguing with you are assuming things that not everyone is seeing.



The moderators don't have to and as part of their job is being discrete they aren't allowed to.

how did I know it would be my fault! I could be sexist here but I will rise above it

If I can't see things, then I have to base my opinions on what I can see.

Your assumption I am clairvoyant and omnipresent is very flattering but despite what you & my wife believe I'm not psychic or a deity.

If I'm wrong tell me why or that its none of my business. Don't assume I know what is going on and get aggressive.

Other bannings have been accompanied by text such as 'and misbehaviour via private messages' which we all respect. I don't mind posting some general crud (I read the mail for Deity's sake) but sending offensive PMs isn't on.

If that was what was happening then sorry to hear that.

[barrydidit]

I can't believe there's so much bed wetting taking place on behalf of a pimp. He should be banned periodically just for that.

[vetran]

Whatchatalkingabout? People have been complaining about the lack of consistency for years. It's about the only thing that is consistent.

Some details of how it works.

We get a complaint. We look into it. If we feel it has merit we take action that we think is appropriate. If a number of people complain, then that obviously adds weight - but none of it is definitive. Pre-emptive action is often taken without complaints being received. Sometimes we discuss before taking action, other times not. All decisions are subjective.

And you could do no more, which is why I'm not really bothered if people think I've got it wrong. If enough people do, and they're people whose judgement I've come to respect, then it will be taken on board. That's why, unlike some places, we do allow moderation decisions to be discussed. And as for the insults - I think some people confuse me with someone who gives a damn.
I used to do that, but for various reasons I don't anymore. I also won't say if there is not more to it than that.

thanks for being honest if there was more to it I'm sorry!

[woohoo]

I can't believe there's so much bed wetting taking place on behalf of a pimp. He should be banned periodically just for that.

Well at least there would be some logic behind the decision.

[MrMarkyMark]

Whatchatalkingabout? People have been complaining about the lack of consistency for years. It's about the only thing that is consistent.

Some details of how it works.

We get a complaint. We look into it. If we feel it has merit we take action that we think is appropriate. If a number of people complain, then that obviously adds weight - but none of it is definitive. Pre-emptive action is often taken without complaints being received. Sometimes we discuss before taking action, other times not. All decisions are subjective.

And you could do no more, which is why I'm not really bothered if people think I've got it wrong. If enough people do, and they're people whose judgement I've come to respect, then it will be taken on board. That's why, unlike some places, we do allow moderation decisions to be discussed. And as for the insults - I think some people confuse me with someone who gives a damn.
I used to do that, but for various reasons I don't anymore. I also won't say if there is not more to it than that.

Firstly, I don't always agree with all NATs decisions, however he can be reasoned with, which is indeed very rare on most forums.

DA will get over it, being an agent, he has the hide of a Rhino

[woohoo]

thanks for being honest if there was more to it I'm sorry!

Why are you apologising, he banned someone without giving a reason then said if you don't like it piss off elsewhere. If there was something more to it then the colossal prick could have mentioned it rather than being a big drama queen.