Flouncing

[minestrone]

The banning thread is joke, Bans should be handed out on the thread in questions and the posts left in place unless they are so serious as to harm the forum either legally on financially.

The system is not transparent and that is a big issue when so many people don't trust you.

[WTFH]

The banning thread is joke, Bans should be handed out on the thread in questions and the posts left in place unless they are so serious as to harm the forum either legally on financially.

The system is not transparent and that is a big issue when so many people don't trust you.

If you hate this forum and how it is moderated as much as you do, why do you bother posting on here?

[WTFH]

Yup it was reported. Sorry didn't mean to come off as a dick - you can't win as a mod, too harsh too lenient.

You're not coming over as a dick, I'll have to do some searching...

[northernladuk]

The banning thread is joke, Bans should be handed out on the thread in questions and the posts left in place unless they are so serious as to harm the forum either legally on financially.

The system is not transparent and that is a big issue when so many people don't trust you.

Funny thing that. I actually quite like this setup. All the amusing anecdotes about why people are banned and the original thread cleaned up so as not to leave rubbish in threads. I thought it was pretty clever actually.

[NotAllThere]

https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...ml#post1849316

"Churchill - moaning about being banned over a year ago. 1 Month."

Debatable whether that qualifies as a ban for disagreeing. But even if I accept that it does, which I don't, it's hardly a massive pack of overwhelming evidence, is it? Hey - look. I disagree with you saying I ban people for disagreeing with me. Proof: I've not just banned you.

Bans should be handed out on the thread in questions and the posts left in place unless they are so serious as to harm the forum either legally on financially..

They are. HTH. But also the posts get removed if they cause harm to the otherwise sensible discussion on the thread.

If you hate this forum and how it is moderated as much as you do, why do you bother posting on here?

I wondered this. The only reasons I can think of are:
1. He's a masochist
2. He loves this place and is trying to get it changed to his liking so he can say
3. He's a prat.

I'm going with 2.

[minestrone]

If you hate this forum and how it is moderated as much as you do, why do you bother posting on here?

Saturday was the first time I looked at the site in 10 months. I don't think that is a ringing endorsement.

"Churchill - moaning about being banned over a year ago. 1 Month."

Debatable whether that qualifies as a ban for disagreeing. But even if I accept that it does, which I don't, it's hardly a massive pack of overwhelming evidence, is it? Hey - look. I disagree with you saying I ban people for disagreeing with me. Proof: I've not just banned you.

They are. HTH. But also the posts get removed if they cause harm to the otherwise sensible discussion on the thread.

Leaving the posts in place lets people know what was wrong with them. It instructs people were the line is.

Deleting the posts only adds to the feeling that the system is being abused. The process makes evidencing harder in situations like this which you use to your benefit. It's not transparent. I don't know what is hard to see about that.

[WTFH]

Leaving the posts in place lets people know what was wrong with them. It instructs people were the line is.

Deleting the posts only adds to the feeling that the system is being abused. The process makes evidencing harder in situations like this which you use to your benefit. It's not transparent. I don't know what is hard to see about that.

And I go back to my earlier comment, which you said was proof I should not be a mod on here.
The post which led to the user being banned was extremely offensive. Leaving it in place would allow hand wringers to say that we condone those posts because while we ban the user, we let disgusting comments stay.

[NotAllThere]

...
Leaving the posts in place lets people know what was wrong with them. It instructs people were the line is.

Deleting the posts only adds to the feeling that the system is being abused. The process makes evidencing harder in situations like this which you use to your benefit. It's not transparent. I don't know what is hard to see about that.

Before I started the "who's been banned and why" thread, there was even less transparency.

Posts are often left in place for exactly the reason you supply. However, posts are deleted if they are likely to cause legal problems, and/or are gratuitously offensive and/or disrupt what is otherwise a fairly interesting conversation.

It is also possible to give a ban not connected to a post - for example if someone uses the tags, private messaging or rep system to be abusive to other members. Sometimes the reasons given are a bit vague - there are times when we simply cannot be specific to protect people's privacy.

I agree that this reduces transparency. There is a balance to be struck. Obviously you think it's struck in the wrong place. I disagree. But I won't ban you for not being in agreement with me.

However, one of the reasons why you can't find evidence is, perhaps, that there isn't any evidence to be found.

I've just checked all Churchill's posts for which he was banned over the years. Only in 3 out of 15 have the posts been removed. The rest of the time, they were edited. Here's his first ban: https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...tml#post372015

[minestrone]

And I go back to my earlier comment, which you said was proof I should not be a mod on here.
The post which led to the user being banned was extremely offensive. Leaving it in place would allow hand wringers to say that we condone those posts because while we ban the user, we let disgusting comments stay.

Again, that you are turning this into claiming I am defending rape threats shows how completely irrational your thinking is.

[minestrone]

Anyways, who was it?