Flouncing

[minestrone]

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

I personally thought you lost your objectivity during the terrorist threads a few years ago. I thought your personal situation left you unable to be even handed in moderating that subject and i believed it showed.

I appreciate that most of us would be driving a black cab if it was not for the Acorn Electron as a 10th birthday present but I don't know why the forum has to be shaped by the views of a core few. The more open the platform the better I believe. As moderating input has grown satisfaction in the system has decreased for many and that now reflects in the post count.

I believe there are specific examples of moderators targeting specific posters until they eventually leave.

I think that would be quantifiable, in that most posters with multiple infractions will be handed out by a specific mod. certainly that is the case with me.

[MarillionFan]

I think that would be quantifiable, in that most posters with multiple infractions will be handed out by a specific mod. certainly that is the case with me.

I do believe that's because you attempted to do a Harvey Weinstein on the said Ms Cojak. But then again, who wouldn't be drawn in by that comedy wig.

[BrilloPad]

If it got reported, it would get looked at, I can't remember seeing a post saying that.

I reported it. The same poster was reported to admin for attacking me in professional. A couple of days ago I reported exaxtly the same poster to you. I asked you to talk to the other mods.

That poster, and 2 of their sockies are still there.

Even MF would have done better than this.....

[MarillionFan]

I reported it. The same poster was reported to admin for attacking me in professional. A couple of days ago I reported exaxtly the same poster to you. I asked you to talk to the other mods.

That poster, and 2 of their sockies are still there.

Even MF would have done better than this.....

April is coming, I think my time is due again....

[BrilloPad]

April is coming, I think my time is due again....

Isn't pril your month for election bets and buying sledges?

Thats the counting and word association threads deleted then. Please leave tpd.......

[BrilloPad]

I reported it. The same poster was reported to admin for attacking me in professional. A couple of days ago I reported exaxtly the same poster to you. I asked you to talk to the other mods.

That poster, and 2 of their sockies are still there.

Even MF would have done better than this.....

And I forgot. The poster thinks it is okay to attack people due to their mental health.

I have had some PMs of support on this.

[BrilloPad]

April is coming, I think my time is due again....

April. Isn't that the username that MrsMF uses on AdultWork?

[BrilloPad]

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

Once someone was banned for posting "NORKS" in maximum font size. As it might be noticed while people were surfing CUK in the office. However "norks" was fine.

So Churchill keep posting "norks" in larger fonts until he got banned to see exactly where the ban point was......

[_V_]

Once someone was banned for posting "NORKS" in maximum font size. As it might be noticed while people were surfing CUK in the office. However "norks" was fine.

So Churchill keep posting "norks" in larger fonts until he got banned to see exactly where the ban point was......

norks?

[NotAllThere]

...
I believe there are specific examples of moderators targeting specific posters until they eventually leave.

There are other explanations of this apparent phenomenom. Once a poster has been infracted, they're more visible, so more likely to get scrutinised. If they repeat the same behaviour, (as some for strange reasons feel they have to) then it can't be let go.

I think that would be quantifiable, in that most posters with multiple infractions will be handed out by a specific mod. certainly that is the case with me.

You've had 6 infractions between 2010 and 2016. Five from cojak (one on request), one from me. And one warning from me. I don't find that entirely convincing evidence that cojak is out to get you.

SY01 was convinced for a while I was out to get him (I wasn't), but I was happy to pander to his paranoia.

Once someone was banned for posting "NORKS" in maximum font size. As it might be noticed while people were surfing CUK in the office. However "norks" was fine.

So Churchill keep posting "norks" in larger fonts until he got banned to see exactly where the ban point was......

At the time, Admin decided that the overuse of norks was getting abusive - see this post for an example: https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...hello-cuk.html