** STATEMENT REGARDING GLORY **

Quick question Do you want strict moderation like other sites?

I'll post your concerns on the Moderator forum and see if we can learn from other teams pages

 

I'll answer that question if I may. **** no, I've always liked how the forum is run. FFS remember the BBC site.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

 

It was glory that asked / suggested he was banned (as matter of irony for this thread)

 

Y

You were banned

A well run site

 

Then my suggestion to the supermods would be the same, ask for the mod team to make an announcement stating why the person was banned, lock the thread so that it doesn't become cluttered, provide a contact email address for the supermods that the banned person can contact them on and take it from there. Even if it means the supermods unlocking the announcement and posting the email reply.

Again it is just a suggestion and not something myself Bucks or Elland can implement, I personally would be against a strict set of rules, it would be a nightmare implementing one site wide.

 

I only mentioned them because Minxy challenged me to, allowing the inference to be taken that I was making the 'sine die' bannings up.

For the record, Bluememe could simply have been set to ignore as you could be sure that he wouldn't make personal attacks. Clive could also be ignored, for the same reason, but I for one actually enjoyed most of his posts, as a high percentage of them contained salient points.

It does beg the question if the complaints were 'my ignore button isn't working'.

 

Please remember that my complaint is wider than Glory. It keeps coming back to him, but whilst I accept he's gone, I still stand by my questions re. how future bans should be handled. That is the wider issue that remains outstanding imo.

 

Skipped the last 5-6 pages because I'd lost the will to live.

So, who's left, post-apocalypse?

 

Darn Davy

I make a post after 3 weeks of refraining from posting, only to find that you skipped it anyways.

May as well not post at all if you are going to keep doing that

 

It was however a good post

 

I think everyone's missing my point. Everyone reads my posts on this subject & immediately ties it in to the Glory banning. It's not. It's a generalisation.

I asked for communication, as it's never happened before. You did it on this thread. That's progress, but perhaps in future it could be done sooner, and with appropriate detail (person banned, length of ban, reason for ban - simples). In my working days, we'd use pro formas like this in certain situations, so we covered everything we had to communicate - precisely to inform & avoid constant questioning. So 10/10 for trying to recover that situation, and hope that there is more immediacy, transparency & accuracy if we ever have another banning. And now that I've been corrected, I know that the banned poster can go on as guest and read his own obituary, so to speak, so that's a good thing too.

The outstanding point I question is the fact that we only issue life bans. Why? Then again, due to the lack of transparency, and lack of communication (as mentioned above), there may well have been all sorts of bans issued, but we've never heard of them. If this is the case, you may well be on top of the disciplinary system - it's just that due to lack of comms, we've not been aware.

EDIT: Changed 1-/10 to the 10/10 it should have been. Sorry if it led to misinterpretation.

 

3 times

 

You're getting there, Richard. Doesn't have to be strict. If someone is peeing in the street all of the time & ignoring your warnings, is it right to issue the death sentence? (Awful analogy, I know ). But if you issued a short ban of a couple of days after the warning was ignored, it might sink in with some. Another repeat, a longer ban. And so on. Most might get the message before a 6 month ban, I'm sure. Then again .... I think the word I'm pushing here is proportion. The transparency message seems to have been acknowledged by this late OP, for which I'm grateful.

This is dragging on. It's a 5 min conversation in the pub. I think we're making progress. I can see our mods thinking. Sadly, our supermods think their attempts of humour & avoidance are more important than addressing an issue. But that's supermods for you. Hopefully we'll never need to use them again.

 

Skipped 5-6 pages???? FFS, mods, a confession - ban him for life!

 

I may be misunderstanding your point yet again .... but are you suggesting that you think we only do life bans ?

As for the other matter re a PM in 2016 .... I have looked at Jan 16 & the only one I can find between us was a thank you message from you .... so yes please forward the other conversation so I can have a read .... seriously I'm a super-mod so I cannot possibly remember all the conversations I have had on here .... or all the posters who have received bans

 

OK .... you are now pissing me off completely .... lets go to PM

 

Afternoon all,I trust we are playing nicely.

 

Now you know how Glory felt

 

Afternoon Este. It's like the never ending story

 

Why take things to PM ?

WJ raises some very important issues which quite a few of us are interested in and might like to contribute to.

Perhaps if things were just addressed in a more serious fashion from the beginning then we wouldn't have to make posts to finally get your attention.