Question for Leeds fans

That's probably one of the best questions that has been asked! The 'ignore' concept is full of holes. A one way ignore just doesn't work, as we've all seen, and a 2-way 'ignore' requirement wouldn't work either, for the very same reason that this question has been asked.

 

Mmm but that wasn't my question, I asked if members were leaving because of one person would you allow them to continue to leave until there were none left? Hypothetical I know but just curious.

 

Nice idea but it wouldn't have prevented or fixed the problem involving Leeds60

 

That has been the whole problem, mostly non football related topics causing a running series of baiting, fishing, or whatever responses from individuals. Some comments have been abusive in somewhat hidden term. Some members have left the forum not just because of any one individual but for the constant referral back to comments made many months previous.

I have enjoyed not606 over a number of years for the football comments and some of the banter between fans. Some of the wit and graphics are amazing.

This has been a very poor period, prolonged for some personal reasons for too long.

 

Perhaps as the OP I should make a few remarks before the thread closes:

The Mods on here do a fantastic job & I'm sure if they turned up for a meetup, then they'd struggle to put their hand in their pockets in the bar (which is quite something in Yorkshire! ). Such would be the gratitude. I had a pop at them in the OP, and have withdrawn the rememrk and apologised as I was unaware that they were the victims of an administrative cock-up.

One gripe I have is that we plebs (not a derogatory term, btw) are not aware of 'the framework'. That is my first issue - we don't actually know the specifics of what's allowed, and what's not, far less what sanctions we can face, and for what. Let's imagine the same type of situation was in place for car driving. You're perhaps a bit unhappy about being done for speeding the first time, then next time, you suddenly find that that you're banned for life! You're told that you should have known better - it's the law (which even if you sourced it, the language might confuse you), and you had lots of warnings (70mph signs everywhere). Oh, and just to add fuel to the fire, you can't appeal, and the court won't tell you how they came to know you were speeding. Perhaps not the best illustration, but hopefully you see my point.

Let me be clear on one other point - I'm not trying to overturn the decision the Mods made on Leeds60's case. They worked within the current framework, and black art as it may seem to the rest of us, the lads have a brilliant track record, and have never had an axe to grind. This situation simply brought to light the frailties of the current system to me.

I would simply like to see:

• a quick summary of sanctionable offences, incuding ones that would take you straight to a total ban without going through 'the escalator'
• a quick summary of the sanctions available, and the progression before a total ban ('the escalator' e.g. 1 week, 1 month, 3 month, bingo!)
• a notification to us all if any sanction is imposed on someone giving the briefest details
• the power of appeal
• power remaining with OUR Mods - no need for change here
• the retention of the powers of discression that our Mods have demonstrated that they case use so well

Now some or all of the above may well be in place, but it's not visible for all to see. I'm not asking for war & peace, I'm not asking for discretion to be removed, & I'm ot asking for huge structural changes. Just a bit more information sharing - that's the root of it.

Apologies to all if I've pissed you off. It was absolutely not my intention. It's been something I've been thinking about for quite some time & the Leeds60 situation brought it all into focus for me.

 

Poll has expired, thread closed.

 

My thoughts would be that if more basic rules were followed to stop the irritant then why would people be leaving

An irritant can only work when people respond

 

-