Off Topic Some Questions for the Mods

I was speaking to Leeds60 today. For those of you who are unaware, he has been banned from this site. He believes it is for life as the site simply says 'banned'. On the previous occasion he was banned, the site said 'banned for a week'. So in the absence of a qualifier, it's a reasonable assumption that it's sine die.

He has received no contact from the mods, hence that assumption. And he has had not been told precisely what he has done wrong, nor been given the opportunity to defend himself. All the ingredients for a Kangaroo Court, on the face of it.

I have some questions to ask on behalf of Leeds60, myself, and all of the other contributors:

General: where are the rules for us all to read concerning membership standards, where we can learn:

• what the expected standards of behaviour are
• what the prescribed penalties are, and for what 'offences'
• what the 'miscreant hearing' process is, i.e.:
  • is a 'complainer' entitled to anonymity or not?
    
  • is the 'miscreant' informed of the nature of their 'offence'?
  • is an opportunity provided to refute any allegations?
  • is mitigation permitted or considered?
  • should a decision be published for wider scrutiny?
  • who makes the decisions?
  • is the 'miscreant' informed of the outcome of the hearing & any sanctions applied?
  • is there is an opportunity for appeal, and if so, to whom, and by what method (as ban prevents you appealing through NOT606)?
  • is legal advice taken on every ban to ensure no defamation claim can reasonably be raised?
  • if a defamation claim is indeed raised, are we, as members, all equally liable?

Specific to Leeds60's 'offence':

• who complained?
• what did they complain about?
• was Leeds60 informed of the substance of the complaint?
• was Leeds60 given the opportunity to defend himself?
  
• was Leeds60 given the opportunity to present mitigation?
  
• was the baiting of Leeds60 by OLOF, at the request of Glory, not considered as provocation?
• if mitigation had been provided, would it have been taken into consideration?
• will the details of the hearing & its decision be published for all to see or is it a secret?
• will the secret decision be communicated to Leeds60 or will he be left guessing?
• what precisely was he guilty of?
• am I able to take the inference that the 'binman' reference is now considered more offensive than any combination of insults / swear words?
• will the 'binman' offence be added to the secret list of offences that we're unable to reference?
• is it safe to assume the mods have taken down all the mirrors in their respective homes?
• will I be banned for accusing the mods of running a kangaroo court where you cannot defend yourself against charges you're unaware of, nor are you told of whatever punishment is meted out to you?
• will I be banned for saying 'shame on you' for banning an old man in this manner and not having the courtesy to even write to tell him?
• will I be banned if I ask if anyone on the entire NOT606 site has ever had more than one 7 day ban, or can you swear on the lives of your nearest & dearest that a life ban ALWAYS follows a 1 week ban on every single occasion?
• If not, why this time? Who died?

 

Sorry you see it that way, I couldn't disagree more. He had it coming for months.

I complained publicly on the thread ( no pm request was made by me) but as I now understand it not until things were already in motion.

He should been banned permanently last time, and was told not to even imply a reference to me or Ristac from then on. He couldn't manage that and was then shown how to ignore posters. This was 100% a crap plan IMO as than the little jibes restarted just there was no means of reply. On Wednesday night he started again and I asked others not to respond knowing he would keep going and the final warning he was on and knew about would be actioned. As you said to me he has spent an entire life being in charge of people and has forgotten that only works when you are placing orders or paying wages. Everyone on here is equal.

He was on a FINAL warning and it was communicated to him, he then received a further warning even though on the final warning. It's not the mods fault he thought wrongly they wouldn't press the button.

Am I sad it came to this? Yes. Would I want to alter it? No.

The site will IMO be better without him. That's an opinion btw.

 

Regardless of who was right or wrong, I think 60 is better away from here. Didn't seem like he got much enjoyment from the thing. Mods were in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position

 

Looks like tomorrow is going to be a barrel of laughs.....

 

Doesn't affect my day. Can't speak for anyone else

 

If the situation was reversed & it was your good self that was banned, I'd ask the same questions.

It suddently occurred to me that it's a rather masonic way of working on here: no published rules, no expectations, no bugger all (see OP), and coming from a background of delivering service through strict adherence to clearly published prcesses, I'm not a happy or comfortably bunny. We have no transparency of moderation on here: can you remember our old friends like Clive & Elmo? How many bans did they receive? Who didn't they annoy? What has Mike done worse than them that deserves kneecapping up a back alley?

 

i like the questions you are asking and thought after reading twice they are well put.if someone called me a binman i would just laugh it off.i read this site every day and have seen what is being said.
i have seen many instances of leeds60s post being mocked and derided.did he ask the mods to step in ?.
i saw a post the other day from chippy saying if the mods did not ban him he was leaving.really ? that is a bit too much.
so what are the rules ?.mods please answer the above questions i would like to know.

 

Chesh is cool..... WJ says he is..... But then posted the above......
I know it makes me a bad person but the low level jibes had got the point of it being Mike or me and one of us was going.... I meant it when I said Saturday was d day. But not known to me the mods were on it before I posted.

The ultimate proof of who was in the right will be shown by how the pair of us get on from here. If I am the Cnut then my true colours will show and I would deserve to be kicked. If Mike is kicked from ja he will have man aged t antagonise others to make the complain there.

Seriously if you guys want to put it to a vote on which of us really deserved to be kicked off I will go for that. There is no way we could coexist,. Too much water under the bridge......But if I am kicked make it a life ban.....

 

It's an Internet forum not a democracy....
Mike plays his cards well but from my PoV got what he deserved.
We couldn't both stay without killing the board.

 

And I meant it.....

 

Are you answering for the Mods?

 

I said my piece on the other days morning thread where this all started. I have nothing fresh to add, I will say I thought Elmo did far worse, I feel Clive did far less and I was surprised at Clive's ban.

Clive to my knowledge was never nasty to anyone, just annoying. Leeds60 should have been banned months ago, the moment he admitted to going out of his way to cause grief with people.

They are my own personal thoughts and to be honest Eire sums it up perfectly.

 

oh i remember clive and elmo very well.i remember the old bbc site and i also am on ja606 currently.some on there would upset some i think.i just think it's funny.honestly you would think someone had been killed.

 

Ive already picked up on the mistake that 60 wasnt informed. El drafted 60 a mail highlighting the issues but on this occasion the supermod enforced the ban prior to El sending it, this is unusual as it usually takes a while for the ban to go through. 60 is being contacted via email with the content of his ban. We as mods work hard to keep this place ticking over and I realise we can't please everyone all the time. 60 was given repeated warnings both private and personal and had previously lost us posters on this board and to be honest personally my patience ran a bit thin with him. Sorry Jock but it was always going to be a unpopular decision either way, we as mods discussed this in length and voted on it, prior to giving him another chance and even went through the cycle again yesterday, unfortunately for 60 as a group we decided enough is enough.

 

I am answering for me.
He was banned for his actions in our long standing disagreement.
If I am the problem happy enough to fall on my sword.
Rather than that than lose our mods, who even though I think the ban was overdue do an excellent job.
They made a choice and couldn't please everyone...

 

If I'm honest, I'm only familiar with the Clive legend, not the man himself. I caught him when he returned to this board (if I picked this up correctly), & would agree that he was most certainly annoying, and universal with it! I believe he did the fatal damage earlier, either on here, on the BBC, or on JA, and whatever he did here was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. I must confess I just plucked those 2 names out of fresh air.

 

I'll wait & see what they have to say for themselves.

 

Also You can take up what you want with the super mods Jock. We have done what we thought was best for the board

 

Sounds quite fair to me bucks in this instance. Likely in a months time this will all have been forgotten. Think what Wj and wakey are looking for is some clarification of rules or guidelines but given the amount of banter on here, I don't think that's probably possible. We're all adults and should realise how far we can push each other's buttons at this stage

 

Have a safe trip Eire, mind your sausage......

 

We can get a list of rules stickied up over the next couple of days no problem. I didnt want the board run in such a fashion but if you think for one second I am abusing the rules to suit or something along the lines then no problem at all. This isnt a forum ran like the old beeb one and we let a lot go. We as mod try to remain reactive to complaints rather than rule with an iron fist. I appreciate this leaves some grey areas but thats why there are three of us to vote on decisions.