Questions re. the 'Banning' Thread ....

As I’m talking to myself it doesn’t matter

 

You could in fact be talking bollix to your bollix for all we know.

 

If you used your new detective modding tools, you'd notice that I never stopped posting - just swerving the "precious" threads

 

That would be all of the threads so

 

True dat!!

please log in to view this image

 

No we didnt

 

Forgive me Ristac - not intentionally digging you out if that;s how this comes across.
Are you really saying that between you, the Leeds mods had a 19 page private conversation about what goes on on this forum?

@Whitejock Got some stick a while back (from myself mainly) when he suggested a kangaroo Court had occured when Mike got banned - I apologise to WJ now as this is most certainly what goes on.

How the feck can 3 of you fill up 19 pages discussing a 14 page thread - and to what end?
Who wanted Eric and Glory banned - and for what reasons?
Are there multiple complaints that none of us a privvy to that warrants such detailed moderation?
Seems very big brotherish to me - all over similar comments we've ALL been making since this sforum first started.
Why are peoples vpn's etc being looked at by the mods in the first place?
Without written permission from the user *Glory or Eric), this would be a severe breach of GDPR regs.

 

Rather painstakingly I've taken the time to review all posts made by Glory since last Friday up until his ban.

There is not in my opinion any posts or a collective theme running through his posts which would be worthy of a ban. Certainly he has posted far far worse in the past and somehow got away with it.

If he has been banned because of private messages sent to mods then can somehow explain how that works.

Is the message not private ?

If you don't like or agree with the message(s) would you not just delete or ignore.

How can a series of disagreeable messages run to 19 pages before it's decided enough is enough.

Why would you respond for 19 pages when you're aware that the person you're corresponding with is ill in hospital. He even posted how well he'd done not to push things too far given his circumstances.

If there is irrefutable proof of multiple accounts then why not state which is the fake non de plume.

It just doesn't sit well with me.

Given there has been a very recent change in the moderation team and then a ban for one of our most controversial posters suddenly occurs I still feel questions need to be asked and answered.

We are asked to trust the process as though Glory has committed some sort of heinous crime which is now sub judice and we mustn't interrupt the process.

No, I'm not buying it as it just doesn't feel right.

 

That's the first ever time I've been tagged on here. I had no idea what it meant! You learn something new every day, eh ...?

 

You do indeed

 

The 19 pages were PM Mod chat - not visible on the forum - it was at page 17 of this kangaroo chat that they decided to involve Brb and minxy (supermods)

Doesn't sit well with me either as this forum certaily does not need a secret society

 

Evening TC I’ve just looked at the conversation thread, it’s on 22 pages now and been closed. Why would I lie about how many pages when there are two other moderators involved?

The contents were a mixture of concerns, opinions, votes on subjects and a few members PMs that they’d given the okay to share

Nobody gets banned unless it’s a unanimous vote, none of us fought Glory’s corner and said no don’t do it.

No idea how it falls under GDPR when checking an IP address so I googled it and found this... “An IP address in isolation is not personal data under the Data Protection Act, according to the InformationCommissioner” To be honest that’s for those at the top to concern themselves about not me, Bucks or Elland.

I’m going to reply to Jammy then I’ve nothing more to add, like I said before, Glory through a third party has threatened legal action, it’s a non starter as far as I am concerned but I know he’ll be reading this and I’m not playing those games

 

Would you care to elaborate? If I’m reading this correctly you feel the ban is down to me? You feel that Elland Bucks and the Supermods would ban Glory because I join the team and I say I want him banned so they say yes great idea and just do it? Please tell me I’m barking up the wrong tree? If I am barking up the wrong tree I’d appreciate it if you could explain that small paragraph

 

What an interesting post! As a foreign observer on this board I don't claim to be overly knowledgeable about Leeds politics, but I do read most of the posts and fail to see why anyone should be banned for having a diverse opinion on any subject. Sure, some posts may be a bit harsh but, hey, it's just banter. If you don't like what someone else is thinking, suck it up and move on. As for Eric the Sh*t not being in Oz, why do his posting times coincide with mine? He knows what our weather is at any time and what the local footy scores are. I think he's fair dinkum (apart from being a Leeds tragic, poor sod). Mods, please don't fall into the trap of being too officious. Banning people for their personal views can lead to you becoming Conservatives, or worse, Australian Liberals, and that's not nice. Not nice at all.


Morning all.

 

Had a few texts from Steve today, let’s call him that not Glory because he is a real person not just a forum villain.

Nothing untoward but he asked me to copy the mods into a pm from the weekend when he told me Jammy had walked. It started with me fizzing about deleted posts (the reason for Jammy walking) and I was open with the mods about this but ended with a bit of a shrug of the shoulders from both of us acknowledging that a ban may not be the worst thing in the world because this place is addictive whether any of us admit it or not, and none of us want to admit to being addicts.

Why am I saying this here? Because it was his PM and either I can’t invite others to see what was said, it is locked because he is banned or I am just too stupid to know how to do it (entirely possible). Whichever, he is not crying about his ban, he knows it may be for his own good.

All the bluster about legal action is just that, he wouldn’t do it (he hasn’t said that), because he is actually a decent human being for all the knob end traits he loves to display on here.

Guys, Steve has health problems none of us would want, be careful not to jump on his downfall too quickly - whatever you post on the Internet is there for all to see for a very long time. Just saying, be wise about what you have to say right now

 

Calm yourself down Ristac - nobody said you were lying to my knowledge - Jammy was unaware that the 17 - 22 or however many pages upon pages of "concerns" were "PM'S" between the 3 of you.

Also. you need to know that IP addresses qualify as personal data (as ruled by The Court of Justice on 19th October 2016) where the relevant individual provides additional details to the website operator (e.g., name, email address, etc.) in the course of using the website.
As you need an email address to sign up to not606 this is definitely the case
Therfore, by allowing yourself Bucks or Elland access to his IP address, it could be a BIG GDPR problem for the site owner!

Glad I could help

 

It may be that Jammy is suspicious of a 'new broom' syndrome. Don't get your knickers in a knot, Ristac. It's just a question. This kind of reactive thinking is what has made this post. Sorry, I'll butt out of your post now.

 

Are you saying it's NOT down to you?

I know differently

 

Give him my best wishes next time you speak to him Marcos - pretty sure he did need a break from this place - guarantee he's chuckling at this thread

 

I will bud