Novel justification for "Slow Down" notice

[Jim Riley]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

That's the one. 

[Paul C]

3 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

 Several thought his stay "reasonable in the circumstances" btw. 

I've just had a look through the previous thread. I'm afraid the above is inaccurate - I can only find one poster - DeanS - who thought it was reasonable. kris88 got a widespread amount of good advice from a wide variety of posters and it was pretty universal - I didn't count the number who thought it was unreasonable though.

[Arthur Marshall]

14 hours ago, Paul C said:

I've just had a look through the previous thread. I'm afraid the above is inaccurate - I can only find one poster - DeanS - who thought it was reasonable. kris88 got a widespread amount of good advice from a wide variety of posters and it was pretty universal - I didn't count the number who thought it was unreasonable though.

I wouldn't bother, really. There's enough to get het up about going on now without dragging up something that happened yonks ago.  The past should be left there.  Whatever the case then, the now is that there's a boat in good nick wandering about, which, as it's more than mine currently is, I'm pleased about.

[Paul C]

18 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I wouldn't bother, really. There's enough to get het up about going on now without dragging up something that happened yonks ago.  The past should be left there.  Whatever the case then, the now is that there's a boat in good nick wandering about, which, as it's more than mine currently is, I'm pleased about.

You'd need to ask Alan why he brought it up then, not me. All I've done is retrieve the old thread. Given the passage of time, I can forgive Jim mis-remembering some details.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

You'd need to ask Alan why he brought it up then, not me. All I've done is retrieve the old thread. Given the passage of time, I can forgive Jim mis-remembering some details.

There was a question asked "how long are they planning on leaving it hanging ?"

 

To which I replied "It could go on for years" and gave the example of someone who managed to claim 'engine problems, waiting for parts' as an excuse not to move for 18+ months.

[Arthur Marshall]

I can see a sense of humour failure hovering... I blame the political threads...

[Dyertribe]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There was a question asked "how long are they planning on leaving it hanging ?"

 

To which I replied "It could go on for years" and gave the example of someone who managed to claim 'engine problems, waiting for parts' as an excuse not to move for 18+ months.

It seems that the poster in question was banned from this site for 6 months but is still banned 2 years later. Is there an explanation  for this?

[thebfg]

On 08/09/2019 at 18:53, Paul C said:

I've just had a look through the previous thread. I'm afraid the above is inaccurate - I can only find one poster - DeanS - who thought it was reasonable. kris88 got a widespread amount of good advice from a wide variety of posters and it was pretty universal - I didn't count the number who thought it was unreasonable though.

What makes you think Jim was referring to people on here?

[Dyertribe]

9 hours ago, Dyertribe said:

It seems that the poster in question was banned from this site for 6 months but is still banned 2 years later. Is there an explanation  for this?

Anyone?

 

the silence is deafening

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

Anyone?

 

the silence is deafening

Presumably the general members are unable to answer - surely only the Mod team is in a position to revoke any ban, or explain why it is still in force.

[Ange]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Presumably the general members are unable to answer - surely only the Mod team is in a position to revoke any ban, or explain why it is still in force.

Exactly this. The moderators don't read every post so they either need to be tagged or contacted directly if a response is expected, though I doubt whether they'd discuss individual cases on the open forum.

 

 

 

[Jim Riley]

What is there to discuss, he received a six month ban, it ended. 

Natural justice requires he be allowed back once he has served his term. One does ones time, it ends, one is free. 

How would some of you like to be sentenced to serving years in the Thunderboat? There would be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. An awful fate. 

Anyone would think we are in a dictatorship. So no discussions or mealy mouthed twaddle required, just do as promised, you know it's the honourable thing to do. 

Free The Medlock One! 

[Athy]

8 hours ago, Dyertribe said:

Anyone?

 

the silence is deafening

DT, I have reported your previous post, not because there is anything wrong with it, but so that other moddies will  see it, so I hope that you will soon get an answer to your question.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Athy

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

DT, I have reported your previous post, not because there is anything wrong with it, but so that other moddies will  see it, so I hope that you will soon get an answer to your question.

As a moderator could you not ask the site owner if the account should now be enabled??

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

What is there to discuss, he received a six month ban, it ended. 

Natural justice requires he be allowed back once he has served his term. One does ones time, it ends, one is free. 

How would some of you like to be sentenced to serving years in the Thunderboat? There would be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. An awful fate. 

Anyone would think we are in a dictatorship. So no discussions or mealy mouthed twaddle required, just do as promised, you know it's the honourable thing to do. 

Free The Medlock One! 

Maybe the bans only get reviewed if someone reapplies to join  (on the assumption that they haven't like, I understand, half of the proudly banned on Thunderwotsit , already rejoined under a different name). Does Kris want to return? Not everyone does want to join every available forum - some of us have lives to live. 

[Jim Riley]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Maybe the bans only get reviewed if someone reapplies to join  (on the assumption that they haven't like, I understand, half of the proudly banned on Thunderwotsit , already rejoined under a different name). Does Kris want to return? Not everyone does want to join every available forum - some of us have lives to live. 

Whether or not people come back as sock puppets is beside the point. Justice demands that when one has done ones time the sentence ends. It's no great problem for the mod responsible for welding the axe to diary the release date and rescind the ban on the due date, or maybe the forum software can make life even easier. 

We all have to abide by the forum rules. Just implement them fairly. 

There can be no denial that we need the input of our great leader here. 

What's the status of the others who suffered under the great cull. (should that be cull of the great?) 

How many need their accounts unlocking as promised? When will we again hear the wise words of the terror of the Trent, Tony? 

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Jim Riley

[doratheexplorer]

53 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

As a moderator could you not ask the site owner if the account should now be enabled??

And while you're at it, my warning points could be removed too.  They were only supposed to be for six months and I only got them because a moderator had a sense of humour bypass.

On 08/09/2019 at 18:30, tree monkey said:

Indian, is there a new invasive none native I don't know about or just a typo?

Assuming it was Himalayan balsam well done, fascinating stuff but a bloody pest

Indian Balsam is a perfectly acceptable common name for Impatiens Glandulifera.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=480

 

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

And while you're at it, my warning points could be removed too. 

 

According to your profile, you have no warning points at present. So someone has been "at it".

[tree monkey]

17 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

And while you're at it, my warning points could be removed too.  They were only supposed to be for six months and I only got them because a moderator had a sense of humour bypass.

Indian Balsam is a perfectly acceptable common name for Impatiens Glandulifera.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=480

 

Well that something I've learnt today

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

Whether or not people come back as sock puppets is beside the point. Justice demands that when one has done ones time the sentence ends. It's no great problem for the mod responsible for welding the axe to diary the release date and rescind the ban on the due date, or maybe the forum software can make life even easier. 

We all have to abide by the forum rules. Just implement them fairly. 

There can be no denial that we need the input of our great leader here. 

What's the status of the others who suffered under the great cull. (should that be cull of the great?) 

How many need their accounts unlocking as promised? When will we again hear the wise words of the terror of the Trent, Tony? 

 

I suspect Tony would last about a week! Which in my view is a pity, but like a number of people I suspect he's happier with an unmoderated forum where they can indulge/amuse themselves with abusing those who have the temerity to disagree with them. Some of us think that's just too childish to be bothered with. Any information gets lost in the noise. 

I suspect the mods, or whoever deals with these things, don't bother to check ban endings unless there's a particular reason to, such as the person wanting to rejoin, and, judging from most comments on TB, most don't. Doesn't stop them reading stuff on here, same as I read stuff over there without any desire to join it. 

I can't say I miss the deliberate unpleasant tone and ranting that went on before they left and still goes on on TB. I do miss some of the expertise. 

(I would have thought the ban length would be automatic though, but it obviously isn't.) 

[Dyertribe]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

DT, I have reported your previous post, not because there is anything wrong with it, but so that other moddies will  see it, so I hope that you will soon get an answer to your question.

Thank you

[Paul C]

4 hours ago, Athy said:

DT, I have reported your previous post, not because there is anything wrong with it, but so that other moddies will  see it, so I hope that you will soon get an answer to your question.

Why can't you just do it? If the warning notes say "ban for 6 months" and the note was made >6 months ago, then remove the ban. If it says "lifetime ban", then just make that clear to those concerned.

 

If it says "to be reviewed after 6 months" or whatever, do the review (doesn't need Dan) and communicate it.

 

Or is it that the previous notes are missing or ambiguous?

[Alan de Enfield]

It could well have been implemented by one of those mods that 'went rogue' and no records exist ?

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suspect Tony would last about a week! Which in my view is a pity, but like a number of people I suspect he's happier with an unmoderated forum where they can indulge/amuse themselves with abusing those who have the temerity to disagree with them. Some of us think that's just too childish to be bothered with. Any information gets lost in the noise. 

I suspect the mods, or whoever deals with these things, don't bother to check ban endings unless there's a particular reason to, such as the person wanting to rejoin, and, judging from most comments on TB, most don't. Doesn't stop them reading stuff on here, same as I read stuff over there without any desire to join it. 

I can't say I miss the deliberate unpleasant tone and ranting that went on before they left and still goes on on TB. I do miss some of the expertise. 

(I would have thought the ban length would be automatic though, but it obviously isn't.) 

Haha it’s funny how TB is so awful - and yet you read it! Is it a type of masochism?

[alan_fincher]

23 hours ago, Dyertribe said:

It seems that the poster in question was banned from this site for 6 months but is still banned 2 years later. Is there an explanation  for this?

 

13 hours ago, Dyertribe said:

Anyone?

 

the silence is deafening

OK, I'll rise to the bait...

How are you able as a non mod to tell he is still banned?