Are we all sheep?

[GoodGurl]

I also agree with you and feel that cross posting from Thunderboat is not going to help anything move forward.

tony was merely putting dan right on his misprint? this is why tony should be allowed back here because if nothing else he has facts about these cases.

[nicknorman]

Where does that suggestion come from?

I don't see a suggestion in my post so I'm not sure how to answer yours.

[GoodGurl]

Where does that suggestion come from? I don't see it clearing up something just goodcurl looking to stir up trouble and pull people's chains. It is mischief making at its best. Perhaps she is looking to try and see how far she can push it before getting warned/banned.

im sorry you see it like that im not stirring anything, tony asked to have it posted here as "fact" to put dan right.

[DHutch]

Of course they were given no reason. Well they were probably given a reason by PM which they were unable to retrieve since they had been banned. Doh! Well that is certainly what they've told us and I see no reason to disbelieve as it was a recurrent story.

 

This is not how the site works.

 

When a member is banned or suspended the site sends and email to them informing them of the ban/suspension and provides a link for more details of the warning, which contains the reason for the ban.

 

If they access the site directly they are directly to an page which explains the account is suspended/banned and the duration of that, with a link for more details, which then provides them with the reason given for the ban.

 

There is also a link to 'contact the community administrator' which allows them to contact me.

 

Anyone who suggests that they are not able to see the reason for their ban is being economical with the truth.

 

 

Daniel

[nicknorman]

Where does that suggestion come from? I don't see it clearing up something just goodcurl looking to stir up trouble and pull people's chains. It is mischief making at its best. Perhaps she is looking to try and see how far she can push it before getting warned/banned.

So would you prefer it if misinformation prevailed?

[gazza]

Hi Daniel

I was reassured by this part of one post:

 

 

But cannot reconcile that reassurance with this....

 

 

Surely it's one thing or the other so could you reassure me that the "Take it or leave it" post was out of irritation because of Gazza's impatience?

Exasperated not impatient.

[nicknorman]

This is not how the site works.

 

When a member is banned or suspended the site sends and email to them informing them of the ban/suspension and provides a link for more details of the warning, which contains the reason for the ban.

 

If they access the site directly they are directly to an page which explains the account is suspended/banned and the duration of that, with a link for more details, which then provides them with the reason given for the ban.

 

 

Daniel

Several people independently reported that they had been sent messages about why they were banned, but were unable to read the messages. I personally can't confirm if this is correct but since it is a repeating story perhaps you should check out whether it actually works as you expect. Perhaps the link isn't obvious.

[Cheshire cat]

After one of the mods actually told us that the police have been involved because a moderator has been stalked you think it is acceptable to accuse a member of being a stalker in an open forum.

 

I have been nothing but courteous to you in all our exchanges and you lower yourself to such an offensive accusation.

 

This is forum behaviour at its worst and rank hypocrisy considering your supposed standpoint in this debate.

CarLT I read this as an attempt at humour. The smiley at the end seems to indicate that it is. I have lots of respect for you and your opinions so maybe I missed something but I thought it was an attempt to lighten up discussions. I haven't got to the end of tonight's posts so other may have said the same.

[biggles47]

I agree.

From where I humbly sit, it does seem sensible for both forums to just get on with their own flavour and stop going back over old ground.

 

However, loyalty is (well used to be) an important asset. From what I see that has completely been missed out here. That's probably why so many have left. It's not loyalty to you Dan, it's loyalty to the forum and ALL of it's members.

[churchward]

So would you prefer it if misinformation prevailed?

What misinformation?

I don't see a suggestion in my post so I'm not sure how to answer yours.

No indeed I meant to type "request" rather than "suggestion"

 

As in where did the request come from?

[nicknorman]

What misinformation?

The misinformation about where the information on the lightship thread posted by Tony before he was banned and the thread locked, actually came from.

[carlt]

CarLT I read this as an attempt at humour. The smiley at the end seems to indicate that it is. I have lots of respect for you and your opinions so maybe I missed something but I thought it was an attempt to lighten up discussions. I haven't got to the end of tonight's posts so other may have said the same.

Perhaps you didn't read VV's previous exchanges.

 

I see no need to repeat myself so I'll just copy and paste...

 

After one of the mods actually told us that the police have been involved because a moderator has been stalked you think it is acceptable to accuse a member of being a stalker in an open forum.

 

[nicknorman]

No indeed I meant to type "request" rather than "suggestion"

 

As in where did the request come from?

I'm slightly confused but if you mean where did the request to post the clarification on the source of Tony's lightship information come from, the answer is from Tony. You can perhaps imagine that if a thread that you have been a major participator in is locked, and the reason given is factually incorrect, but in the mean time you are banned so you can't correct what is a significant error, you would try by other means to get the correction published, which is what Tony did and GG obliged.

[Cheshire cat]

 

This is not how the site works.

 

When a member is banned or suspended the site sends and email to them informing them of the ban/suspension and provides a link for more details of the warning, which contains the reason for the ban.

 

If they access the site directly they are directly to an page which explains the account is suspended/banned and the duration of that, with a link for more details, which then provides them with the reason given for the ban.

 

There is also a link to 'contact the community administrator' which allows them to contact me.

 

Anyone who suggests that they are not able to see the reason for their ban is being economical with the truth.

 

 

Daniel

That is an example of transparency. Full marks. I was thinking that perhaps an explanation had been sent to an email address that was no longer current. Possibly the case but not the only mechanism in play so where an explanation has been sent it ought to have been received. Of course that doesn't meen the recipient is prepared to accept it.

[DHutch]

Several people independently reported that they had been sent messages about why they were banned, but were unable to read the messages. I personally can't confirm if this is correct but since it is a repeating story perhaps you should check out whether it actually works as you expect. Perhaps the link isn't obvious.

 

It is possible that banned members also had PMs sent to them, replicating what was written in the report, that there where not then able to access. If the had email notifications of the PMs, they would be able to read these in their inbox, however all banned members will be able to see the reasons given for their ban, and will be able to contact myself if they wish to.

 

Daniel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Daniel

 

I was reassured by this part of one post:

 

Clearly members are not happy with the way the site is being run, and I take on board that adjustment to moderator policy/style is required.

 

As said, we are currently talking about how additional transparency can be added in areas where may be suitable, and I hope this will take effect as a rolling improvement over the next week or so.

But cannot reconcile that reassurance with this....

 

We do our best to run the forum as best we can, for the members of the site. However if you feel it is not for you at this time or otherwise you are of cause free to leave.

 

But cannot reconcile that reassurance with this....

 

 

Surely it's one thing or the other so could you reassure me that the "Take it or leave it" post was out of irritation because of Gazza's impatience?

 

Not at all.

 

- I understand there is an issue, people are not happy, and we need to address that and improve.

- We do the best we can, as above, but people may still wish to leave and if so they are free to go.

 

Trying to do you best and your best not being good enough for some people are not mutually incompatible.

Daniel

[nicknorman]

It is possible that banned members also had PMs sent to them, replicating what was written in the report, that there where not then able to access. If the had email notifications of the PMs, they would be able to read these in their inbox, however all banned members will be able to see the reasons given for their ban, and will be able to contact myself if they wish to.

I've just sent you a PM since I wasn't going to put it in open forum, but since the point remains live I'll change my mind. This is the only information one ex-member received:

 

"xxxxx,

 

You have been given a warning by ##########

 

Reason: Other

<div class='callout'>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a review by the moderation team of the content you have posted, this account is now suspended."

 

I'm assured there was no other link or information.The member hadn't posted anything for a while, I think months. I think most people reading the "reason" would be none the wiser, except for the subtext of "your face doesn't fit".

Edited October 19, 2016 by DHutch
Moderator name removed, as it is not relevant.

[Cheshire cat]

Perhaps you didn't read VV's previous exchanges.

 

I see no need to repeat myself so I'll just copy and paste...

 

I think I have read the whole thread.

 

It's the equivalent of someone screaming "I'm going to murder you!" In some cases they mean it and in others they are just saying it. V V's post possibly displayed poor judgement and a lack of sensitivity considering what has been posted around it but I don't think he meant anything by it.

[carlt]

I think I have read the whole thread.

 

It's the equivalent of someone screaming "I'm going to murder you!" In some cases they mean it and in others they are just saying it. V V's post possibly displayed poor judgement and a lack of sensitivity considering what has been posted around it but I don't think he meant anything by it.

And if you read my response to it you will see that I was not offended and no apology was necessary but, considering VV's standpoint in this debate the hypocrisy warranted a mention.

[churchward]

I'm slightly confused but if you mean where did the request to post the clarification on the source of Tony's lightship information come from, the answer is from Tony. You can perhaps imagine that if a thread that you have been a major participator in is locked, and the reason given is factually incorrect, but in the mean time you are banned so you can't correct what is a significant error, you would try by other means to get the correction published, which is what Tony did and GG obliged.

OK, just for you I will clarify. Where did the request come from, was it Thunderboat forum?

[nicknorman]

OK, just for you I will clarify. Where did the request come from, was it Thunderboat forum?

It didn't come from the thunderboat forum, obviously, since TB is not intelligent enough to write anything. If you mean was TB a conduit to pass the information between TD and GG then yes.

[DHutch]

I've just sent you a PM since I wasn't going to put it in open forum, but since the point remains live I'll change my mind. This is the only information one ex-member received:

 

"xxxxx,

 

You have been given a warning by ##########

 

Reason: Other

<div class='callout'>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Following a review by the moderation team of the content you have posted, this account is now suspended."

 

 

I'm assured there was no other link or information.The member hadn't posted anything for a while, I think months. I think most people reading the "reason" would be none the wiser, except for the subtext of "your face doesn't fit".

 

Which is fine, but as I have replied in the PM, the full email format is as below:

 

 

test_member,

 

You have been given a warning by #####.

 

Reason: Other

<div class='callout'>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

test warn including a short suspension

----------------------------------------------------------------------

</div>

 

 

To view the full details for this warning, visit your warning log at the link below:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=members&module=profile§ion=warnings&member=24377

 

 

 

 

test_member,

 

You have been given a warning by #####.

 

Reason: Other

<div class='callout'>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

test warn including a short suspension

----------------------------------------------------------------------

</div>

 

 

To view the full details for this warning, visit your warning log at the link below:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=members&module=profile§ion=warnings&member=24377

[Iain_S]

(snip)

I for one will leave you, the Mod's and their friends in peace to carry on as you please.

 

Rog

 

 

(snip)

. However if you feel it is not for you at this time or otherwise you are of cause free to leave.

 

 

Daniel

 

 

(snip)

But cannot reconcile that reassurance with this....

 

 

Surely it's one thing or the other so could you reassure me that the "Take it or leave it" post was out of irritation because of Gazza's impatience?

 

Surely just a reply to dogless, whose post could be construed as indicating that he was leaving? Context is all!

[churchward]

The misinformation about where the information on the lightship thread posted by Tony before he was banned and the thread locked, actually came from.

Eh? The thing is I often practice what you earlier and often preach which is if you don't like it don't read it. So, sadly although I would not put anyone on "ignore" I frequently do not read Tony's posts so much of what he has said has passed me by. I am aware of course of what the original thread was about.

It didn't come from the thunderboat forum, obviously, since TB is not intelligent enough to write anything. If you mean was TB a conduit to pass the information between TD and GG then yes.

Oh so many words just to say yes!

[carlt]

 

 

 

 

 

Surely just a reply to dogless, whose post could be construed as indicating that he was leaving? Context is all!

I think Daniel already gave me a satisfactory answer but thanks for your contribution.

[nicknorman]

Which is fine, but as I have replied in the PM, the full email format is as below:

 

 

 

test_member,You have been given a warning by #####.Reason: Other<div class='callout'>----------------------------------------------------------------------test warn including a short suspension----------------------------------------------------------------------</div>To view the full details for this warning, visit your warning log at the link below:http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?app=members&module=profile§ion=warnings&member=24377

 

 

I think it has to remain in doubt whether these links actually work, since several people have said they don't exist.

Edited October 19, 2016 by nicknorman