|
|
DQ
May 22, 2015 20:52:44 GMT
Post by Greg on May 22, 2015 20:52:44 GMT
I am a little disappointed that having suspended DQ with a promise that the moderators will in due course decide what to do about his membership, after two days we have no news. It really would be good for moderators to update the membership on this outstanding matter. What have you decided?
|
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 6:35:50 GMT
Post by John on May 23, 2015 6:35:50 GMT
We are still in discussions and will announce a decision soon as we can
|
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 11:53:58 GMT
Post by John on May 23, 2015 11:53:58 GMT
DQ is on a final warning
|
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 12:23:36 GMT
Post by MartinT on May 23, 2015 12:23:36 GMT
Please also see an important notice which is relevant to our discussions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 13:41:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 13:41:24 GMT
With reference to the new rule 4 I would ask the moderators to consider that people have been warned or even banned as a result of getting too hot under the collar in reaction to subtle or otherwise attacks with the precise aim of getting them kicked off. One or two of the culprits are still members and continue to get away with it. This described elsewhere as 'Biased Moderation' has resulted in a ban for the victim as well as others ceasing to post as they are unhappy with the situation. Sadly this has resulted in the loss of useful contributions from some very experienced people while I see a lot of dubious technical advice being given as fact. Like in a football match you should yellow or red card the player that makes the fowl as well as the victim who kicks him back.
|
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 14:07:03 GMT
Post by ChrisB on May 23, 2015 14:07:03 GMT
The thing is, Paul, that it is not public knowledge as to who has a warning against them, so someone involved in a two way fracas is told they are on a warning but they are unaware of the other person's warning unless that person chooses to discuss it.
If you don't know the other person has had a warning, then you might imagine there is a bias to the moderation. However, we try to be fair. Hopefully, everyone here is grown up and cries of 'He started it' surely belong in the playground?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 14:15:20 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 14:15:20 GMT
Well it's public knowledge now that DQ has had a warning so therefore anyone else that has in relation to the same incident should be outed. I remember when you used the yellow and red lines provided by the forum software notably in relation to RD. Rightly that was in hindsight seen as an error of judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 23, 2015 14:34:12 GMT
The red/yellow warnings being visible was a default function of the forum software. That has been disabled for a good while now. It is not our intention to publically shame anyone here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on May 23, 2015 15:42:04 GMT
I'd have given him 5000 lines - and be done with it.
I REALLY HATE the idea of banning or excluding anyone. If forums are intended to be representative of the real world then it's only to be expected there will be "irritant elements". I work with individuals I wouldn't ask to spit on me if I was on fire. I'd rather go up in a ball of flames. But how I personally feel about them I don't let get in the way. The job comes first and I treat them as I would like to be treated.
How about this:
The TAS TA (Tolerance Allowance)
Everyone gets a monthly allowance of 100 units. When you play up you use a unit. No one gets to see your allowance just yourself and the mods. If you are bad (really really bad) and use all your allowance, you don't get to post again untill the start of the next month. Just the same as what happens with data allowance on my mobile - sort of. No one gets banned.
|
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 15:54:59 GMT
Post by MartinT on May 23, 2015 15:54:59 GMT
This described elsewhere as 'Biased Moderation' has resulted in a ban for the victim as well as others ceasing to post as they are unhappy with the situation. I am going to respond to this and then we are done with explanations. What we have deliberated over is the posting history of the offender. It does not matter what the supposed provocation, everyone represents themselves and there is no 'victim' since anyone can exercise their option to not be 'provoked'. We all get hot under the collar occasionally and leeway has always been given, to DQ as well as to others. However, repeated trolling and attempts to get under the skin of other members is annoying, transparent and has itself been responsible for members leaving. Despite your desire to believe otherwise, nothing else comes into it. You can claim 'biased moderation' all you like and my response will remain: cobblers. We are a team of three Admins and two Mods and we took a democratic vote on what action to take. Don't believe us? Couldn't give a toss! This is our forum and we will run it according to our published rules for the benefit of the majority. |
|
|
|
DQ
May 23, 2015 15:56:19 GMT
Post by MartinT on May 23, 2015 15:56:19 GMT
I REALLY HATE the idea of banning or excluding anyone. So do we. Which is why we didn't on this occasion. |
|
|
|
DQ
Jun 2, 2015 6:12:33 GMT
Post by MartinT on Jun 2, 2015 6:12:33 GMT
For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, DQ was warned about his behaviour on this forum previously. We have bent over backwards to be fair to him and acknowledge that he made some good contributions in the past. However, I said at the time that his posting tactics had changed into one of trolling and getting under other members' skin. You can see clearly in his posts just yesterday that he contributed absolutely nothing of any value but managed to get several members to riposte in anger. His subsequent cries of "but it wasn't me who started it" are so frankly transparent that it's risible.
We created a new rule for exactly this kind of situation:
Rule 4: Deliberate and continued trolling for the purposes of causing upset to other members will be very quickly prevented from escalating. If necessary, a value judgement will be made about the continued presence of the member against the greater good of the forum, and suitable action taken.
Well, we took a value judgement last night and decided that the value of his current posts were considerably outweighed by the value of the other contributing members.
|
|
