Bans

[Foxin_Mad]

19 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

I've been banned twice.

 

You don't get told why or for how long but the first time was presumably for being rather 'hot headed' in the politics thread.

 

The second time was for stirring up brexit supporters without being particularly rude leading to somebody else sending me abuse. I assume they probably got a ban as well.

 

I can't post in general chat anymore but I can post in football threads as I only discovered the other day.

 

Personal opinion having been on the end of it is that there should be a warning sent to those close to being banned to explain reasons and the action that will be taken if they continue to post aggressively or whatever. But I recognise that could potentially be a lot of work and perhaps would just lead to a back and forth that mark and the mods don't need. 

I know we all some times wind each other up with our entrenched views but to be honest I have quite a lot of respect for most of the posters! I know we often used to spa on the former politics thread but generally it was reasoned the odd occasion getting out of hand but I think most of us have been able to recognise that an act appropriately in retrospect. I don't know whether there is a way for the issues to be resolve amongst the offended parties?!

 

I perhaps have been guilty of ranting on about certain politicians and policies because I genuinely feel they would be negative for most people in this country, and although some may not believe it I do care about the country and the good hard working people in it! I could of course be wrong on many levels and if I am I will generally admit it. Until such case we know the outcomes I guess we wont know! 

[Foxin_Mad]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Been saying that for a while - and it's a shame. The banning and closing thread policy on here is... erratic to say the least. At least seen from the outside.

After all, it's only an online forum.

 

Handful of posters on self-congratulatory mode, mocking and attacking people with differing views. This is what we have become.

Debate is stifled, extremes created and emphasized. Odd claims brought up about people one doesn't even know, accusations thrown around like hot cake. Weird.

 

Then again, I must admit it's tough to hold a fair and balanced line in terms of moderating, the politics thread(s) in particular.

That seems to be my perception also.

 

It is tough with the politics thread as people will get riled if they feel strongly against a politician or policy, in many ways that is a great quality and should be encouraged. Maybe the Politics thread should have some kind of disclaimer that if you cant take it you don't participate or something? Who knows?

[lifted*fox]

I'm currently perma-banned from general chat for the second time.

 

There are people on this forum who I vehemently disagree with on core principles; much less about politics, more about being decent humans with the right approach towards their fellow man in society. People with the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude rub me up the wrong way - they're not people I'd choose to socialise with in real life and I have zero interest in being accommodating towards them on a forum either.

 

I'm never going to budge on that and I'm not going to be apologetic for pulling people up on it either.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Mark said:

 

Are the people who are "reporting" these posts actually posting in the politics thread?

 

If not, they should probably just stay out, if they are then WTF!

 

It seems you've quoted Greb and Buce - have they got banned from the whole of Gen chat? If not what is the policy for being banned? It'd be nice to know where the line has been drawn so that we don't cross it.

[Foxin_Mad]

1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

I'm currently perma-banned from general chat for the second time.

 

There are people on this forum who I vehemently disagree with on core principles; much less about politics, more about being decent humans with the right approach towards their fellow man in society. People with the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude rub me up the wrong way - they're not people I'd choose to socialise with in real life and I have zero interest in being accommodating towards them on a forum either.

 

I'm never going to budge on that and I'm not going to be apologetic for pulling people up on it either.

Interesting post. I'm possibly one of the ones you can't tolerate . I don't feel I have an alright jack attitude, I help many people out where I can in life and work, however I think some people have the wrong perception on the best way to solve some of the challenges we all face in the world.

 

Its certainly ok to let people know you disagree with them or you think they are wrong, to call them something in anger/disgust/disagreement maybe is not necessary and I would suggest this is also part of 'being a decent human the right approach towards their fellow man in society' that you correctly talk of. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean they can never agree and doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people, we can all learn everyday even if its just a small thing, If we ignore every single person because we feel we are fundamentally at odds it may make life more difficult. I think the majority of people here are good people who want the best.

 

9 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

It seems you've quoted Greb and Buce - have they got banned from the whole of Gen chat? If not what is the policy for being banned? It'd be nice to know where the line has been drawn so that we don't cross it.

Still posting it appears looking through the forum. 

 

I don't feel these posters should be banned but given their posts are the ones being 'reported' its hard to understand how they are not. Yet people who seemingly are not 'reported' get banned, that's the baffling bit. 

 

 

[Kopic]

I got a 2 day ban for making a joke at Geoff's expense during the transfer window (which pre-ban I went on to explain it was in fact a joke firmly tongue-in-cheek referencing other people). I knew straight away that was the reason for the ban considering I don't post much, and refrained from doing it again.

 

I used to moderate an enormous forum (1 million registered, 300k+ daily users), and I tell you what, it was no easy feat. It was so time consuming and such a thankless job. We had a plugin within the warning/ban system that automatically sent a message to the affected member, explaining the reason for their punishment. I'm wondering if that could be an option on here to stop a few of the questions and the confusion, and help people change how they interact to stop repeat bans? I had to guess why I got banned (although it was pretty easy), but I'm sure more active users may find it helpful.

[UniFox21]

22 minutes ago, Kopic said:

I got a 2 day ban for making a joke at Geoff's expense during the transfer window (which pre-ban I went on to explain it was in fact a joke firmly tongue-in-cheek referencing other people). I knew straight away that was the reason for the ban considering I don't post much, and refrained from doing it again.

 

I used to moderate an enormous forum (1 million registered, 300k+ daily users), and I tell you what, it was no easy feat. It was so time consuming and such a thankless job. We had a plugin within the warning/ban system that automatically sent a message to the affected member, explaining the reason for their punishment. I'm wondering if that could be an option on here to stop a few of the questions and the confusion, and help people change how they interact to stop repeat bans? I had to guess why I got banned (although it was pretty easy), but I'm sure more active users may find it helpful.

Telling a person what they've done wrong, and why that goes against terms of usage, will help posters not repeat the actions. Fewer people get banned and we have a 'better' forum

[Nick]

There's not enough hours in Mark's day I'm sure to send messages and justify and dialogue with 'misbehaving' members...

 

It would I'd think be a full time job.

 

I'm sure somebody would be happy to do it but then it'd surely require a £50 subscription per member per annum.

[Toddybad]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

There's not enough hours in Mark's day I'm sure to send messages and justify and dialogue with 'misbehaving' members...

 

It would I'd think be a full time job.

 

I'm sure somebody would be happy to do it but then it'd surely require a £50 subscription per member per annum.

I'm sure this is the case. Perhaps instead there could just be a clearer 'process' though , again, whether mark would really want to waste his time writing processes than talking about Leicester's latest win is probably debatable.

[Stadt]

I got banned when I was in my teens and I deserved it because I was an idiot, I've not been banned since. It's not hard.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

There's not enough hours in Mark's day I'm sure to send messages and justify and dialogue with 'misbehaving' members...

 

It would I'd think be a full time job.

 

I'm sure somebody would be happy to do it but then it'd surely require a £50 subscription per member per annum.

As explained it could be an automated message. That wouldn't be a full-time job.

 

The last sentence is a bit silly. I'll do it for £25 per member per annum.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Stadt said:

I got banned when I was in my teens and I deserved it because I was an idiot, I've not been banned since. It's not hard.

It is. 

 

A ban when you are a teen is obvious because everything you say is stupid, I'm surprised you've not been banned since. 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

There's not enough hours in Mark's day I'm sure to send messages and justify and dialogue with 'misbehaving' members...

 

It would I'd think be a full time job.

 

I'm sure somebody would be happy to do it but then it'd surely require a £50 subscription per member per annum.

On the other hand, preemptively closing threads and banning people (en masse) isn't helping the forum's outside perception/reputation, either.

 

The more you start banning people (especially without giving a reason) or closing threads without notice, the more unhappy, alienated and baffled members you will create, abstaining from the discussion altogether because the actions appear to be rather random or favouring a certain group of people.

 

This still is a great forum, mind. Just wish it was a bit more civil in certain threads, and people not so getting upset/offended over other people's opinions.

It's like they've never experienced the concept of discourse and/or debate.

 

Again, moderating is a fine line. I've been there, and I would do it again. But with a clear set of rules at hand.

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, FIF said:

As explained it could be an automated message. That wouldn't be a full-time job.

 

The last sentence is a bit silly. I'll do it for £25 per member per annum.

 

 

 

Automated messages don’t give individual specific reasons that would satisfy a complainant (especially you!)

 

You should apply though the criteria will involve reflection and judgement in relation to appropriate posting which with respect you are not currently winning a track record for demonstrating possessing! 

 

As for the idea of £50 per person per annum wouldn’t necessarily be silly as it would cut the amount of members and advertising revenue as a start.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Swan Lesta said:

Automated messages don’t give individual specific reasons that would satisfy a complainant (especially you!)

 

You should apply though the criteria will involve reflection and judgement in relation to appropriate posting which with respect you are not currently winning a track record for demonstrating possessing! 

 

As for the idea of £50 per person per annum wouldn’t necessarily be silly as it would cut the amount of members and advertising revenue as a start.

There are only so many reasons for a ban. Automated messages have worked on sites far busier than FT. 

 

Yet I've read posts from you that lack reflection, judgement and respect but I'm sure you've never had a ban. Inner circle mate.  

 

It's even sillier to repeat that £50 per member per annum is not silly. There would be no members other than Wymsey, Mark and the inner circle. the advertising revenue would disappear completely. 

 

Thanks for being Mark's mouthpiece though, it's interesting to see the thinking (or non-thinking) going on. Perhaps you can consider my idea of privatising a section of the gen chat so that you don't have to panic about annoying the advertisers or the snowflakes.

[Countryfox]

33 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

A ban when you are a teen is obvious because everything you say is stupid ..

 

 

Nice one  prof ...   made me titter anyway ...    

[Langston]

Not shocked to see that most of these bans are dished out for people's posts in the politics thread. I've never been in it and don't intend to.

Edited 3 September 2019 by Langston

[UniFox21]

17 minutes ago, Langston said:

Not shocked to see that most of these bans are dished out for people's posts in the politics thread. I've never been in it and don't intend to.

Similar feelings here mate; I pop in every now and then to see what's happening but even less frequently post. Always find politics is the perfect way to rustle up an argument or debate and get emotions running high. It's a topic people have their opinions on and frequently refuse to budge from their views, and with the subject being even more polarised currently, its not a shock to see arguments.

[Nick]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

There are only so many reasons for a ban. Automated messages have worked on sites far busier than FT. 

 

Yet I've read posts from you that lack reflection, judgement and respect but I'm sure you've never had a ban. Inner circle mate.  

 

It's even sillier to repeat that £50 per member per annum is not silly. There would be no members other than Wymsey, Mark and the inner circle. the advertising revenue would disappear completely. 

 

Thanks for being Mark's mouthpiece though, it's interesting to see the thinking (or non-thinking) going on. Perhaps you can consider my idea of privatising a section of the gen chat so that you don't have to panic about annoying the advertisers or the snowflakes.

You are so off the mark it’s you who looks silly.

 

In 10 years odd I’ve never met mark. Don’t know him, never spoken to him more than once on a PM and only ever reported about four posts and two of them were for legal reasons. I’ve also been banned with no explanation and didn’t need one either (despite feeling it was harsh as I was goaded) understood, took my medicine for 72 hours and didn’t complain.

 

Inner circle - you really do post some twatish sounding crap at times and it gets boring listening to how hard done by you are when it’s YOU that doesn’t reflect on why it is you get the mod sanctions you do and change accordingly.

 

 

[HappyHamza]

Have I been banned from posting in general chat? I don't seem able to do it any more.  I can't understand this, I've been wholly civil. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

You are so off the mark it’s you who looks silly.

 

In 10 years odd I’ve never met mark. Don’t know him, never spoken to him more than once on a PM and only ever reported about four posts and two of them were for legal reasons. I’ve also been banned with no explanation and didn’t need one either (despite feeling it was harsh as I was goaded) understood, took my medicine for 72 hours and didn’t complain.

 

Inner circle - you really do post some twatish sounding crap at times and it gets boring listening to how hard done by you are when it’s YOU that doesn’t reflect on why it is you get the mod sanctions you do and change accordingly.

 

 

hahaha

 

The inner circle is of course a joke - a long running one - I'm quite aware that Mark doesn't have any favouritism - you should have been able to laugh it off with ease but I guess your image of yourself doesn't alow that. 

 

I guess you missed the point of what was silly - twice - in your posts. It was the possibility of being able to charge each member £50 per annum and think that anyone would stay. over 24,000 members at £50 so over £1m a year. Mark would say yes to one tenth of that and give me free life membership. Silly in the extreme.

 

back to the ignore list.

 

1 hour ago, HappyHamza said:

Have I been banned from posting in general chat? I don't seem able to do it any more.  I can't understand this, I've been wholly civil. 

You only know if you're banned if you can't post. The reason will remain a mystery and you are therefore likely to do the same thing again after your unknown length of sentence has passed and get banned for longer next time. That was the point of this thread before Swanny decided he knew what Mark thought and went off on another one of his condescending posts.

[Countryfox]

@FIF @Swan Lesta ...    I like both of you ...   interesting intelligent level headed posters ...   (unlike some opinionated t0ssers !) ...    can't understand why you don't like each other ...    life's too short lads ...   

 

 

(But must admit, I enjoy your spats ! ...   )

[Nick]

18 minutes ago, FIF said:

hahaha

 

The inner circle is of course a joke - a long running one - I'm quite aware that Mark doesn't have any favouritism - you should have been able to laugh it off with ease but I guess your image of yourself doesn't alow that. 

 

I guess you missed the point of what was silly - twice - in your posts. It was the possibility of being able to charge each member £50 per annum and think that anyone would stay. over 24,000 members at £50 so over £1m a year. Mark would say yes to one tenth of that and give me free life membership. Silly in the extreme.

 

back to the ignore list.

 

You only know if you're banned if you can't post. The reason will remain a mystery and you are therefore likely to do the same thing again after your unknown length of sentence has passed and get banned for longer next time. That was the point of this thread before Swanny decided he knew what Mark thought and went off on another one of his condescending posts.

1. You've accused Mark as having favouritism non stop for years and even called me his mouthpiece in your previous post and don't even try to make your stupid accusations relate to my own image or identity.

 

2. Charging people £50 and them not staying IS my point you absolute muppet.

 

3. You shouldn't bother with an ignore list as you don't read and absorb posts anyway, you just type an ongoing diatribe of absolute crap.

[lifted*fox]

I'd just like to say that it's a beautiful morning, the sky is blue, the birds are singing and Cummings, Mogg and Johnson have absolutely fist-****ed the Conservative party. 

 

Let's all lighten up and enjoy the wholesome salty tears, the faux indifference, the 'it's going to be a fascinating week!' facade put on by the hard brexiteers in the Brexit thread. 

 

Scenes. 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

I'd just like to say that it's a beautiful morning, the sky is blue, the birds are singing and Cummings, Mogg and Johnson have absolutely fist-****ed the Conservative party. 

 

Let's all lighten up and enjoy the wholesome salty tears, the faux indifference, the 'it's going to be a fascinating week!' facade put on by the hard brexiteers in the Brexit thread. 

 

Scenes. 

 

Please Lifted ..  no fookin politics !! ...   but yes it is a lovely day !! ...   and I'm off out right now !!

 

And before you leave the forum get over to any other news and make a small donation ...   Wishes for kids was one of my favourite charities and this is very specific ...   

[Guest]

You've chosen to ignore content by Swan Lesta. Options 

 

Silly, Salty and personal, Swanny. Let's move on.