I'm back after ban

[Goldstone1976]

I am not trolling. What are you warning me about?

Yes, you are. Receiving a ban for trolling.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

How do I become a mod?

 

[atfc village]

How do I become a mod?

Buy a Vespa and a Parka .

 

[bhanutz]

How do I become a mod?

Are you in the clique?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Are you in the clique?

I don't think so...[emoji20]

 

[Brian Fantana]

I can't comment on what happened last year - I wasn't the mod who made that decision; or indeed the one this year. However - I have already reported that the explanation given to the ex-user this year was that his 3 day ban was for a combination of nominating BG and abuse. If the infringement last year was "merely" nominating someone, there's a difference.

Note the extensive caveating...

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[grubbyhands]

Who gives a fly*ng f*ck?

 

[Grassman]

So he's banned again. That's annoying I wanted him to answer my question. Who else called Priestfield, 'The Priestfield'?

 

[Doc Lynam]

In anticipation of [MENTION=27557]Wints[/MENTION] forthcoming ban; i hope this isn't over egging it.

 

[hitony]

Interesting thread.............NOT........and now closed.

 

[bhanutz]

Interesting thread.............NOT........and now closed.

Lighten up fella

 

[El Presidente]

Is it too late for me to say 'willies'?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

My photo of Hitler is now justified..

 

[Durlston]

So he's banned again. That's annoying I wanted him to answer my question. Who else called Priestfield, 'The Priestfield'?

Just Pissfield. It was so grim.

 

[Bozza]

As it happens, I don't think what the OP did was worthy of a ban. Particularly given that a long-standing poster did EXACTLY the same thing in last year's thread, but didn't get a ban. It's decisions and inconsistencies like that which can undermine the moderating system on here, IMHO.

I've not already read the whole thread, nor do I have much knowledge of the particular incident being discussed here, however I want to respond this point as it gets raised from time to time.

No user can ever say: "I did X and got punished but someone else did the same thing and didn't."

Infractions (think of them like points on your driving licence) are only visible to the moderators and the person receiving them. So it is highly possible that someone else did get the same warning as the first person, but that first person would have no way of knowing that. If person A received a ban from what was a minor infringement it will not be entirely due to that one-off event, it will abe the totting up process (again, think points on your licence). One person may be one strike away from the board imposing an automatic 3-day cooling off period, whilst someone else may not.

Secondly, it may be that no one reported the second incident and no moderator read it. I'll always say the same: don't assume someone else has reported a post. We get very, very few.

Finally, we try to be consistent. There are times where, in private, one moderator will say "are you sure about XXX - seemed a bit harsh" and often a decision is reversed once it's been discussed. We don't always get it right but we try to be fair. No one looks after a messageboard to stop people posting messages.

 

[fat old seagull]

I should of used four instead of five?

Well frankly you should only need one if you do it properly!

 

[bhanutz]

Common sense has prevailed...thread back open..

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Popcorn, anyone?

I think I've got some Pringles around here too.

I don't think it's going to go that way now, though as I'm only armed with Jaffa Cakes it's probably a good thing.

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

This is no democracy?

 

[severnside gull]

By definition Democracy isn't founded on simply tolerating antisocial behaviour without recourse to boundaries.
That is anarchy