It'll end in tears....

[Mick Mac]

Mark Wrote:

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

> The "report this post" link is for people to

> report offensive posts so Admin and the team can

> act,

Of course, I understand that Mark. And if it causes you extra work and aggro then of course that is a bad thing and you alone decide if he is worth the aggro. Also if his comments are so bad that they bring down the reputation of the forum, then that is not worth it either.

My point is that some people are sensitive and easily offended and amongst 12000 users there are going to be a lot of them. Its easy for those people to get their "minority" objection across by reporting threads. It does not necessarily give a true reflection of whether the average forumite would find him offensive.

If on the other hand you or the moderators find the posts offensive then obviously that is a good reason to ban him.

Just explaining my point a bit better, not asking for you to change your decision.

Thanks.

[Ladymuck]

brum Wrote:

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

> ...Isn't a 'private outing' a contradiction in

> terms?? ;-)

It isn't my term brum...the term was used by another forumite...the Nov/Dec drinks thread (if you are interested)

(*thinks doesn't wish to be reminded*)

[Mark]

I understand Mick Mac, and to be honest I'm not easily offended so I'm not really a good yardstick to use. The minority issue is one we take into account (not forgetting those who say they like him are a minority) but the forum's meant to be fun and useful for East Dulwich and it's looked after for being that. When it becomes a pain in the arse to run because someone consistently offends people in the Lounge then they have to go. The amount of effort it takes to warn him, investigate his posts, explain that there have been complaints, ban him, let him back, warn him again etc etc (9 times last year) really makes running the forum frustrating.

Anyway it's time for bed and here's hoping for pub lunch and igloos tomorrow.

[Ladymuck]

Mark Wrote:

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

> Anyway it's time for bed and here's hoping for pub

> lunch and igloos tomorrow.

Would you be so kind as to give details if it goes ahead...please? (*attempts to look cute*)

[Mick Mac]

Mark Wrote:

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

> I understand Mick Mac, and to be honest I'm not

> easily offended so I'm not really a good yardstick

> to use. The minority issue is one we take into

> account (not forgetting those who say they like

> him are a minority) but the forum's meant to be

> fun and useful for East Dulwich and it's looked

> after for being that. When it becomes a pain in

> the arse to run because someone consistently

> offends people in the Lounge then they have to go.

> The amount of effort it takes to warn him,

> investigate his posts, explain that there have

> been complaints, ban him, let him back, warn him

> again etc etc (9 times last year) really makes

> running the forum frustrating.

>

Fair enough. Cheers Mark.

[Keef]

Just out of interest, has a post ever been reported, to which admin just replies "have a word with yourself, there is nothing wrong with that"?

I'd love to know what complaints were made this time, as it all seemed rather friendly and well behaved... I didn't however read all the posts.

[Jah Lush]

I'm with you on that Keef. Two people complained. I think that's very disproportionate and I couldn't see what there was to complain about and I reckon I caught all of his stuff. Probably a couple of old foes who still bear a grudge. He was very funny and good value this time round. I think he's been treated very harshly.

[Mamma Mia]

I can understand Admin's position on this and can understand why his more offensive posts (which I didn't see) would lead to him being banned but generally I find him amusing and think he makes a good contribution to the forum. Could he not be moderated by his forum supporters who could keep him in check and advise him when to tone it down on the occasions when it is needed and he doesn't seem to realise it? Obviously would depend on his mates agreeing to take some responsibility for moderating him and upon him agreeing to be censored when necessary. The fact that he keeps trying to sneak back in proves how much he wants to be part of the forum and the very lengthy thread discussing how much he is missed shows how many supporters he has. Just an idea.

[Jah Lush]

I felt as The Eye he didn't need censoring. Certainly as BBW he needed reeling at times as he could go too far. But I really can't see anywhere where he may have misbehaved this time round. OK he had a little bit of harmless fun on Atila's Soul Music thread and I believe he was threatened in a PM from Atila so perhaps he was one of the complainers. All very unnecessary.

[Mark]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Just out of interest, has a post ever been

> reported, to which admin just replies "have a word

> with yourself, there is nothing wrong with that"?

yes, a few times. Happened once yesterday in fact.

[Mamma Mia]

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> I felt as The Eye he didn't need censoring.

> Certainly as BBW he needed reeling at times as he

> could go too far. But I really can't see anywhere

> where he may have misbehaved this time round. OK

> he had a little bit of harmless fun on Atila's

> Soul Music thread and I believe he was threatened

> in a PM from Atila so perhaps he was one of the

> complainers. All very unnecessary.

I agree. I was referring to his posts as BBW. Haven't seen most of the posts this time around.

[Mick Mac]

Mamma Mia Wrote:

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

the very lengthy

> thread discussing how much he is missed shows how

> many supporters he has.

Mark tells me (previous page) that those who like him are in the minority. But I was surprised to read that.

I wonder who the people are that report his posts, and how much they themselves contribute to the Lounge and the forum. Is it a case of infrequent posters, who themselves contribute less often, depriving the Lounge of a regular contributor?

The reported messages clearly cause Mark/Admin lots of work which is unacceptable. But you could say that the people doing the reporting are creating that work.

Some of his posts are clearly intended to shock, but I'd liken reporting a post to "telling teacher".

[Jah Lush]

Mick Mac Wrote:

> Some of his posts are clearly intended to shock,

> but I'd liken reporting a post to "telling

> teacher".

Point is Mick none of them WERE shocking. I thought he was on very good form this time round without resorting to shock tactics and highly amusing too. I especially liked the Bond themes. Very funny send-ups of certain forumites.

[mockney piers]

Much as the eye was good value for money, he is still the same person regardless of different personas.

There are more than just wolfie banned, we have some pretty nasty folk banned who persistently try to get around the ban with new users.

Admin can't just go 'awww it's wolfie and he's being nice, oh I'll change the rules then'.

I've had a private word with wolfie on well known site and said I have no personal beef but he broke the rules too often and rules is rules, but I'd be delighted to have a pint with him.

I hateto get all school mastery but he's had an awful lot more chances than this one resultng in temporary bans akimbo, the last infraction broke the camels back.

[Mick Mac]

Jah Lush Wrote:

>

> Point is Mick none of them WERE shocking. I

> thought he was on very good form this time round

> without resorting to shock tactics and highly

> amusing too.

Agreed Jah. (I was referring the his whole person, rather than just the recent reincarnation)

[Jah Lush]

mockney piers Wrote:

> I hate to get all school mastery but he's had an

> awful lot more chances than this one resulting in

> temporary bans akimbo, the last infraction broke

> the camels back.

I fully understand where you're coming from Piers. Can I just ask what he did that was so wrong this time round because I must have missed it.

[RosieH]

Just what I was about to ask - are we allowed to know that stuff, or is it because he was already banned that it was more an upholding of the original ban?

[Mark]

It was more an upholding of the original ban but the complaints sealed it. Why didn't he just wait a few weeks and come back gracefully instead of ruining it for himself and upsetting his friends on the forum?

[mockney piers]

The above have it jah, the ban is for the person not the persona. A point I made very very badly in my above post.

[RosieH]

Yeah, that's a shame. I'd always wondered about bans - when people come back in another guise, whether they're given leaway or, once you know it's definitely them, the original ban stays. Seems in this case, there was a bit of both, which also seems entirely fair enough.

[Jah Lush]

Indeed. I concur. Fair enough.

[mockney piers]

And just to clarify the proverbial straw infraction was under his BBW guise a little while back.

[Mick Mac]

Its ended...

http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IGS/IGS565/IS693-008.jpg

[karter]

Mark Wrote:

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

> It was more an upholding of the original ban but

> the complaints sealed it. Why didn't he just wait

> a few weeks and come back gracefully instead of

> ruining it for himself and upsetting his friends

> on the forum?

Wait a few weeks for what though? Does his ban have an expiry date?

[Mark]

karter Wrote:

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

> Wait a few weeks for what though?

He was told originally told come back in the New Year. It did have an expiry date but he f*cked it up by posting. T'was but a simple request.