PlusNet Forum

Hi,

We have been watching the forum develop over the last year and although we do believe things have improved a lot since the PlusNet representatives have returned, there are still problems with the general culture which we feel need addressing as the improvements aren't going as well as we would hope.

As part of this, following a recent issue, we have decided that pr100 should take a holiday from the forum, and as such he will not be posting here for the next three months.

We may extend this to other users we feel need to take a break and would note that this is not restricted to any particular group of users with a specific viewpoint. Users may in particular wish to note that we are likely to be less tolerant to comments aimed at users who are absent from the forums on the basis they will not be here to defend themselves. These may result in swift bans without warnings.

We would re-iterate our position that this forum is not restricted to current PlusNet users, and we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing this. We hope that this breathing room will start to change the culture of the forum from a confrontational one to a positive one. This should not be construed as a ban on fierce debate, provided it remains constructive, on both sides.

I have no doubt this move will be seen as controversial and we'll come under significant criticism from several users for it, but we feel it's the right thing taking into consideration the slow progress.

John , i sincerly hope this isnt at the request of PlusNET after all the things they've accused this forum and its members of and to which they've never appologised.

Regards

bs0d.

I consider such a decision to be victimisation

TBH a 3 month ban is OTT.
It makes it look like you will do anything to keep PN reps in here.
This might not be the case, but it certainly has that look about it.

It does seem a little one sided if only pr100 is banned.

bs0d.

If it's what AG feel is right, then it's their right to do it. No matter what you or I think of it, let's just see how much quieter it is in here without pr100 ...

I'll reserve comment on this (because it's up to AG - it's their forum after all)...

matt

agreed.

I'm surprised he was allowed to carry on with his comments as long as he was and he was warned several times before the ban was imposed.

I hope this forum can now return to what it used to be, helping users.

I think it's more the way he's expressed himself recently, rather then the "side" he is on.

Would agree on the length of the ban being potentially way OTT. but disagree with your other sentiments. I would certainly make the "assumption" that the decision has been made with NO outside influence and purely on the "postings" in question and an unwillingness to withdraw certain allegations. A line was crossed, substantially and Im sure the decision was not taken lightly.

WOW - 3 months, that is well too harsh.

Well done. I am sorry to say I agree wholeheartedly with your decision.. When a decent thread is going pr100 will often hijack it.

Now if you want a short list of other candiates...

I dont think its too harsh when you take into account that he has been banned already a couple of times before this. He also had ample chance and warning this time as well.

lol. So ironic that pr100 probably had far more (constructive) influence on plusnet than the PUG ever did and he was just one man.

AG never did like him though, all the mod replies were very patronising and he always got jumped on. Quite why, I'm not sure. But whatever, he seems to have made enemies here.

Oh well Simon, if you're reading this, a lot of people appreciate the work you put in to get PN to shape up their act.

Whether we like Simon or not, his contributions:

1) May have been boring to some people

2) Were certainly instrumental in the shaping of today's Plusnet

I think deep down Plusnet knew he was right, as well as RSHARMA and I would like to think that PN did take onboard both of their criticisms to make it a better company for people to buy BB from.

imho I have always got on with Simon, he stands his ground and like a lot of us, just wanted whats right.

I can see why TBB have done this but imho 3 months is just too long.

I think it stinks of being in PN's pocket, of victimisation and of bias.

Without any question pr100 brought about more change than any other person or group and both PN and TBB will be poorer without him. But if anything inspires pr to find new ways of getting his views across, victimisation of him inspires that to happen. It was being chucked out of PN, when they thought they could be rid of him that brought the problems to a wider audience than PN's own boards.

Making him a martyr will not silence him, but only brings TBB into disrepute.

It leaves more than a nasty taste in one's mouth.

So if this post gets me a ban too, goodbye just in case.

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 16:59:50)

Its an ISP, get a grip. It is not some holy crusade. While at first i think he made some very valid points and stood his ground for which i would commend him, it just got silly in the end. I remember something about now BT has taken over i am done, did this happen, no. I will say no more as pr100 is not here to defend any of this.

On a side note i do think 3 months is harsh, but then again i do not run this site.

"Its an ISP"
Perhaps that should be the punchline on every Watchdog programme.
Its only a car firm, a debt collecting agency, a corrupt business a biased forum.

In reply to:

---

This should not be construed as a ban on fierce debate, provided it remains constructive, on both sides.

---

How else can it be construed . I would remind you and the mods that Simons debates were usually constructive, until the "one liner insult brigade" reared their collective heads.

Regardless of your reassurances to the contrary, your words and actions suggest that you want only pro Plusnet comments, so why not be open and honest and say so .

Will be nice to see some threads developing without constant interruptions!
I find pr100 so repetitive!

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 18:49:36)

Wingco - remove blinkers - have a look at the postings that led to the Ban. Nothing to do with the "one liner band" of which you are a fully paid up fellow member..

Personally I hope he has time off for good behaviour and returns as soon as possible.

All this bitterness, martyr and conspiracy stuff is just ridiculous, and reflects some of the entrenched polarised opinions that have bogged this forum down. It is wholly unfair to accuse the moderation team of conspiracy and anti democracy or being in cahoots with Plusnet. This issue needs to be put in perspective against the facts and not the "angle" some would prefer to hang on it.

"As part of this, following a recent issue, we have decided that pr100 should take a holiday from the forum, and as such he will not be posting here for the next three months."

I guess you got tired of snagging nails after sitting on the fence for so long. Your rationale appears to be to cut the administrative overhead of this forum which also placates PN and the numerous emails they send you complaining about pr100 and rsharma. The message this sends me is that if you've got problems with your ISP and your ISP is acting irresponsibly with regard to consumer law, then TBB are not interested and this is not the place to discuss it.

TT

John,

I am truly dismayed to read your post and feel it is an appallingly poor decision on the part of TBB. I am not here to change your mind, nor am I going to try and convince you to do so, but it is only right that I am allowed to voice my opinion on the matter.

I do not always agree with Simon or his posts but I am willing to tolerate opposing points of views because in the majority of cases he has very valid on-topic points to make, and with a powerful conviction to boot. He is also one that has remained clam and professional towards others, even when faced with adversity, trying his best not to get personal against forum posters when he would be only human to retaliate.

Today you have chosen to make Simon an example and, I believe, for the wrong reasons. I think the following sums up my feelings on the matter:

In reply to:

---

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

---

By publicly naming Simon you have done a disservice to both yourself and him. I don't really understand the reason or need you felt to name him and make an example but it was a very poor decision IMO. You go on to state:

In reply to:

---

Users may in particular wish to note that we are likely to be less tolerant to comments aimed at users who are absent from the forums on the basis they will not be here to defend themselves.

---

Why, then, did you name pr100 in your post when he isn't able to defend the statements being made against him here? Seems a rather odd thing to do.

In reply to:

---

We hope that this breathing room will start to change the culture of the forum from a confrontational one to a positive one.

---

The remainder of your post leads me to believe that you are trying to curtail the freedom of expression on the forum and without good cause. It also makes me feel that one must walk on egg shells in order to avoid the limitless discretion the owners and moderators could chose to apply, and posts that fall foul of your sensibilities (whatever those might be, since they remain undefined) would not be tolerated. A slippery slope indeed..

Had the convictions and aims been against personal insults or confrontation I would have wholeheartedly welcomed it but that isn't the full picture here. You are trying to artificially change the mood of a forum and that is impossible to achieve. When an ISP is the cause of the problem(s) the forum will naturally be more active than when it is doing well; as directly demonstrable by the lower number of posts in this forum over the last two months. If they continue to improve the reduction in posts will continue too, but naturally so.

Artificial means of restricting people don't work, you just shift the discussion to places where they can be had without them.

Edited by rsharma (Wed 09-May-07 19:14:49)

In reply to:

---

The message this sends me is that if you've got problems with your ISP and your ISP is acting irresponsibly with regard to consumer law, then TBB are not interested and this is not the place to discuss it.

---

Agreed!.

In reply to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message this sends me is that if you've got problems with your ISP and your ISP is acting irresponsibly with regard to consumer law, then TBB are not interested and this is not the place to discuss it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that is ridiculous. The temporary removal of PR100 has nothing to do with those issues, which are debated at length and have been for a long time.

Paddy, look back at some of your responses to Simon. Having done so, can you honestly with hand on heart say you have debated at length with him on these issues???.

In reply to:

---

He is also one that has remained clam and professional towards others, even when faced with adversity, trying his best not to get personal against forum posters when he would be only human to retaliate.

---

pr100 may have been relentless, but I certainly agree with the above statement.

Calling people liars is professional is it?

Ian

It's hardly a hanging offence is it, unless of course you are a Plusnet Rep.

If it is the case that you have been lied to then yes.

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 19:25:01)

The point John seems to be trying to make TBB want this forum to be a more positive place. This does not mean everyone has to agree but people should treat others as they wish to be treated themselves. Sarcastic one liners, telling people they are completely wrong and you are correct to score points etc add no value to the forum. Energetic on topic debate, having a joke now and then and agreeing to disagree are whats needed.

(I replied to wingco1 as he was unluckily enough to be the last poster when I started typing !)

Not saying it is, Simon has had some good points in the past (many of which I agree with) but it is a pity that he doesn't seem to know when to let go. I can't say I agree with everything he says or does but maybe with some time to reflect he will come back for the better.

Ian

In reply to:

---

The point John seems to be trying to make TBB want this forum to be a more positive place.

---

In which case limit posting rights to customers only. Does he honestly think banning Simon for 3 months is going to have the desired effect???.

How is this going to look when it hits various boards outside TBB, as it surely will sooner or later.

Time to reflect on what exactly Ian?.

Yes i know what you are saying but it has to be put in perspective. It may cost a few quid to change isp but car problems can cost thousands etc. Anyway we shall agree to disagree

Just quoting Don's statement "time to reflect". Nothing meant personally by it.

Ian

Wingco.. your'e priceless.

In reply to:

---

have no doubt this move will be seen as controversial and we'll come under significant criticism from several users for it, but we feel it's the right thing taking into consideration the slow progress.

---

Controversial, maybe... devastating, definately.

Why? Because TBBs' strength has always been in its impartiality. And in the words of the great Barry Scott..... BANG, and its gone.

SO, PR100 WAS repetative at times, but he was always articulate and direct without offense. This is just censorship in another guise.

Is this support for the Plusnet forum, or for Plusnet? Personally, I don't care any longer, I just feel very let down by TBB with this decision, so it may be time for pastures new......

In reply to
------------------------------------------
but he was always articulate and direct without offense
____________________________

I beg to differ, and if you read the postings that led to this "suspension" your assumptions of censorship hold no water.

In reply to:

---

...if you read the postings that led to this "suspension"...

---

Perhaps you could posts links to the offending posts to clear up any doubt.

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 20:34:21)

How much are PlusNet paying you for this censorship? It's very wrong. It was wrong to do it at all, but for three months? Completely unjustifiable.

He was usually well informed, and had reasonable points to make. Some other people just bicker on here for the hell of it. If anyone should be banned, it's them.

You've started now. Where will it end?

When all's said and done it's your forum, but I'll never consider the mods to be unbiased again.

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 20:41:34)

> i sincerly hope this isnt at the request of PlusNET

It's not.

seb

> TBH a 3 month ban is OTT.
> It makes it look like you will do anything to keep PN reps in here.
> This might not be the case, but it certainly has that look about it.

I can categorically state PN reps haven't threatened or made any intimation about leaving whatsoever, directly or indirectly.

I don't think this culture is going to change in the short term.. I'm not even sure if it will in three months... but something has to change.

seb

In reply to:

---

I'm surprised he was allowed to carry on with his comments as long as he was and he was warned several times before the ban was imposed.

---

I'd stress John's comment about the fact we don't want this to be a witch hunt on pr100 or any other user who isn't here to defend themselves.. (It's not crossed the boundary but let's keep it that way)

seb

> AG never did like him though

If you even had an IDEA of what we've done to defend his right to post here you wouldn't consider talking such rubbish.


seb

"I beg to differ, and if you read the postings that led to this "suspension" your assumptions of censorship hold no water."

I've read them and I don't think Simon overstepped the mark. He made some valid points about information being given out by PN agents. I could imagine an agent giving out false info if they benefitted monetarily from it, but PN have stated that retentions agents don't get any form of bonus or PRP for retentions calls so they have no reason to say "ADSL2+ is slower than vanilla ADSL". Unless the agent in question is a technophobe I don't see any reason for it. I certainly wouldn't call it a "misunderstanding".

Simon also asked questions about PN's management of calls which have drawn no response from PN thus far. With the amount of call monitoring in place and given there must have been a sizable number of these calls (I don't buy it that there were just two calls and they both picked up on in this forum) why didn't supervisors pick up on these calls and rectify the problem before being alerted to the calls on this forum?

TT

> I think it stinks of being in PN's pocket, of victimisation and of bias.

We've been accused of being in PN's pockets for a long time and during such occasions that this was so laughable I kept quoting it to them myself.

We all knew this was going to be controversial.. and I don't know whether this will help the forum.. Maybe we are wrong.. but all I can say is we honestly felt we have to do something to change how this is heading.

> Making him a martyr will not silence him, but only brings TBB into disrepute.

Firstly we've not excluded him from the forum permanently. Secondly, we don't expect him to be silent.. The Internet is wonderful because no one person or group controls it.. and I have absolutely no doubt he will spend time elsewhere as a result of not discussing PN here.


> So if this post gets me a ban too, goodbye just in case.

We're not banning a particular opinion here. Whether you agree with us or not is not a criteria for you being banned.


seb

> a corrupt business a biased forum.

I don't mind you sharing your opinion on our forum but the first part of that comment (which I presume is targetted at PN) is exactly the sort of problem we have.. You make accusations which I suspect you won't be able to back. You can argue they are unfair.. that they are bad quality.. that you don't like their way of doing business.. you think their business ethics could leave something to be desired for even but calling someone 'corrupt' is quite a statement.

If you believe they are corrupt, go tell the police, regulators or other appropriate authority.


seb

What has calling people liars(simon was proved right on numerous occasions iirc)got to do with professionalism,the lack of professionalism was shown on many times to come from Plusnet reps(who post here for their employers),who have lied in the past and got quite surly when it was proven against them.

In reply to:

---

Regardless of your reassurances to the contrary, your words and actions suggest that you want only pro Plusnet comments, so why not be open and honest and say so

---

We've categorically said the opposite. If we wanted only 'pro PN' comments it would be a lot easier and less controversial to make the forum PN users only which effectively excluded anyone who didn't like PN (unless they liked torturing themselves with a service they have issue with).


seb

And if saying a CS rep lied led to a banning there would me quite a few bans in the AOL forum.

Maybe the difference is that the AOL forum doesn't have any AOL reps in there!

> the numerous emails they send you complaining about pr100 and rsharma.

I'm not entirely sure that's accurate as a statement.. but I know very well how to ignore PN staff e-mails where needed.


> The message this sends me is that if you've got problems with your ISP and your ISP is acting
> irresponsibly with regard to consumer law, then TBB are not interested and this is not the
> place to discuss it.

I keep hearing this yet breaking consumer law thing.. but I've yet to see anyone get far in court on that.. which means it's getting repetitive. I wonder how many people have had successful ADR arbitrations (I don't know.. honestly I'd be interested in knowing..) on these types of issues.

I'm sure there will be plenty of others who will be here to advise users of their rights and I don't see why this can only be achieved by one person.


seb

I was rather hoping that a Plusnet Rep would have passed their disappointment on such a long ban, however they appear to have done a disappearing act.

It really is a dark day for this particular section of the forum. Silenced, in one foul swoop.

In reply to:

---

By publicly naming Simon you have done a disservice to both yourself and him. I don't really understand the reason or need you felt to name him and make an example but it was a very poor decision IMO

---

We did this in the interests of transparency.. If we had not named him, it would have been clear to anyone if we said anything on the forum about it... and if we didn't, we'd get accused of trying to hide it.

In reply to:

---

Why, then, did you name pr100 in your post when he isn't able to defend the statements being made against him here? Seems a rather odd thing to do.

---

I'm hesitant to curb discussion about our moderation policies as I believe they are fair game, but equally the point of this exercise is to get the forum to move on, not to end up in a personal debate against an individual.

edit.. posted too early..

> makes me feel that one must walk on egg shells in order to avoid the limitless
> discretion the owners and moderators could chose to apply

This discretion has always been here.. and if people consider more what they post then it will be a good outcome.

> Artificial means of restricting people don't work, you just shift the discussion
> to places where they can be had without them.

Absolutely. I have *no* doubt about this (maybe he'll be a guest on your blog).. But equally this forum has problems which need to be worked through. We feel at this point in time the previous approach was not working.

I do hope he (and anyone else we extend this to) will carry on using our forum in the future..


seb

Edited by seb (Wed 09-May-07 21:32:30)

Well it seems Seb and John want a quiet, pro PN forum whatever they say to the contrary.

>It really is a dark day for this particular section of the forum. Silenced, in one foul swoop.


Totally agree.

To Quote John
"we do believe things have improved a lot since the PlusNet representatives have returned"

It was always going to take a lot of time after the last year of PN spin.
Some will still judge on the past, as if PN have spun for a year, then turn over a new leaf it
can take just as long to show they mean it!

> Does he honestly think banning Simon for 3 months is going to have the desired effect???.
> How is this going to look when it hits various boards outside TBB, as it surely will sooner or later.

Short term it will probably be bad for our reputation... I'm hoping medium term it might help. Maybe 3 months is both too long and too short at the same time.. I'm not saying we might not change that.. but the purpose of this is to try and give the forum some breathing space.

We were under no illusions as to the problems this is going to cause us from a group of people.. I would have been half tempted to include more right at the outset but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with.


seb

In reply to:

---

How much are PlusNet paying you for this censorship? It's very wrong. It was wrong to do it at all, but for three months? Completely unjustifiable.

---

They haven't paid us anything. I don't even have a PlusNet branded USB stick, t shirt, mug or whatever they actually use for corporate gifts.


seb

The main trouble is the lack of a Mod.
TB needs another one, one who has time to read a whole thread without just picking up a comments from certain users.


Banning Simon for 3 months is a very bad cop out, and does a great diservice to these forums.

In reply to:

---

I would have been half tempted to include more right at the outset but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with.

---

Even though this forum has been quiet of late, and no one in particular, except Simon, has been taken to task, you were prepared to ban more people. Says a lot about your moderating policies, or lack of them!

"I would have been half tempted to include more right at the outset but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with."


So it is a very one sided view! Leaving the "pro" but getting rid of the "anti".

I can understand you point of view Seb, however you say:

"but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with. "

The problem is now, no one knows what is and not acceptable.

You know as well as anybody, that things do get heated in this forum, and as long as things are not personal or rude etc, *should* be allowed.

However, we have now seen a person made an example of, and no one now knows where they stand on your statement above. I appreciate that you cannot give 100% clear guidelines of what is and not acceptable, but people will now be afraid of standing up to people like Plusnet on here for fear of being forcibly removed, hence completely letting Plusnet off from being taken to task with.

Yes things have been bad in the past, however that was not just the posters on here, that was the staff of Plusnet as well, thing is, they were always allowed to get away with it.

Things have now moved on, and I respectfully ask that you review the 3 month BAN to maybe 2 weeks. This still enforces your intentions, especially to Simon.

Thank you for answering personnally Seb, it is appreciated.

Edited by soundsystem (Wed 09-May-07 21:49:07)

I agree a two week ban would IMO be fairer.

Good move!, Simon's contribution in the last thread he posted in was unacceptable!, calling "Liar" repeatedly without any proof and his other speculative assumptions.
He'd had enough warnings and it couldn't keep happening month after month, especially now PlusNet are improving in leaps and bounds now.

"but PN have stated that retentions agents don't get any form of bonus or PRP for retentions calls so they have no reason to say "ADSL2+ is slower than vanilla ADSL".

Plusnet did not say that agents don't get a bonus, what they said was...

In the past there was a performance based bonus, but that was changed a long time ago.

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plusnet&Number=2994131

Changed, not ended, scrapped, finished, done away with.

Plusnet, please feel free to correct me and state that they don't give a bonus.

The banning of Pr is crazy, he has been proven right on many occasions.
In my opinion Plusnet are only getting their house in order after being bought by BT.

"He'd had enough warnings and it couldn't keep happening month after month"

Can you post the "proof" please to your statement. (In the intrest of fairness).

There is no CSC performance bonus. Pay structure used to be part salary and part bonus, it is now salary only and no bonus.

Hi
I did ask the question in the thread Plusnet to Be

"Does anyone know. or willing to say! if PN retention reps are on commission if they get someone to stay?"


the reply I got from mand_beckett was

"I can categorically say that they are not.

The retentions team are existing CSC agents, who have volunteered/been requested to work one of the retentions workflows."

In recent years, this site, and this forum in particular, has been of massive service to PlusNet customers and potential customers, giving air to very valid points about the business practices of this ISP which would otherwise have gone by without being acknowledged. I was always very impressed by ADSLG, its impartiality and the public benefit it brought.

This decision trashes that reputation and it is not one which will be won back easily.

It also means that from now on anyone that posts true statements here which don't chime with the pro-PN tune will be highly uncertain as to whether their post will be deemed acceptable by the owners of this site, even if it is valid, on topic and sticks within the rules (which, in my view, pr100's posts typically complied with.)

All this while the PN spin machine trots out the same old same old with its selective memories, tired statements about "time to move on" and generally putting forward it's latest gloss on past and present legitimate customer concerns, roared on by a fervent fanclub.

If posters who are as articulate, relevant and incisive as Simon are not wanted here, then it is not just your loss, but the a significant loss to anyone trying to research or discuss one of the UK's most controversial ISPs and its poor business practices.

It's your site, so do what you want with it, but poor decisions such as this significantly and irrepairably reduce the level of its public good.

Having just read this entire thread I'm not quite sure what to make of it.. Yes I expected the reaction we've seen from several of the pro- and anti-PN people (sorry for labelling here but it's pretty much spot on.. both sides..) But I'm used to us being on the sharp end of the stick from one side or another so this was no surprise..

What I'm not sure of is where the line is between concern over censorship and moderation policies, and what I can only describe as a religious approach to a particular cause.. I'm not trying to undermine concern some people have expressed (yes we do listen).. I'm actually thinking that I think this particular approach probably won't work because I think some individuals will seek to 'fill the shoes' so to speak perhaps with even more vigour, which may make the problem worse..

I have spent a disproportionate amount of time dealing with PN over the last year.. (and everyone who thinks they know what this means is probably totally off) and I know my colleagues have too.. The one thing that I think this has shown me, and I think this is particularly in the last few weeks, is I think PN are changing.. My concern is, I think some individuals in this forum are hell bent on revenge they can't see beyond this... and that's just going to make the forum a game they need to exercise their need for aggression.. I think this attitude is no different to the ISP fanatics (the term I think I first coined with Icarus over a pint) or 'fanboys' as many people call them who are so religiously pro- their ISP they are blind as to any criticism.

I don't think PN have 'been fixed' yet by any means.. and I might upset PN by saying this (hell.. wouldn't be the first time..) but I think they haven't taken everyone inside the company on board in this change.. I would like to see people give them a chance.. I think some people are doing so.. I think others aren't.. I hope this decision doesn't 'become' the issue over PN's services.. if that's the case then we will all have lost.

I have one major regret in this.. which is I think this will make it difficult for us to help facilitate the event we've been talking about organising with PN.. and as such I'm sort of having second thoughts about that (because there's no point in us doing it if we are regarded as biased by people who might very well bring what is needed to it (not aimed at any one user alone btw).. It just wouldn't achieve anything.


seb

> The main trouble is the lack of a Mod.
> TB needs another one, one who has time to read a whole thread without just picking up a comments from certain users.

I wouldn't disagree.


> Banning Simon for 3 months is a very bad cop out, and does a great diservice to these forums.

This wasn't intended to ease moderation in the short term.. If anything I suspect it will make things worse from that point of view.

seb

In reply to:

---

This wasn't intended to ease moderation in the short term.. If anything I suspect it will make things worse from that point of view.

---

I doubt it, you have left things so far up in the air that most "antis" as you choose to call us won't post for fear of falling foul of your, "I should have banned him at the outset" style of moderation

One trouble is a so called "anti" will raise a question, then a "fanboy" will ask why the question was asked, what does another ISP say etc without having any clue about the question, this leads the the "personal attacks" as questions that can help PN users get missed.

So in the intrest of fairness will the "fanboys" that do this get a 3 month ban?

I think it was best plusnet didn't get involved in the discuss to be honest. Its purely a TBB action, Plusnet making a comment either way would have caused more trouble than it was worth to them and this forum.

I'm a plusnet customer but not a fanboy. I liked most of PR100's post until a few weeks ago, certainly agreed with some of it, but recently I personally thought he had lost the plot. The forum that had gone quiet in recent weeks, he appeared to be more frustrated because of that. I'm not up on the history of PR100 and Plusnet, but if I read his post for the first time in the last few weeks I would had thought he held a grunge rather than wanted plusnet to be better which I believe is close to the truth.

At the weekend I decided not to read his posts for a while, so I'm not shocked about the ban, although 3 months is perhaps to long

>I'm hesitant to curb discussion about our moderation policies as I believe they are fair game, but equally the point of this exercise is to get the forum to move on, not to end up in a personal debate against an individual.

If moderation and peace is such a priority then surely the sniping, insults and personal pursuit of other posters should have been high on the list. And yet, despite bringing this to the attention of those responsible, the very same people are here on a regular basis, without any input to the discussion, posting freely attacking posters not the subject or opinion.

>Absolutely. I have *no* doubt about this (maybe he'll be a guest on your blog).. But equally this forum has problems which need to be worked through. We feel at this point in time the previous approach was not working.

Maybe he will, I don't know and nor have I asked anyone to do so. That is not the point. The fact is that you have taken a step to calm this forum for the wrong reasons and especially when it was already winding down recently all by itself. You might not agree with an opinion, you might not like the poster and you might not like what they say but those things have nothing to do with an independent forum as long as the poster is courteous, specific and/or debating an issue.

Independent until limited by discretion is limited, irrespective how one words it. I see no reason why anyone should be banned from the forum for airing an opinion and not even to 'give breathing room'. Yes, this forum is yours to do as you please and we all want somewhere to be able to post in a good atmosphere, but posters like Simon have not been the cause of most of the problems on this forum. The problem is that those that have are not dealt with. If you want a fair system that is what should have been addressed instead.

With a sad heart I will also refrain from posting here as much (albeit I have been doing so in any case and voluntarily so over the last week). Not just out of principle but because I make statements that although are researched and backed up go against what you seem to want from this forum.

I think its a disgrace that one person has been singled out then named and shamed and used as a scapegoat to "improve" this forum"

a very sad day for this site :-(

In reply to:

---

I doubt it, you have left things so far up in the air that most "antis" as you choose to call us won't post for fear of falling foul of your, "I should have banned him at the outset" style of moderation

---

Somehow I disagree.. I have no doubt those "antis" will say what they want at any cost and become a "martyr" to use someone else's words if you will.. I'm actually not sure if some hardlined individuals will change their position at all.. How do we solve that?

I really don't want people here to feel they can only make pro PN comments.. but I think there is a problem with the "closed" attitude I think some people here have.. and I do believe this does exist on the pro-PN side too.. Some people jump in to defend PN too quickly without the right information..

Where did I say "I should have banned him at the outset" btw? I don't recall ever saying that.. I think PN needed a kick up the backside last year and it truly got it.. pr100 was one of those who helped give it that.

seb

> I think its a disgrace that one person has been singled out then named and shamed and used as a scapegoat to "improve" this forum"

Can I make this very clear... We are not attributing all the problems in this forum to one individual or one side/group.. But we have to start somewhere. I need to say this in case someone else thinks by your statement that we are.

seb

Don't bank on it.

Perhaps TBB should just close the whole forum for a while. It appears to be turning into a school playground (if schools still have them!) 'Anti' vs 'Fanboy'....... Some, like me, are currently happy with the service I pay for but sometimes I feel the pressure to move on because being made to feel like an idiot for staying with this isp. That pressure makes me (blindly sometimes) defend plusnet and fuel the fire.

There are people with big chips on both sides, I've started to wonder what value the forum actually is anymore.........it appears to be just bash and defend, defend and bash now. I've notice that problems posted here are sometimes answered with 'you should move isp' rather than help a poster get to the bottom of the problem

> Independent until limited by discretion is limited,
It has always been discretion ultimately. We have tended to take a "anti interventionist" approach in general.. and I have no desire to change that.. but at some point if one approach doesn't work.. something else needs to be tried.

> irrespective how one words it. I see no reason why anyone should be banned from the forum for airing an opinion and not even to 'give breathing room'.

If we ban someone for a few days.. it won't achieve anything other than exclude them from a few threads.. I'm hoping there will be users who start taking a more active role (there seem to be enough who have told us why they don't post..).. That takes time..

This said, I think we need to get tougher in the mean time on a lot of other comments on the forums.

In reply to:

---

With a sad heart I will also refrain from posting here as much (albeit I have been doing so in any case and voluntarily so over the last week). Not just out of principle but because I make statements that although are researched and backed up go against what you seem to want from this forum.

---

That is of course up to you. We're not trying to remove criticism of PN.. But from what I've seen of your posts (and I can't confess to reading all of them by any means) your approach is less inviting of conflict.

seb

I don't for one minute think that the decisions made were done in response to pressure from PN. I know from my discussions here of the amount of problem emails and PMs you used to get not only from them but from posters on both sides too. No, that can't be the reason or cause.

I do, however, feel that this has come about to sanitise the forum and to send out a message to anyone else not listening. It was to bring in a cease fire (so to speak) but very poorly thought through IMO. A moderator's task is not made easy on this forum and no doubt has a fine tight rope that they need to walk but what TBB is trying to do is doomed to fail. Either you will have an artificially calm forum or no credibility for being independent.

I strongly feel that Simon is being made a scapegoat. I am sure he doesn't really care (he faced similar behaviour from PN in their own forum) but for me this is about the independence of thought and debate that should follow. If one is expected to limit their views and opinions (on topic and important subjects instead of personal attacks) you will have stifled discussion.

> There are people with big chips on both sides

Exactly... Often each side thinks it's just the other.

seb

>I've notice that problems posted here are sometimes answered with 'you should move isp' rather than help a poster get to the bottom of the problem


That happens in other forums, AOL is one.

But if you look at post of late, please point out where it has been said without cause.(As I might of missed it).

By doing this though Seb you have just thrown half a bag of chips away.

Maybe deleting the snide posts as a zero tolerance approach may teach those with snipes to stop making them, treat those as a spam post.

You will never have 100% harmonisation, in fact, now there can only be 50%. No one knows where or what the line is that has been drawn.

"I don't mind you sharing your opinion on our forum but the first part of that comment (which I presume is targetted at PN)"

WRONG presumptions by mods is one of the serious problems in these forums. Read that post again, tell me what did you read into the car part of it. I illustrated a couple of items which are the sort of thing that Watchdog deal with, did you see it tonight?

So what am I from your post do I need to justyfy? What was the point of your post except to try and twist what i had said. Looks to me that you might be going out of your way to look for those other bans. Tell us know who is in your sights, save us the trouble of trying to walk on those eggshells.

Yes you have changed the atmosphere in here, not only does it pong it is quite acrimonious now. Any sense of calm that had descended over the last few weeks you have shot out of the window. Still will be quiet when you have banned a couple dozen more..

>No one knows where or what the line is that has been drawn.

But we know what "side" the line has been drawn on!
It remains to see how one sided it stays

In reply to:

---

He was usually well informed, and had reasonable points to make. Some other people just bicker on here for the hell of it. If anyone should be banned, it's them.

---

It really is a shame, banning any poster should not be necessary IMO.

But I know exactly what you mean.

I don't have any IDEA of what you've done to defend him. How am I supposed to know that if it's not public domain!?!

This is exactly the sort of aggressive post which pr100 used to suffer.

I am simply stating what I saw from the mods on this forum towards pr100.

I feel a good post from paul2002:

In reply to:

---

I'm a plusnet customer but not a fanboy. I liked most of PR100's post until a few weeks ago, certainly agreed with some of it, but recently I personally thought he had lost the plot. The forum that had gone quiet in recent weeks, he appeared to be more frustrated because of that. I'm not up on the history of PR100 and Plusnet, but if I read his post for the first time in the last few weeks I would had thought he held a grunge rather than wanted plusnet to be better which I believe is close to the truth.

---

PR100's posts used to be good, but the recent ones seemed, perhaps, argumentative for the sake of it. A ticking off was probably coming but I think 3 months is probably a little harsh though!

I also feel rsharma's point is quite valid:

In reply to:

---

If moderation and peace is such a priority then surely the sniping, insults and personal pursuit of other posters should have been high on the list. And yet, despite bringing this to the attention of those responsible, the very same people are here on a regular basis, without any input to the discussion, posting freely attacking posters not the subject or opinion.

---

Both rsharma and (until recently) pr100's posts are usually on-topic, well reasoned, researched, and most importantly, regarding the issues of Plusnet. What their posts rarely are, are personal attacks or insults. I lost count of the number of threads that rsharma started that were well constructed to be replied to with little more than abuse or one-liners attacking him rather than trying to counter the argument he was making. This then resulted in some counter attacks and the thread was lost. Yes, people should have moderated themselves, but that clearly wasn't happening.

I think that if these attacks and non-constructive posts were stamped on earlier or harder the battle ground that this forum became could have been avoided and the topics could have been discussed rather than the posters.

Overall though I think the staff/mods of TBB do a good (but thankless!) job and it's still a great site. Keep up the good work - and good luck with this issue

As for the TBB/PN conspiracies, don't forget your tin-foil hats people! (can you tell I've been reading FC recently? )

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 23:23:57)

In reply to:

---

If moderation and peace is such a priority then surely the sniping, insults and personal pursuit of other posters should have been high on the list. And yet, despite bringing this to the attention of those responsible, the very same people are here on a regular basis, without any input to the discussion, posting freely attacking posters not the subject or opinion.

---

Just expanding on that point. I seem to remember a while back all sides were told to back off. All sides were told to desist. Some did. Some didn't.

I for one did, and I'm a happier man. I treat the service as just that and don't let petty-minded pedantics over an ISP bother me any more.

In almost two years there were numerous posts from some saying that if person 'x' stopped posting, then things would calm down. Did they? Judging by this thread and the thread which ultimately spawned it, one side had no intention of stopping posting, or even calming down on the matter.


To no one in particular:

I see several mention of 'Pro' and 'Anti'. TBH I've never heard so much hogwash. Who the hell is 'for' an ISP and if someone is 'against' an ISP enough, then they should be looking inward I feel.

Anyway, best of luck to all. I have no real opinion on the ban. It's Seb's forum and if he bans me permanently for no reason whatsoever, I can complain as much as I want, but it won't change anything. A little like being banned from a pub, it stings at first, then you find another pub.

>Some, like me, are currently happy with the service I pay for but sometimes I feel the pressure to move on because being made to feel like an idiot for staying with this isp.

Spot on. There is no doubt in my mind that this is in fact the case and many times some posters read a post as a negative about their choice of ISP instead at looking what the poster is trying to achieve. I always aimed at improving the service the customer was getting with PN, my intent was never to drive the customer to another ISP and yet I faced no end of criticism. Some people also forget that the information that is at their fingertips because of forums like this is not available to the vast majority of normal customers and that is something we should all be untied on. However, I can't expect everyone to be in agreement over every issue and I am happy to debate the topic, it is only when things become personal does it get out of hand. Personally I don't think being critical of PN is being personal but many people do seem to take it as a direct insult on their choice of ISP as you state.

"I don't even have a PlusNet branded USB stick, t shirt, mug or whatever they actually use for corporate gifts."

They silently upgrade your account, but since you don't have an account..

TT

Edited by deleted (Wed 09-May-07 23:35:28)

Just because it happens elsewhere doesn't make it right.
I agree things are better of late, it's my impression of the last 6 months.

Sometimes I think asking to post links is just as bad as 'fanboys' asking why that question has been asked! There just too much of it on here from both 'sides' sorry if you find offence with that it not directed at you personnally. There are people on here that are trying to save the world from plusnet and people who are saving plusnet from the world, both sides use the same methods..prove that with a link or why are you even asking that question! just tired of it all.

Perhaps TBB should close the forum for a week to let it all cool down

> You know as well as anybody, that things do get heated in this forum, and
> as long as things are not personal or rude etc, *should* be allowed.

Well I would class use of the word "liar" as usually quite personal. You'd even get thrown out of the House of Commons for saying that. I'm not happy about things like that happening on here without evidence.. (and if someone comes to me with evidence of PN staff lying (a false statement intended to deceive) then I will deal with it appropriate).

> However, we have now seen a person made an example of, and no one now knows
> where they stand on your statement above.

I repeat this is not an issue of a person being made an example. We just feel this is the most appropriate start. Ironically it puts us in a very difficult position if we add another anti-PN type person to the list.. <shrugs>

> I appreciate that you cannot give 100% clear guidelines of what is and not acceptable,
> but people will now be afraid of standing up to people like Plusnet on here for fear of
> being forcibly removed, hence completely letting Plusnet off from being taken to task with.

If it makes users think before posting, it may well prove it works.


> Yes things have been bad in the past, however that was not just the posters on here,
> that was the staff of Plusnet as well, thing is, they were always allowed to get away with it.

Absolutely. I think PN have acted disgracefully in the past.. I think they are having an open mind though.. I'd use the example of them coming back here but they did in doing so post things I took great issue with so I'm not sure if it's the best example. Either way, I honestly believe they are trying to engage now.. and I think some people are just determined to blame them unless they are 'perfect' to their model ISP (whether that's sustainable or not being irrelevant), a standard they don't hold other ISPs to.

I'm not suggesting here that it's not ok to complain about one ISP and not others.. but I think context needs to be in mind still.

In reply to:

---

Things have now moved on, and I respectfully ask that you review the 3 month BAN to maybe 2 weeks. This still enforces your intentions, especially to Simon.

---

Firstly we have made it clear to Simon he is welcome to participate on the site at any time, but we want him to stay away from PN for the time being (which is what the 3 months refers to).. If he confirms he'll do this, he can come and post on the site right away. He can give you all the legal help you want on general ISP issues.


> Thank you for answering personnally Seb, it is appreciated.

I'm not going to be hiding after we've made a controversial decision.. There's another one coming up soon (not related to pr100 or PN) soon :-p



seb

In reply to:

---

Short term it will probably be bad for our reputation... I'm hoping medium term it might help. Maybe 3 months is both too long and too short at the same time.. I'm not saying we might not change that.. but the purpose of this is to try and give the forum some breathing space.
We were under no illusions as to the problems this is going to cause us from a group of people.. I would have been half tempted to include more right at the outset but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with.

---

Couldnt the above be seen as evidence of the mods/admin taking sides here?
You seem to be saying that more "anti Plusnetters" were considred for a ban, with nothing mentioned about banning the PRO ones
(My embolding in your quote)

Purdy

"I keep hearing this yet breaking consumer law thing.. but I've yet to see anyone get far in court on that."

I think we went through this before, you didn't want those kind of stickies in your forums which is understandable given you want to maintain a friendly relationship with ISPs. I think you've lost a source of good advice on consumer issues and the site will be poorer for it.

TT

> They silently upgrade your account, but since you don't have account..

Nope.. I had an F9 account many many years ago when they did 0808/0800 dial up (before broadband).. and they took my credit card details.. then told me my account would be activated the following day or something.. so I said "cancel it then" at which point they said it had gone through already (the card payment).. I somehow got the money back by complaining (I think direct.. might have been via bank)... [this was so many years ago my memory is not that good]


seb

I do feel the lack of another Mod on this forum doesn't help.

If the first point of attack is addressed then this forum wouldn't have the issues it has now.
But too many times it drags on, and the person that started making it a personal issue isn't dealt with.

I've had some great debates with you, and lost the plot once or twice during them. I like your blog and have commented a couple of times (constructively I hope!). Got no problems with yours posts and PR100 until a few weeks ago. Happy to be made to think about how I spend my money

In reply to:

---

I see several mention of 'Pro' and 'Anti'. TBH I've never heard so much hogwash. Who the hell is 'for' an ISP and if someone is 'against' an ISP enough, then they should be looking inward I feel.

---

I hate being labelled and I get it all the time.. I'm using those very conscious of what they're going to result in but I hope people will consider them as my attempt to make my point without getting personal..

seb

In reply to:

---

after we've made a controversial decision.. There's another one coming up soon

---

Place your bets now people

> I do feel the lack of another Mod on this forum doesn't help.

Tell me something.. Would you dare let a new mod loose in this forum?

We don't have an in-house psychiatrist.

seb

The thing is though Seb I posted the post about them being liars, as what they did tell the customer on face value justified that.

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plusnet&Number=2987222

"Its bad enough for any ISP to lose any customers, but to lose them and try and put the customer off with LIES is wrong. "

Which was then backed up by:

The OP has since posted

Ha! I knew it. Lying sods. That's good info about the traffic shaping on the Connect package, thanks. I have friends considering Connect, so I'll let them know.

Which was then counteracted by PN here:

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=plusnet&Number=2987685

I have spoken with the analyst concerned and I accept that there was no deliberate intention to mislead.

She has now been briefed fully on Sky products and the need for accuracy has been reinforced with the team.

So action was taken by PN to stop the misinformation, which was accepted by myself.

Whichever way you look at it, the Agent did not tell the truth first time round, to me that is a lie, or as my mum would say a 'White Lie' although not intentional.

So if I have caused all this I would like to apologise, as I started that thread and used the word LIES.

> Perhaps TBB should close the forum for a week to let it all cool down

One idea I had was to limit posting to one per day per user.. but I think that could be counter productive in terms of helping users.

Another possibility was to split the PN forum into "policy" and "support"


seb

>Sometimes I think asking to post links is just as bad as 'fanboys' asking why that question has been asked!

TBH I can't see how you work that one out.
I haven't questioned your right to post, just wanted you to point out the reasons for that statement.
As I said I might have missed it, but on the other hand maybe you are mistaken.

> But we know what "side" the line has been drawn on!
> It remains to see how one sided it stays

This line is in the middle..
[---------------------|---------------------]

So is this one..
[-------------------------------|-------------------------------]


...but the right goalpost moved resulting in a shift of the position.

It's always about perspective.. I'm sure PN would argue we've been very much one sided last year... maybe even now..


seb

How about giving the job to Simon

"Perhaps TBB should just close the whole forum for a while"

That's the best idea on this forum today. Then there is no arguing about which side has been banned.

As it is likely as not will feel like an ice hockey game when sides count how many players in the sin bin.

In reply to:

---

I think we went through this before, you didn't want those kind of stickies in your forums which is understandable given you want to maintain a friendly relationship with ISPs. I think you've lost a source of good advice on consumer issues and the site will be poorer for it.

---

No... I mean I haven't seen people GO TO COURT on this.. We've seen a mortgage company sue BT for their broadband service.. Where's the PlusNet case?

I'd offer to pay for it but <cough> that might not go down well with some people

We do want to maintain friendly relationships with ISPs but this doesn't mean we want to take their side.. and we're quite prepared to let a relationship go if it's the cost of doing what needs to be done. We let PN troddle off the forum before rather than run it how they wanted us to run it..

We need to improve our information on consumer rights on our main site (this isn't a PN issue.. it's widescale..)

seb

> That's the best idea on this forum today. Then there is no arguing about which side has been banned.
It's fair in that way but tomorrow we'd end up with the same thing..

seb

My apologies It wasn't directed at you, just a general comment based on your question, you seem a genuine poster here, and I know you weren't questioning my right to post. It was my current impression from reading six months of posts, rightly or wrongly.

I just hate the 'supply the link' thing as it means my impression must therefore be worthless unless I wade through the last 6 months and supply the evidence.

> I just hate the 'supply the link' thing as it means my impression must therefore be
> worthless unless I wade through the last 6 months and supply the evidence.

I share your view on this .. but equally there are many unwarranted statements that go by.

seb

That would make an interesting forum...I like it

"Either way, I honestly believe they are trying to engage now.. and I think some people are just determined to blame them unless they are 'perfect' to their model ISP (whether that's sustainable or not being irrelevant), a standard they don't hold other ISPs to. "

1. Yes they might or might not be trying to be transparent, engaging. But with their track record do you not think a large bucket of salt is called for until that is proven. Otherwise it might be that we just turn back the clock 6 months and their spin machine is in charge, to the detriment of that public you have these boards for the benefit of.

2. Is this the old chestnut, you don't go round all the boards making such comments. I personally would hold any ISP to a good standard, read my present posting on Pipex and the way they are treating customers with billing issues. But I know something about them and the way they operate and I do with PN. Many of the staff are still at PN that were there when I was a customer and that gives me some knowledge of how they work. But yee gods are you expecting us to have that knowledge about every ISP on your forums?

True, there is no easy answer. Glad I'm not the mod here !

In reply to:

---

Couldnt the above be seen as evidence of the mods/admin taking sides here?
You seem to be saying that more "anti Plusnetters" were considred for a ban, with nothing mentioned about banning the PRO ones
(My embolding in your quote)

---

We didn't "consider" any other specific individuals.. I don't have a "hit list" in front of me.. I was speculating based on the reaction.. maybe the solution would have been to be wider. but what's done is done. Although we had thought about how to deal with this problem before, the ban was the reason this came about now.

seb

Paul I would never suggest your impressions are worthless.
But in saying that what if your impression is wrong (I'm not saying it is).
How can a wrong impression be corrected if not by checking?

Sorry but you could read your post either way. I don't know your style of posting so I read it has a bash at plusnet and TBB. Some posters are very clever to load their posts in that way then claim foul when mods take exception to it, not suggesting you are one by the way! I don't know your posting style plain and simple. I've just done it to David in this thread

In reply to:

---

1. Yes they might or might not be trying to be transparent, engaging. But with their track record do you not think a large bucket of salt is called for until that is proven. Otherwise it might be that we just turn back the clock 6 months and their spin machine is in charge, to the detriment of that public you have these boards for the benefit of.

---

Those who know me know I have a long memory so I don't forget something quickly.. I absolutely agree you should be sceptical.. and they have to prove themselves to you.. I'm not suggesting you should be giving out umpteen "get out of jail" cards.. But equally there is a destructive force which needs to disappear.

In reply to:

---

2. Is this the old chestnut, you don't go round all the boards making such comments. I personally would hold any ISP to a good standard, read my present posting on Pipex and the way they are treating customers with billing issues. But I know something about them and the way they operate and I do with PN. Many of the staff are still at PN that were there when I was a customer and that gives me some knowledge of how they work. But yee gods are you expecting us to have that knowledge about every ISP on your forums?

---

As I've said I wouldn't expect someone to have to go around every ISP to take up issues.. but sometimes focus on one ISP makes you blind.. some could argue we're suffering from this problem by focussing resources on PN.. Unfortunately that choice hasn't been ours.

seb

Sorry, I know a good opticians for you, that post said it was the best idea today, NOT for today. Just shut it up that way you make sure you get all those nasty pro and anti PN people.

So am I

>No... I mean I haven't seen people GO TO COURT on this.. We've seen a mortgage company sue BT for their broadband service.. Where's the PlusNet case?

You have to be realistic though, it won't get as far as court or ADR. Any time there is a customer that is forced down that route the ISP relents and gives in. They do so because they know that:
a) they will loose,
b) the cost outweigh the benefit of defending the case, and/or
c) it might give the whole customer base a right without having to go to court (contract terms)

It is therefore unlikely that you will see it anytime soon, but the ISP can in the meantime afford to drag its heels on problem cases and only relent if the customer is persistent enough, and they know most aren't.

Can't disagree with you.....not sure what the solution is?

In reply to:

---

Whichever way you look at it, the Agent did not tell the truth first time round, to me that is a lie, or as my mum would say a 'White Lie' although not intentional.

---

Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,

1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception;
an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with
the intention to deceive.
[1913 Webster]

I know there are other definitions which refer to simply a ficticious statement etc. but the general perception of a lie is something that is intended, not a mistake.

Therefore if you call someone a liar you are accusing them of purposefully deceiving.. not making a mistake (even a negligent one)

This may have been the last straw but this was not the main issue at the heart of this issue so I'm not going to labour on this.

seb

Thinking about it, there are well measured posts on here, with lots of thought and research, there are very poor posts on here i.e the opposite end of the scale purely meant to damage the good posts and then there are the bulk of us in the middle somewhere I suppose.

> So it is a very one sided view! Leaving the "pro" but getting rid of the "anti".

It wasn't an exclusive statement.

seb

we can both keep out eyes on this forum and see what our views are in a few weeks.

In reply to:

---

It is therefore unlikely that you will see it anytime soon, but the ISP can in the meantime afford to drag its heels on problem cases and only relent if the customer is persistent enough, and they know most aren't.

---

Well that's something we need to help users with. The ADR route shouldn't be that complex or intimidating.

seb

I can't disagree with that

In reply to:

---

Some posters are very clever to load their posts in that way then claim foul when mods take exception to it, not suggesting you are one by the way! I don't know your posting style plain and simple. I've just done it to David in this thread

---

Not in reference to RogN's post.. this is a real problem.. Those very skilled at crafting carefully worded posts are better at this. It reminds me of politics in general which I hate because it's so full of pretence.

seb

In reply to:

---

We didn't "consider" any other specific individuals.. I don't have a "hit list" in front of me.. I was speculating based on the reaction.. maybe the solution would have been to be wider. but what's done is done. Although we had thought about how to deal with this problem before, the ban was the reason this came about now.

---

You miss what i was saying. No one said you had a hit list, but, from your own words (which i have pasted again below) You appear to be saying that any further bans that may be considered would be coming EXCLUSIVELY from the "anti brigade"
How else would including more in the ban have the side effect of.......letting PN off the hook, as you put it?

In reply to:

---

.. I would have been half tempted to include more right at the outset but I think that would have a side effect of letting PN off the hook on things they should be taken to task with

---

Purdy

Personally I feel this is too little, and perhaps too late. Whenever I visit this forum I see the same old sad obsessives waging a pointless war against PlusNet - and knowingly wrecking the place for average PlusNet users like myself. Luckily most of my connections are with another provider now so I don't spend as much of my time here as I used to.

Sometimes I feel people read who has posted, so expect it to read one way.
Merits of posts can get lost in who is the poster.

". I don't know your style of posting so I read it has a bash at plusnet and TBB."

Subtelties are not my style, as you might have noticed, straight from the shoulder. But if you could not see it, I was saying that a biased board was as bad as these others, which justified my earlier comments and being told to "get a grip, its only an ISP" and had no reference to Pn at all.

But I do expect founders not to suffer from that affliction.

Ok you're clearly not hearing me so I'll leave it here.

seb

---

I have one major regret in this.. which is I think this will make it difficult for us to help facilitate the event we've been talking about organising with PN.. and as such I'm sort of having second thoughts about that (because there's no point in us doing it if we are regarded as biased by people who might very well bring what is needed to it (not aimed at any one user alone btw).. It just wouldn't achieve anything.

---

Trying to organise an event in tandem with Plusnet, shortly followed by a decision to ban PR100 could be construed as more than coincidence.

You comment that last year Plusnet deserved a kick up the backside and it was in no small measure due to Simon that they got it, and yet I don't particularly recall that TBB were onside with with the concept of 'kicking' at the time.

"Let's also remember that the Plusnet reps didn't decide to come back. More to the point is that when Marco Potesta 'left' Plusnet, they were thereby released from his order to stay away from TBB.

John talks of "improvements not going as well as we would hope" and "slow progress". What on earth do those bland statements mean? The "positive culture" reads to me suspiciously like unquestioning compliance with anything that Plusnet might lob the customer's way.

A last thought. Remember that Plusnet threw Simon out as a customer and banned him from their forum? Has it to this day changed the culture of that forum? Just look at the thread titles there for the answers to that question.

This is an extremely poor decision, not based on sound reasoning I am sorry to say.

In reply to:

---

Trying to organise an event in tandem with Plusnet, shortly followed by a decision to ban PR100 could be construed as more than coincidence.

---

I'm sure it will be construed as such.. but this is not the case..

In reply to:

---

John talks of "improvements not going as well as we would hope" and "slow progress". What on earth do those bland statements mean? The "positive culture" reads to me suspiciously like unquestioning compliance with anything that Plusnet might lob the customer's way.

---

I've said in my other replies that there are some users on here who seem to be unable to let anything go.. they will grab onto a new branch as soon as something is done to fix another..

In reply to:

---

A last thought. Remember that Plusnet threw Simon out as a customer and banned him from their forum? Has it to this day changed the culture of that forum? Just look at the thread titles there for the answers to that question.

---

I would point out we've not thrown anyone 'off' the forums here.. we're just taking a 'time out'. There is a difference.. and we've categorically stated this is temporary (albeit longer than many would expect). In fact, it's Simon who said he would be "moving on" when PN got taken over.. we're several months into that now.. PlusNet managed to take a break themselves off the forums.. and generally coming back months later I think their attitude has improved.. I wish some others considered this sometimes.

seb

Very true.

In reply to:

---

....(albeit longer than many would expect).......

---

I think that it would have been better to set the expectation of longer exclusions to all users first. Then, the action taken could less easily be interpreted as targetting an individual , and if Simon had then been the first to fall foul of it, there could have been no complaint (although you'd have still got some!).

I disagree, they are only human with emotions too. humans make mistakes, read different meanings from posts. The mods and founders are not all seeing gods that understand the intent behind a post good/bad or indifference

There are posters that can be very clever with their wording to stir it up, then cry foul if a finger is point saying 'no no you read it wrong - look the mods are on the side of plusnet again' but by then the thread is lost anyway...job done. The anti and the fanboy teams both do this on here.

The objective is worthy but your approach is poorly chosen. You seek to nuture the conditions necessary for adult discussion and useful interaction, yet you have just banned one of the few people in this forum who have consistently shown that they can debate in a mature fashion (bar one or two lapses which Seb has already implied to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things). What you should have done, and done a long time ago, was crack down hard on the small group of childish posters who have consistently sniped, insulted, derailed useful threads, and generally caused trouble over the last year while failing to provide much in the way of useful input to your visitors. You've now been forced into a lazy solution because you failed to provide sufficient moderator resource. If this was a two-bit forum then all this wouldn't matter but since this is the premier UK broadband resource - and I would like it to stay that way - it does! It's disappointing that this backwards step has been allowed to happen.

Fully agree Swedish I think this decision does more harm than good.



When I started posting on here complaining about problems with Plusnet someone was always following me around like a puppy dog making negative comments about me saying things like "put up or shut up" etc but I never responded to their insults.

A forum that only makes positive comments about the ISP is not worth reading it's just a propoganda tool for that ISP. If you are happy with the service you probably won't even visit the forum. You need to hear both sides and as long as there are no personal insults people should be allowed to express their opinions.
If they don't listen and keep making personal insults ban them for a week,if they do it again for a month and if they continue make it permanent.

Picking out one poster for a three month ban seems very strange indeed.

Edited by FredScuttle (Thu 10-May-07 12:11:49)

Fred ... this is not aimed at you specifically.

You are predominantly missing the point, or choosing to ignore the facts... the exclusion has nothing to do with suppressing opinion about plusnet or debate. The exclusion has more to do with netiquette than viewpoint. By all means dont let the facts get in the way of the view you want to get accross.. ie martyed dissident sacrificed for his views... but it diminishes the credibility of the posting when you do so..

>The exclusion has more to do with netiquette than viewpoint.

If that was strictly the case there are far more worthy people of consideration and inclusion.

>By all means dont let the facts get in the way of the view you want to get accross

It's statements like this that demonstrate the point clearly. What does a statement like this achieve except to get the poster's back up? What was its intention? Does it do anything to have a meaningful debate on the forum? Think about the answers and it will tell you that it does nothing more than come across as condescending and sarcastic, adding nothing to the debate. When the poster referred to someone following him around I can bet he was talking about you, does your new post change that notion or reinforce it?

You then go on to state:

>but it diminishes the credibility of the posting when you do so..

As though you are giving someone credit for otherwise being mature and telling them their last post is not. Truth is that you have condemned that poster on many occasions for speaking his mind. You seem to hold him in contempt. This last statement then, is to my mind, an act of covering one's back from the mods, just like smilies are inserted with the most venomous of words. However, the moderators could not know what I have typed unless they have read most of your posts to this individual over time, and they can't be expected to.

The above points are not meant to admonish you but they are written to highlight the simplicity of the problem and the difficulty of controlling them.

Edited by rsharma (Thu 10-May-07 13:12:21)

>>The exclusion has more to do with netiquette than viewpoint.

I thought that was a strange statement by someone who was told by a Mod "End Of" in a thread today,
but still carried on!, only to be told again!

So if in was down to "netiquette" think there would have been another ban today!

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-May-07 13:01:57)

A poster has been excluded - assumptions are made that it is censorship which is an assumption that flies in the face of the facts...

PR and myself have had many differences, I dont support his exclusion, but understand that it has been done and not for the reasons that many of the posters suggest. Too many conspiracy theories unrelated to the facts. Ill debate PR100 postings with him on his welcome return, as and when there is debate to be had.. An description of condecension from yourself is a tad hard to swallow as disagreement with your opinions regularly attracts the same from your good self. But your right to express the opinion is paramount as is others to express an opinion in return.

Bottom line - no conspiracy no censorship.... just a paranoiac assumption made by too many here.

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-May-07 13:23:56)

>An description of condecension from yourself is a tad hard to swallow as disagreement with your opinions regularly attracts the same from your good self.

Here is yet another statement that does nothing but attract a response and a heated exchange of words. To what purpose? For if I was to ask you to show me such responses you would struggle, and if you did produce such an example it would be your interpretation of the words but not that it was inherently and purposefully written in that manner. We achieve nothing.

>Bottom line - no conspiracy no censorship.... just a paranoiac assumption made by too many here.

That is your opinion, but not necessarily fact. However, the use of the word 'paranoiac' introduces words that lament and insult those that hold that belief where a simple 'I don't believe there to be a conspiracy' would suffice.

In any case, I was trying to highlight some of the problems of this forum and how posters and their posts can come across. No doubt I have unintentionally been guilty of the same thing but when we discuss the topic instead of the person we can get further. As to the decision about Simon, I have stated what I had to earlier. There is nothing really I can add to it now and I still believe what I stated then.

Are you trying to say that sometimes the posters are part of the problem then?

In reply to:

---

Are you trying to say that sometimes the posters are part of the problem then?

---

Um, is the Pope a Catholic??? There are some things that are so obvious to all that they just don't need saying!

an accurate post, as ever with yourself...

I am often too emotive... and should take more time in responding to posts.. probably not alone in this.

however are you sharing the opinion that the exclusion is an act of unneccessary censorship, and an action done to aid plusnet, to assume so disrepects the moderation here in a major and unacceptable way... a tough but important job where perceived errors in judgement are labelled in a haenous way.

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-May-07 15:29:24)

I think this is a most unfortunate step to take. In my opinion it will not address the perceived problems with the culture on this forum, and is not this site's finest hour.

However, TBB does not belong to me, and it is the right of the mods to operate however they choose.

>however are you sharing the opinion that the exclusion is an act of unneccessary censorship

Very much so.

>and an action done to aid plusnet, to assume so disrepects the moderation here in a major and unacceptable way...

I haven't assumed that at all (in fact I wrote a post earlier detailing as much). You have made that assumption on my behalf.

I was not assuming, but asking a question....

I guess you have your answer then.

I just try not to assume too much..

In reply to:

---

I know there are other definitions which refer to simply a ficticious statement etc.

---

But you chose to use the one which adds weight to your argument.

In reply to:

---

but the general perception of a lie is something that is intended, not a mistake.

---

That is your opinion, it is not a statement of truth.

Therefore your decision to ban Simon was made on an opinion, and not a factual basis.


edit: spelling

Edited by wingco1 (Thu 10-May-07 17:31:04)

In reply to:

---

I think PN needed a kick up the backside last year and it truly got it.. pr100 was one of those who helped give it that.

---

Do you really think that the postings here by an ex-customer really made PlusNet change? Do you not think it more likely that the successful sale to BT and the exit of the people at the top allowed PlusNet to move back towards where it used to be?

In reply to:

---

I always aimed at improving the service the customer was getting with PN

---

The problem is that for some of us it is not possible to improve the service that we are getting from PlusNet. For one I get the speed that I need whenever I need it for a price that I am willing to pay, and never reach my allocated bandwidth.

I know that is a bit of an "I'm all right Jack" attitude, and my demands on the Internet are much less than some others, but there are plenty like me for whom your attempt to help do not seem like that at all. If it ain't broke then you telling me how to fix it is pointless.

"Do you really think that the postings here by an ex-customer really made PlusNet change? Do you not think it more likely that the successful sale to BT and the exit of the people at the top allowed PlusNet to move back towards where it used to be? "

That was what I assumed had begun the recent changes. Very quickly after the top people in Plusnet left you could see a change in the motivation and confidence of the people remaining at Plusnet for the better.

> Do you really think that the postings here by an ex-customer really made PlusNet change?

I don't think it magically did anything but he did keep some problems visible.. Maybe it would have happened anyway.. I don't know.. but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as some people.

seb

Wingco even for you thats getting silly...

> > I know there are other definitions which refer to simply a ficticious statement etc.
> But you chose to use the one which adds weight to your argument.

The world is full of contradictions and as others have pointed out people pick words sometimes which allow them to encourage one assumption but then claim another meaning.

Become an MP and go and tell the PM he 'lied' and watch the reaction.. Try that with some other words and see the difference.


> Therefore your decision to ban Simon was made on an opinion, and not a factual basis.

Every human interaction is opinion.. Simon is very good at using the words he wants to get the desired effect.. He would be a very good politician I'm sure.


seb

>The problem is that for some of us it is not possible to improve the service that we are getting from PlusNet. For one I get the speed that I need whenever I need it for a price that I am willing to pay, and never reach my allocated bandwidth.

I'm not sure why you would then consider my work to be trying to help you.

>I know that is a bit of an "I'm all right Jack" attitude, and my demands on the Internet are much less than some others, but there are plenty like me for whom your attempt to help do not seem like that at all. If it ain't broke then you telling me how to fix it is pointless.

If you are unaffected, as you claim, then surely you can ignore my posts as they have no impact or concern on the operation of your service? Should you chose to be critical of any of my efforts it would be rather pointless as once again you would be doing so when you are unaffected. Therefore I don't fully understand why you would think that I am telling you on how to fix something when it isn't needed.

"Wingco even for you thats getting silly... "

Can you not comment on a issue without getting personal?

Seb managed to answer it without resorting in insults!

> Seb managed to answer it without resorting in insults!

How do you know what insults I'm screaming at my screen ? :-p

seb

In reply to:

---

Wingco even for you thats getting silly...

---

Paddy I'm going to say what I think, then I'll leave you to your precious ISP. Look at your posts on this subject, the majority are having a pop at someone. Look at your posts over the last couple of months in this forum, the majority are personal and insulting. If anyone should have had a three month ban it certainly wasn't Simon!!!.

Post deleted by paddyclark

counted to ten and thought better of it...

Edited by deleted (Thu 10-May-07 23:28:52)