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?