who wants Joe24 back?

[Wigsie]

True, i was an annoying prick sometimes as a teenager, however the difference is that there where no forums back then so in order to be annoying I would have to do it to someones face, which resulted in much more serious effects than being banned more like being thumped!!

Understand?

Thats a sensible observation, when I was 17 if you irritated or abused someone verbally you had a scrap. I am sure if most of us had forums when we were 17 we would p*ss plenty others off. its the Cyber balls! I bet those that dislike him would not have issues if they met him in a bar/cafe.

Mind you he would be different too.

 

[Chuffy]

(Also, started writing this ages ago but visitors precluded me finishing...sorry if it repeats anything said previously.)

Nowt wrong with echoing what other people have said.

I don't care. He'd done enough to convince me that he was an irritating idiot who revelled in behaving like an irritating idiot. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck. If he really is a nice chap in Real Life(tm) then that's irrelevant so far as this forum is concerned.

 

[Shaun]

Instead of flying off the handle on a theory - next time just ask and I'll tell you what's happened.

Joe left the forums.

I'll just repeat that - Joe left the forums.

He asked for his account to be suspended.

He was banned for a few days for ignoring warnings from me and the mods to moderate his behaviour, but was allowed to return and left to get on with it.

The next day he sent a PM to one of the mods asking for his account to be closed.

I suspended his account and then emailed him to tell him he was welcome back if he chose to return, and suggested (because he was obviously having other issues with his job etc.) that some time away from CC might be what he needed.

He THEN chose to register under a different username and start trolling the forums, including bating moderators. THAT'S when he was banned.

Now if someone says they are leaving, that's fine. We all chop and change in our interests, and life often throws us curve balls, and things in our personal lives can get on top of our on-line world. However, coming back to troll under a different account after you've supposedly left is just taking the piss.

Joe was given a lot of rope - allowed a great deal on account of his age - and he had lots of warnings, so he had plenty of opportunity to self-moderate.

He was never persecuted by any of the mods - I don't allow that, ever (despite Joe's belief that one mod in particular had it in for him. In actual fact, that moderator had offered to approach Joe because he felt he had a good rapport with him!).

Hopefully that clears up what's happened with Joe, and maybe when he's sorted himself out and is back on an even keel he'll get in touch, who knows.

In the meantime, I'd prefer it if people didn't pass any further comment on Joe as he's not here to defend himself.

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[Wigsie]

I think the point of this thread was to find out.... and was told he was banned for 7 days.

Thanks for clearing things up though captain.

 

[Danny]

To avoid future confusion perhaps Admin ought to set up a "star chamber" forum which lists those who have been banned, their crime, and the sentence given.

After a period of time those banned could be allowed to enter expression of remorse, pleas for mercy, etc.

 

[snorri]

Alot hate the P1sh I talk but I talk no more p1sh than Joe did, we just all have a different sense of humour. This is a very big forum. Please let him back

Come along now Jane, let's just give this a bit of serious thought, you have tried it with a toyboy and it really hasn't worked out.
Just think about it, take your time, I'll come back to you on this one......

 

[snapper_37]

He THEN chose to register under a different username and start trolling the forums, including bating moderators. THAT'S when he was banned.

Fair enough IMO.

 

[snapper_37]

Our very own pound.

Would we be allowed to taunt and poke sticks through the cage bars?

 

[Danny]

I know it's meant as a joke, but I like the way things seems to be done here right now. I'm not a mod, but I get the impression that there is enough talking with the bannee before he/she is kicked off (and a lot of chances for them to cool off and come back again before that).

Putting them on public show would be insulting and counterproductive. I'm sure it won't happen. This isn't that kind of forum, fortunately.

Actually not entirely a joke.

On the very rare occasions when someone does get banned, you often get threads like this that generate large numbers of posts speculating on what has gone on before Admin or the mods has had a chance to comment.

A short announcement explaining the facts might pre-empt some of this.

I wasn't proposing that we put miscreants in the (virtual) stocks so the rest of us thrown things at them...though come to think of it that could liven things up round here

 

[John the Monkey]

On the very rare occasions when someone does get banned, you often get threads like this that generate large numbers of posts speculating on what has gone on before Admin or the mods has had a chance to comment.

Although why embarass the miscreant further by drawing attention to their stupidity?

(Coming back under a different user name & trolling ffs.)

WRT the op, I don't feel strongly either way. Joe made some useful contributions to the beginners forum (sometimes spoiling those with his "humour") and I have to admit that I never really got the odd feuds he seemed to get into with people. As Joe's made the decision to spend a bit of time away himself, it's moot anyway.

 

[661-Pete]

I wasn't proposing that we put miscreants in the (virtual) stocks so the rest of us thrown things at them...though come to think of it that could liven things up round here

Or this perhaps?

 

[Chuffy]

Actually not entirely a joke.

On the very rare occasions when someone does get banned, you often get threads like this that generate large numbers of posts speculating on what has gone on before Admin or the mods has had a chance to comment.

A short announcement explaining the facts might pre-empt some of this.

I wasn't proposing that we put miscreants in the (virtual) stocks so the rest of us thrown things at them...though come to think of it that could liven things up round here

Yup. We tried that back in the C+ user/mod days because we thought that it would stop the speculation and also be more transparent and open. Basically we would post a notice thread and then lock it. As those of you with long-term memories may recall it backfired on us when one of the bannees (the Swiss loony) decided that he had been held up to ridicule and started threatening the publishing company with legal action. Sadly the company didn't tell him to f*ck off and instead had stern words with the mods. You also get endless threads complaining about Mod decisions. Swings and roundabouts really, yes, transparency is good but the knock on effects can be a nightmare. At least on here Admin will give a good and reasonable explanation in due course, which seems like a sensible compromise.

 

[bonj2]

I know it's meant as a joke, but I like the way things seems to be done here right now. I'm not a mod, but I get the impression that there is enough talking with the bannee before he/she is kicked off (and a lot of chances for them to cool off and come back again before that).

Putting them on public show would be insulting and counterproductive. I'm sure it won't happen. This isn't that kind of forum, fortunately.

In all seriousness I would agree with a more transparent approach.
Far from being a public hall of shame/medieval stocks/cage to poke sticks through, it would (should) be more a case of trial by jury, rather than judge, jury and executioner being all rolled into one and decisions taken behind closed doors. They should at least be glass closed doors, if they are going to be closed.
For all the joking, the not being open about what's happened and why is far more akin to middle-ages style of justice than having a sub forum set up as a "public stocks".
A statement along the lines of "something's happened to justify this punishment but we're not telling you what it is" is politically inevitable to fuel rumours that it's NOT justified, even when it is.

 

[trustysteed]

In all seriousness I would agree with a more transparent approach. A statement along the lines of "something's happened to justify this punishment but we're not telling you what it is" is politically inevitable to fuel rumours that it's NOT justified, even when it is.

do you mean transparency like this?

Dear trustysteed,

You have received a warning at Cycle Chat.

Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)

This is not really appropriate language or sentiment for the forum. We'd appreciate if you didn't resort to personal abuse when in disagreement with others.

Moderator team
-------

Original Post:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=934551

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuffy
Fixed.

it's such a shame you're with Baggy, you and theclaud would make a lovely pair of twunts.

you should both limit yourself to P&L because you really can't cope with the light-hearted piss-taking threads in the cafe.

twats.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Cycle Chat

I love the 'All the best', nice touch!

 

[Chuffy]

Far from being a public hall of shame/medieval stocks/cage to poke sticks through, it would (should) be more a case of trial by jury, rather than judge, jury and executioner being all rolled into one and decisions taken behind closed doors. They should at least be glass closed doors, if they are going to be closed.
For all the joking, the not being open about what's happened and why is far more akin to middle-ages style of justice than having a sub forum set up as a "public stocks".
A statement along the lines of "something's happened to justify this punishment but we're not telling you what it is" is politically inevitable to fuel rumours that it's NOT justified, even when it is.

And of course you would reserve the right to whine about the conclusions that the jury come to.