prawnking
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,432
- Reaction score
- 7,084
When was this?
Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??
When was this?
Mark is lucky to be here after the pasta debacle tbhWell actually this very thread was set up in response to a member of the admin team suggesting a place to debate and ask questions around this topic. Which is why I asked questions on this thread rather than DM'd anyone. I also thought others might be interested in the answers.
Are you a mod? You seem to be quite clear and definitive on what is a pretty muddy amendment.
So they really weren't 'New Rules' and there was no 'going forward we will be working on this basis', and rather than being a 'from now on' set of rules, all the number of offence quotations covered, what? The whole life of the forum?
So Mark's 7 day ban in 2013 still counts and he could be permanently banned if he hit double figures*? Can a mod (i.e. not you) clarify?
*sorry Mark, not singling you out here maliciously, just a good example
No, the policy discussion did not interest me in the slightest.Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??
It was a very minor factor. Emojis will never be used as a reason to ban any one.It's literally been pointed out as a major factor in the bullying allegations, don't think we should be so quick to not at least discuss it.
No, the policy discussion did not interest me in the slightest.
Labeling someone as a "snitch" has nothing to do with the forum policy around bans.So why ask me the question then?
I will own picking up on this…and perhaps it shouldn’t have been shared as justification for a ban but it was and has not been taken back by anyone in the admin/mod team.Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??
None of us know what he reported though (Admin and Mods aside)Labeling someone as a "snitch" has nothing to do with the forum policy around bans.
Could have been I suppose but most of those types of discriminatory remarks don’t require reporting…they get picked up in open play.None of us know what he reported though (Admin and Mods aside)
Could have been homophobia, racism, sexism, any-ism... We don't really know. Would that make him a "snitch"?
Plus you also wouldn't be aware of the abusive language he often directed at the moderating team and other posters in the comments section of the report function when he used to report other posters.
The report function is still helpful.Could have been I suppose but most of those types of discriminatory remarks don’t require reporting…they get picked up in open play.
I don't think it should ever have been raised; it's not something that has any relevance to this IMO.None of us know what he reported though (Admin and Mods aside)
Could have been homophobia, racism, sexism, any-ism... We don't really know. Would that make him a "snitch"?
Interesting.I will own picking up on this…and perhaps it shouldn’t have been shared as justification for a ban but it was and has not been taken back by anyone in the admin/mod team.
I don’t like the report function because it gives rise to exactly the type of conduct I think is unnecessary. If any poster on here uses the report function to express concern about non-serious posts they are likely doing it in an attempt to get at another behind their back…that sort of nit picking is a recognised form of bullying. Do it in public and it can be challenged in public, do it in private and there is something underhand to it.
Mods are going to be alerted to conduct that is seriously wrong by virtue of the reaction it garners on the thread(s) without the need for a report function.
I said previously, I don’t think Johnny should be permanently banned but nothing I have read for or against him on this thread changes my view about they way he posts…regularly and over a prolonged period of time he is what he is.
I know I could better manage my own responses to him (and others) but that’s on me not anyone else.
But surely if someone feels so strongly, a DM requires some effort instead of just jabbing a finger at the report button in anger.The report function is still helpful.
I can't speak for all mods, but I know I can't trawl through every page of some threads (especially matchday and verdict) - so something being reported is still helpful
You don't (or shouldn't) know what's been reported. If something happens in a thread I generally don't read, and I'm the only mod online, I'll see the report come in and can then jump straight to that post.But surely if someone feels so strongly, a DM requires some effort instead of just jabbing a finger at the report button in anger.
Yes, but a protected disclosure must meet certain criteria to be afforded any protection.Interesting.
A genuine question to you. Do you believe in 'whistle blowing' in the 'real world'?
A moderatorYou don't (or shouldn't) know what's been reported. If something happens in a thread I generally don't read, and I'm the only mod online, I'll see the report come in and can then jump straight to that post.
Who should they be DM'ing?
I don't think it should ever have been raised; it's not something that has any relevance to this IMO.
And, as I repeat, falsely claimed that everyone was on board with the decision, which isn't even close to true.Tell the mod that raised it, and instantly sullied the process.