Johnny75

[prawnking]

When was this?

Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??

 

[Kenny]

Well 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

Mark is lucky to be here after the pasta debacle tbh


I cant really add clarity to the above because we essentially make this shit up as we go along (the not overly serious bit)

I don't think Mark has a record of causing issues that has led to multiple bans, warnings, quiet words in his ear etc so if he doubled down on his cooking and we had to deal with it, then no something from 11 years ago wouldn't be looked at really.

 

[prawnking]

Just using the Mind Blown emoji while I still can.

I'll make sure to not waste time by reading any admin proclamation threads on this sub-forum again then if all is just chaos

 

[Alan]

Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??

No, the policy discussion did not interest me in the slightest.

 

[The Bear]

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.

It was a very minor factor. Emojis will never be used as a reason to ban any one.

I'd prefer if they were removed but I don't know if that's possible within the forum software.

 

[prawnking]

No, the policy discussion did not interest me in the slightest.

So why ask me the question then?

 

[Alan]

So why ask me the question then?

Labeling someone as a "snitch" has nothing to do with the forum policy around bans.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Posts #32, Post #112 for a start. Did you not notice this when the thread was unfolding??

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.

 

[darlowolf64]

Labeling someone as a "snitch" has nothing to do with the forum policy around bans.

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"?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

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"?

Could have been I suppose but most of those types of discriminatory remarks don’t require reporting…they get picked up in open play.

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.

 

[Trips]

Could have been I suppose but most of those types of discriminatory remarks don’t require reporting…they get picked up in open play.

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

 

[Alan]

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"?

I don't think it should ever have been raised; it's not something that has any relevance to this IMO.

 

[leedswolf]

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.

Interesting.

A genuine question to you. Do you believe in 'whistle blowing' in the 'real world'?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

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

But surely if someone feels so strongly, a DM requires some effort instead of just jabbing a finger at the report button in anger.

 

[Trips]

But surely if someone feels so strongly, a DM requires some effort instead of just jabbing a finger at the report button in anger.

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.

Who should they be DM'ing?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Interesting.

A genuine question to you. Do you believe in 'whistle blowing' in the 'real world'?

Yes, but a protected disclosure must meet certain criteria to be afforded any protection.

If you are referring to anonymous whostleblowing, that is not what the report function does as it is not anonymous to the Mods.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

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.

Who should they be DM'ing?

A moderator

 

[Trips]

The report is so much easier. I can just click the link in the report and get to the reported post. Why would I want to trawl through pages of stuff to find it

 

[prawnking]

I don't think it should ever have been raised; it's not something that has any relevance to this IMO.

Tell the mod that raised it, and instantly sullied the process.

I certainly wouldn't be using the report function after that public exposure

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Tell the mod that raised it, and instantly sullied the process.

And, as I repeat, falsely claimed that everyone was on board with the decision, which isn't even close to true.