Reporting Posts

[Howe_zat]

Bit of a thread hop here (I think I've said my bit) - but I've just noticed Blaze 18 was brought up.

Now, he was suspected of being this person's multi for a long time before he was caught for good, and it wasn't because people didn't like him - if anything, Blaze 18 was this person's special account for when he wanted to be reasonable. He was suspected because, such as I understand it, he was the only one for whom there was genuine evidence.

I won't name names, but said evidence (I'm told) came from within the mod forum itself, the existence of which soon became widely known. My question is:

1. Why wasn't this enough evidence to ban him?

2. Doesn't this mean there is a distinction between having any evidence and enough evidence for a ban - therefore when mods are saying that mere suspicion isn't enough for a ban, their meaning is actually that slim evidence isn't enough for a ban?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Fmd, I think we're taking this a bit too seriously.

ind33d.

 

[four_or_six]

Bit of a thread hop here (I think I've said my bit) - but I've just noticed Blaze 18 was brought up.

Now, he was suspected of being this person's multi for a long time before he was caught for good, and it wasn't because people didn't like him - if anything, Blaze 18 was this person's special account for when he wanted to be reasonable. He was suspected because, such as I understand it, he was the only one for who there was genuine evidence.

I won't name names, but said evidence (I'm told) came from within the mod forum itself, the existence of which soon became widely known. My question is:

1. Why wasn't this enough evidence to ban him?

2. Doesn't this mean there is a distinction between having any evidence and enough evidence for a ban - therefore when mods are saying that mere suspicion isn't enough for a ban, their meaning is actually that slim evidence isn't enough for a ban?

I'll be completely honest, as far as I am aware with the situation on this one - the evidence that came up against Blaze was lost/not noticed/forgotten about (depending on the moderator), but iirc one mod remebered they'd seen it somewhere and another managed to find it.

All I can speak of completely surely was my own position - I didn't remember ever seeing any. When I looked back wondering why, iirc the evidence had come up during the Ashes and I can only assume I missed it due to some combination of being distracted by the awesome cricket and the deluge of reported posts caused by some ****storms going on at that time.

During my time as a mod, I'm not aware of this situation ever occuring another time, so I would see this as an isolated incident.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I reckon the line between banter and trolling is a pretty difficult one to police in general. I can think of any number of topics that if I posted a jokey post about, half the forum would think it funny and the other half trolling. For example, one person may post " Tendulkar out lbw for 99, wouldn't happen if BCCI weren't such ****'s and accepted DRS, made my day " and another may post "Meaker playing for England? South Africa A more like ". I bet you both posts would be reported for trolling, and if we infracted both posts the people who reported one would be upset about an infraction for the other.

If people wanted more action against Bun's posting, then my personal opinion is that they would have to also accept us being more strict in general about what we accept on the forum. Whether we should or not, well perhaps that's something that needs to be discussed, but I do think we are trying to be consistent.

I think common sense needs to be applied here or else we're heading down the same route that lead Australia to play four seamers at The Oval because it worked at Headingley. What's right for one poster might not be right for another.

I'll attempt to expand; we generally give more benefit of the doubt to people we know than people we don't. If a mate who I've known for years asked me to borrow a hundred quid to tide him over til pay day I'd be far more likely to lend it to him than if some random punter asked me. Same principle on CW: when Murphy posts "run at me" or Spiko "nah, ****" one can be fairly sure their intent is humourous. If some newb responds to a post similarly could we be so sure? Obviously not.

Now I'm all for fairness, but a one size fits all approach will kill whatever's left of the atmosphere here.

 

[four_or_six]

And what if a newbie is just posting the way he sees more established posters posting?

 

[BoyBrumby]

And what if a newbie is just posting the way he sees more established posters posting?

Well that's your job, as a mod, to find out, isn't it?

Apart from anything else it'd be a bit presumptuous; would you not wipe your feet just because the householder didn't?

 

[Furball]

And what if a newbie is just posting the way he sees more established posters posting?

Come off it, we're not 5 years old.

 

[four_or_six]

Well that's your job, as a mod, to find out, isn't it?

Apart from anything else it'd be a bit presumptuous; would you not wipe your feet just because the householder didn't?

No... but if they didn't take their shoes off I wouldn't. And I always take my shoes off when I enter my own house.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No... but if they didn't take their shoes off I wouldn't. And I always take my shoes off when I enter my own house.

Well, fair dos, but you see the general principle, anyway?

I'm not advocating carte blanche for "established" members, just suggesting a bit of common sense.

I know this does happen already and, on occasion have probably been the beneficiary of it myself (noteably when I used a choice Anglo Saxon ephiphet to describe another poster after he'd suggested accusations of racism towards Darrell Hair were fair enough, which looked poor form on my part out of context), but I hope accusations of unfairness from some quarters (Sir, sir, he said it too...) won't put the mod team off.

 

[four_or_six]

Yes, of course, I do understand the general principle. But I think as well as giving leeway sometimes to established members, it's important that new members are given a chance. I'm sure many of us if we look back at how we used to post when first on the forum would see that we have changed for the better in style as well as content. In my personal opinion, the forum is more than cliquey enough already.

 

[Flem274*]

Come off it, we're not 5 years old.

No, 'cos someone told me just recently, they said "Grow up." They said ‘he will knock four times’. And I think I know what that means, and it doesn’t mean right here, right now, ‘cos I don’t hear anyone knocking, do you?

 

[Spark]

Haha I remember that episode. Tennant got so hammy towards the end.

 

[grecian]

No, 'cos someone told me just recently, they said "Grow up." They said ‘he will knock four times’. And I think I know what that means, and it doesn’t mean right here, right now, ‘cos I don’t hear anyone knocking, do you?

WTF you trying to nerd us all out of the thread......

 

[Athlai]

WTF you trying to nerd us all out of the thread......

Almost reported this.

Almost.

 

[Burgey]

Fmd Dr Who. Surely only watched by Poms or wannabe Poms who haven't ever had a root?

Why would you watch it once puberty kicks in? Seriously.

 

[Furball]

Fmd Dr Who. Surely only watched by Poms or wannabe Poms who haven't ever had a root?

Why would you watch it once puberty kicks in? Seriously.

Ah, so that's what the nerds were talking about.

 

[four_or_six]

Fmd Dr Who. Surely only watched by Poms or wannabe Poms who haven't ever had a root?

Why would you watch it once puberty kicks in? Seriously.

Quite.

Especially this weekend onwards... Merlin's back on now. The magic returns!

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Fmd Dr Who. Surely only watched by Poms or wannabe Poms who haven't ever had a root?

Why would you watch it once puberty kicks in? Seriously.

I watch it with my kids. Gone really **** now though.

 

[Burgey]

I watch it with my kids. Gone really **** now though.

You get a parenthood exemption mate, that's fair for all kids' dross TV..

 

[Burgey]

Quite.

Especially this weekend onwards... Merlin's back on now. The magic returns!

Jesus. Next thing it'll be Harry Potter, or fantasy fiction references.

Honestly, is it some fixation with bawdy wenches and handsome heroes? If it is, just watch a Paul Bongiorno and be done with it.