Oh God Almighty...

[Sanz]

You disappoint me GIMH.

 

[GIMH]

why?

 

[Sanz]

Well I was expecting you to protest Richard's ban and raise a ruckus in here.

 

[GIMH]

I've only ever done that once

 

[Pratters]

I am really curious. What has Richard done wrong? What forum rules has be broken?

 

[GIMH]

Banned for a week. Consistently ignoring the requests and warnings of moderators.

There you go Pratters

 

[Pratters]

Warnings for breaking which rules? Give me a few examples please. Three at the very least I would imagine for a ban.

 

[duffer]

Thank you for the well defined acceptance criteria Pratters.

 

[GIMH]

@ duffer

Here's one example for you Prat http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/members/richard.html#vmessage3961

 

[Pratters]

He debated with moderators. There is nothing wrong with it IMO. Again I say what Andy C says, every one has a right to question things as long as you are not breaking forum rules.

 

[Pratters]

I would just like to say I am pretty shocked that more people haven't questioned Richard's banning. It is quite ridiculous IMO. He might not give in in an argument but he is as gentlemanly as one can be. I'll end it there.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Brumby posted a couple of weeks back saying he received an email from the mods RE his attitude to Richard IIRC

Indeed so; from the boss fella himself, no less.

Didn't even realise Richard had been banned until Volty mentioned in in this thread, tbh.

 

[andyc]

Pratters, on the whole dscussing moderating issue, we have no issue with members discussing why they've been warned or banned, but as we've said many times, it should be done offsite, via reporting the post or emailing us at moderators@cricketweb.net. Otherwise it takes the thread off topic and can create a whole lot of public animosity.

The ban wasn't issued because he was simply disagreeing with our decisions, it was because he would publicly announce that the decisions or warnings were wrong and then carry on regardless. There's no doubt to I'm sure all the posters on CW, especially those on the mod team, that Richard's a highly valued member and so I assure you that the decision wasn't taken lightly. It was discussed for a long time before he was actually banned, during which time he was warned multiple times, but kept doing the same thing.

 

[Furball]

He debated with moderators. There is nothing wrong with it IMO. Again I say what Andy C says, every one has a right to question things as long as you are not breaking forum rules.

Pratters, you're missing one very important point here.

When a moderator tells you to stop doing something, like accusing people of being multis, it is not a request. If the poster chooses to ignore what the mods have said and carries on posting in the same manner, they will be warned. If they continue to ignore what is being said, they will be banned.

 

[Pratters]

Andy, thanks for that response. It is reassuring it was thought over considerably. We lost one member because of banning when C_C was banned and he was a very good contributor despite being controversial IMO. It is a big thing to ban a member. No one should be allowed to break rules though regardless of how experienced a member is though obviously. Again, I don't agree with the ban but as it was discussed for a fair period and was a 'unanimous' decision, the procedure carried out to enfore the ban was at least very much fair.

 

[Pratters]

Pratters, you're missing one very important point here.

When a moderator tells you to stop doing something, like accusing people of being multis, it is not a request. If the poster chooses to ignore what the mods have said and carries on posting in the same manner, they will be warned. If they continue to ignore what is being said, they will be banned.

That's some thing which is assumed I would think. You don't keep repeating breaking rules which moderators tell you not to break. I just haven't seen the rules Richard has broken pointed out. Debating with mods on site which Andy said is not a huge breaking of rule IMO. I wasn't even aware it isn't allowed. If you are warned in a thread, you should be able to protest in the same thread IMO.

EDIT - Rules are rules though. So if there was indeed a rule not to debate with mods on the site (I would like to see it pointed out if possible), it is fair enough he was banned as he did break that rule even though I don't agree with this rule.

I broke a rule on this site once by making my personal angsts against Sanz visible in a very negative way which Clapo deleted. That's the only time I have broken a rule thinking I might be stepping over the line on this site in my 5 years here but that doesn't mean I should be exempted from site rules.

 

[GIMH]

Andy, thanks for that response. It is reassuring it was thought over considerably. We lost one member because of banning when C_C was banned and he was a very good contributor despite being controversial IMO. It is a big thing to ban a member. No one should be allowed to break rules though regardless of how experienced a member is though obviously. Again, I don't agree with the ban but as it was discussed for a fair period and was a 'unanimous' decision, the procedure carried out to enfore the ban was at least very much fair.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/1235295-post185.html

 

[fredfertang]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/1235295-post185.html

Now I am convinced there is only one poster who has such an encyclopaedic knowledge of ancient posts

So Mr Corryn, at risk of being disciplined myself, I put it to you that you are Richard's multi?

 

[GIMH]

no comment

 

[BoyBrumby]

Now I am convinced there is only one poster who has such an encyclopaedic knowledge of ancient posts

So Mr Corryn, at risk of being disciplined myself, I put it to you that you are Richard's multi?

Lol.

But he did always defend Richard...Oh God Almighty*, it all fits!

*see what I've done there?