|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 4, 2012 10:41:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 4, 2012 10:54:05 GMT -5
Complaints about the moderation following on from the moderator's tacit approval of a poster having two identities for well over a year.
Said poster was defended by some (the usual suspects who defend the trolls and WUMs on the board).
|
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 4, 2012 11:25:30 GMT -5
Cheers for that. I have to say, mind, that's fairly small beer compared to some of Tayler's actions over the last year or so...
|
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 4, 2012 13:52:00 GMT -5
P.S. I thought Wayne Fountain's obsessive whinging about the Admiral's post to CCT was/is quite ridiculous. I 'catpeed' the last, #337, myself but CCT soon came back to say it doesn't contravene House Rules. 'Course, not disruptive at all, is it..?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 4, 2012 17:38:29 GMT -5
I feel like I may have been a little hasty reporting Wayne Fountain's post/s (you can only specify a single post, but I said it was the last of a line of nasty comments), considering the talk of medical conditions.Not that they weren't nasty, and not being able to help it shouldn't really be a defence in my view, but it's something that needs to work itself out, I guess.
Still, catch many other moderators saying they were wrong (not that I get much chance to mod posts unfairly here...)
As for #356, and self-moderation (it may have become apparent to those who didn't already know that I can't post on the Beeb boards because of Nasty Nick Reynolds), the problem with that is what I've said before, people react badly to getting power most of the time. Take Smeesue, for example, who comes across as quite reasonable but conspires (and I don't think that's too strong a word) with other board owners to share the IP addresses of those they individually regard as problem posters, so that a person can be banned before they even join a board (source: Gavin's Station).
Too much moderation, too little... It's hard to find the happy apple.
|
|
|
|
Post by A guest on Jan 4, 2012 17:53:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't beat yourself up too much, re the catpeeing. Objective self-diagnosis of mental illness? Yer 'avin' a laugh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 5, 2012 2:57:40 GMT -5
The mental illness card is mis-used by many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 5, 2012 9:06:36 GMT -5
Again, cheers for that. Here's one for the 'Simple set of rules' thread, in light DragonFluff's contribution... Don't delete your posting history after every single post, it looks deranged. The world won't cave in because someone spots a contradiction with one of your other comments. And, 'stay banned' when a ban is not justified, and the CCT won't listen to your arguments against it? Until around April, every time a user had a post removed, for whatever reason, including quoting something from another post which was removed, the email from the BBC would contain the line, 'Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.' They would then claim that this qualified as repeated warnings of the consequences of breaking those House Rules. No-one should accept the yoke of Nick Reynolds (Accountability Executive, if you will) and Tempero, just because the BBC wants to save money. |
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 5, 2012 21:48:12 GMT -5
Frankly, if anyone on this page is in danger of being stalked, it's Benedict Cumberbatch (how great was 'A Scandal In Belgravia'?): www.liberty842.com/who-we-are/ |
|
|
|
Post by Feta on Jan 6, 2012 10:10:12 GMT -5
I see that Birdy still had the 'action against their account' warning on his email from CCT. Someone should warn him that they're setting him up for a ban. I guess they had the full tally for me already, last April...
And really, is it so surprising that spats move to other boards when the spats are about moderation, and not being allowed to discuss it on TOS?
|
|
