Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Daisy, Dec 20, 2010.
WTF? I dont see anything in moderator actions??
I'm very curious about mitchymo.....
I noticed too.
What the hell!!.....
I guess we'll have to wait for the Moderator Action thread to be updated but I doubt that'll shed any significant light on the issue.
I noticed and wondered what was going on too. I wanted to show him my vertical tinsel!
Oh lord, not again!
Oh no! Wonder why?!
I know he luvs a bit of mod-bashing, but hadn't seen anything untoward lately. Booo.
I assume this is a joke. By the way it's not funny.
Unfortunately, it's not a joke. Well, at least in the ha ha sense :frown1:
I just hope that it can all be straightened out. It's a shame when a fun and productive member is taken away.
It's been long enough that I'm surprised it wasn't on the list yet
Booo is right!
Still nothing in the Moderator Actions thread...
I'm sure there is a good reason for it. They just don't ban members for the hell of it. It's a very unpleasant task to begin with.
Always pleasant when someone sticks up for us...
I'm sure the Moderator Actions thread will be updated shortly - it's not updated per banning, otherwise our admins would never log off! Haha... just kidding. I promise you that we don't ban for no reason. Just because people can't physically see what happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
So... members can be banned for "private" conversations?
More than enough time to post why mitchymo was banned.
The Moderators have a difficult job to do, and as this site runs well it seems that they do their job well. The internet convention of a moderated board is that those who use the board in effect agree that the moderators have power to act. Almost always we are all pleased that the moderators get on and ban people who have to be banned.
I wonder if in this case the moderators are making a rod for their own back. No they don't have any obligation to tell us promptly the reason for any banning, but maybe when a ban has generated a thread (as in this case) it would help everyone. Right now we are left with speculation. Mitchymo's posts appear to be in keeping with the terms of this board (at least as far as I can see - maybe I've missed something). Are we to assume he's been banned for a private message to a member or moderator? Now of course this might indeed be an appropriate reason for a ban, but its a bit unusual. Often it would seem to make sense for members to conduct their spats in private rather than on the public board.
It would be really appreciated if the moderators would communicate with members on this one. Otherwise we're waiting for Wikileaks to reveal all - or for some future disgruntled moderator to tell us all.
Within the UK university system students can and do email the most outrageous things to their lecturers, rarely with any sanction from the university. The idea is that lecturers are professionals and have thick skins. There is a realisation that people get angry and blow up. In the UK about 12% of students have declared mental health problems (yes I was stunned at this) and easily a third more have occasional anger management issues, often linked with alcohol and drugs. The bottom line is that however unpleasant it may be we have to tolerate some bad bahaviour. If perhaps Mitchymo has written something outrageous to a moderator - I'm only guessing - then just maybe the moderators need to apply some compassion. This board is dealing here with a long-term member and prolific poster who seems sufficiently hooked on the board to come back both from a ban and a "resignation". Clearly lpsg means something to Mitchymo.
Of course I may well be off the mark - we just don't know what has happened.
Yes, you can get banned for consistent harassing PMs if a receiver of them complains, or for breaking other rules. Usually mods will warn us privately if we went too far and give us a chance to go away and cool off or apologize though.
Pecker may have been asleep when the ban happened, but he's in charge of the updates.
I love both these males opworm:
Previously Mitchymo and another member got into an altercation which got out of hand. After due consideration both were told to ignore each other and make no reference to each other in any way on the boards.
In a recent thread Mitchymo made two posts regarding this other member. The other member replied basically saying not to mention his name as per the instruction previous issued by the Mod team. Mitchymo then reported that post stating the other member had broken the agreement.
The team after lengthy discussion decided that Mitchymo had gone against the agreement and the that response from the other member was not unreasonable. Both members had agreed to adhere to this instructions and knew what the consequences would be for breaking it.
The Mod thread will be updated in due course however I felt it prudent to post this factual explanation to avoid speculation.
Thanks for the explanation, personally I'm glad that the Mod team exists and have enforcement rational as they assisted me in resolving a situation that I raised re racism/racist comments from an ex LPSG member.
But damn, sometimes some of it's members remind me of the worst aspects of growing up - the taunts, the snarkiness, the one-upmanship mentality and worst of all - the insider cliques. Allow me to be a Pollyanna and say can't we just co-exist nicely?
I have a question.
How long do those insturctions last? I thought that such instructions are a LPSG myth. A member some time ago told me he was forbidden to address another member he had feuds in public here!
And I was like- I don`t buy this shit! But it seems it`s possible???
It's not something that happens very often at all and really is a last resort. I can think of only 3 occasions off the top of my head where this has been applied. As for how long it lasts, it's permanent unless there is a discussion to change it.