Mitchymo Banned???

[thadjock]

. I think there are two sorts of brave solutions:
1) Mitchymo applies to be reinstated. He presumably needs to say he is sorry that people have got upset over this issue (read the words - this isn't an admission of responsiblity).
2) The mods send Mitchymo an email saying he has been reinstated. It could be a one-liner.
Does anyone really think that Mitchymo coming back would actually cause a problem? If there is reason to think this, well maybe the ban should stand. But otherwise he needs to come back. Not for his benefit or because we like him but because this is needed to demonstrate that the site can move forward and people in the UK and US can work out their differences.

i don't buy into your theory that this is some kind of brit/yank thing

and you can eliminate choice #1) it won't and shouldn't happen.

the mods need to fix their mistake. end of story.

 

[Jason]

You mean the UK Freedom of Information Act would apply even to an internet site?
And not simply to government departments?
I'm really surprised.

There are two bits of interlocking legislation, plus the EU concept of subsidiarity which can apply the decisions of any EU court throughout the EU.

The Data Protection Act (1998) sets out that all individuals have right of access to information which any organisation holds about them. There are a few exceptions, but very few.

The Freedom of Information Act (2000) is set out in terms of freedom to information held by public bodies. It gives a "right to know" what public bodies are doing which goes beyond a right to know only information specifically about the person asking. So for example if you want to know how much a school teacher claimed in expenses for a trip s/he made with pupils you can ask and will be told, down to the last penny and with a full breakdown.

A request for information under either act is termed a freedom of information request. The matter is complicated by the ways in which courts in the UK and in the EU are implementing freedom of information legislation. The interpretation is getting ever broader. Very many private organisations do on occasions receive state money for activities, and thus become subject to the 2000 Act - this much is straightforward. However the UK legislation is a product of an EU directive (1995 I think) which will have produced similar legislation in all EU member states. The concept of subsidiarity means that decisions of courts anywhere in the EU impact on the subsequent decisions of courts throughout the EU. A court in the UK looking at a freedom of information request must look at the UK acts of parliament, but must also look at decisions by other EU courts. This issue is still settling down in the legal process (the Freedom of Information Act didn't actually come into force until 2005, and I think it was later in Scotland).

A website such as LPSG if registered in the UK would certainly be subject to freedom of information requests under the Data Protection Act (1998). It might try to refuse a broader request under the Freedom of Information Act (2000) on the grounds that it is not a public body, but could reasonably have this decision challenged in a court to see if it fits the 1995 EU directive as implemented in all member states. The present rule of thumb seems to be that the concepts set out in the 2000 FofA act are in effect applicable by the courts to private as well as public bodies, though the vast majority of such requests are handled under the 1998 act. There may of course be a contrary requirement to keep data confidential - we have to provide employment for lawyers! But in effect the courts have widened the application of the 2000 act by taking note of the underlying EU concept as applied in all EU states.

Within the UK there is now an assumption that all organisations will be open. I doubt Mitchymo thought about matters in these terms, but he will be familiar with the UK way of doing things and just not comprehend the requirement for secrecy this board appears to be imposing. For example every month we hear the decision of the Bank of England on interest rates, and we are also told the views of each committee member and how they voted. If something like this is not secret, how can deliberations of mods on this board be perceived as secret? From a UK perspective it is laughable, unthinkable. Secrecy is soo last century.

 

[Jason]

the mods need to fix their mistake. end of story.

This would indeed be a solution. From a Brit perspective it does indeed look like a mistake. Perhaps I'm trying to be too sympathetic in suggesting the US cultural position is different.

 

[thadjock]

Perhaps I'm trying to be too sympathetic in suggesting the US cultural position is different.

the predominant US cultural position is: head firmly impacted in ass.

warning: side effects may include cognitive deficit due to oxygen deprivation

 

[Snakebyte]

Secrecy is soo last century.

That's your opinion. Most EU states will disagree. Nobody wants to be a "Gläserner Mensch".

 

[prepstudinsc]

This would indeed be a solution. From a Brit perspective it does indeed look like a mistake. Perhaps I'm trying to be too sympathetic in suggesting the US cultural position is different.

From a US perspective, it looks like a mistake, too.

Although this wouldn't be the first time these moderators and administrators made a mistake. It's time for new Admins as far as I'm concerned.

 

[unique_exposure]

Ok.

Going forward I don't really care if there was a mistake made by either Mitch or mods, there are two opposing views to that, and 17 pages later it doesn't look like an admission is in order on the part of the mods (surprise me). After all is said and done, find a solution which suits both parties. Accomplish that and it shows all parties still advocate some measure of diplomacy.

This needs to move forward.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Let's get some new Admins and new Mods.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

Let's get some new Admins and new Mods.

Hi Prep, would you apply again?

 

[Xcuze]

Hi Prep, would you apply again?

LMAO

Tardy, naughty naughty. :biggrin1:

 

[prepstudinsc]

Hi Prep, would you apply again?

No way!

 

[B_theOtherJJ]

17 Pages ??? Isnt it enuf already.? This issue is debated, dissected, discussed, sliced, diced, argued and beaten to death. Lets leave it, and let it play out however it will.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

LMAO

Tardy, naughty naughty. :biggrin1:

No way!

Sorry Prep, just asking mate, i hope you didn't think i was being sarky.

 

[Jason]

This needs to move forward.

Of course it does. Though I'm guessing the mods need a bit of thinking time.

All the mods have to do to resolve this is send Mitchymo a one line email saying he is unbanned. There has to be a very good reason for them not to do this (more than just hurt feelings or loss of face). Of course it is possible that there really is such a reason in which case they should stick to their position - though they should probably also take on board the need for better communication to express their point of view.

 

[thadjock]

All the mods have to do to resolve this is send Mitchymo a one line email saying he is unbanned.

yup.

lets get crackin mods

rapido por favor!

 

[Pye]

The only Mod Business that was discussed was that some of the Mods were voting by personal feelings and they were not being fair or just.

That is the issue which should be discussed. The Mods were not created to be THE ELITE. Perhaps this is the reason that the Mods/Admin have banned Mitch.

Northland posted a personal experience with an issue he had with the Mods and the entire thread was removed. Why?

Hilaire...I would be more concerned over the fact that some of the Mods can't be impartial and may be reacting with personal vendettas.

It was a HUGE mistake to ban Mitchymo. But what did Mitchymo expect? He stepped down as a Mod and expressed his concern over the Mods actions. Novice has informed us that the Mods must act as one when a percentage has been met...well that shows that the % that Mitchymo showed concern over were able to trump up a bannable offense against him.

The Mods do not need all the power allotted to them nor should they be allowed to act in full secrecy. MANY good people have left this board over the past few years since the Mods have had their reign. I may not be a prolific poster but over the years I have seen some of the best members leave and create their own board.

 

[Mem]

The only Mod Business that was discussed was that some of the Mods were voting by personal feelings and they were not being fair or just.

Which is only his opinion and not a fact. I think they got mad that he said that he and another Mod stepped down due to Princepessa's banning.

 

[Pye]

Which is only his opinion and not a fact. I think they got mad that he said that he and another Mod stepped down due to Princepessa's banning.

No...he said "I disliked Principessa's permanent ban but it was not the tipping point for me, the tipping point was due to the attitudes of a key few of the mods."

 

[Northland]

Northland posted a personal experience with an issue he had with the Mods and the entire thread was removed. Why?

Strangely, they've never answered that one- not even after it was brought up in this thread (I first asked in a PM of the person who told me they'd closed and withdrawn from view that thread, never got an answer).

 

[Drifterwood]

You mean the UK Freedom of Information Act would apply even to an internet site?
And not simply to government departments?
I'm really surprised.

Don't be. That's Horse Manure.