Unreserved Apology To GoodGurl

[Chewbacka]

It does seem to be taking off into a proper forum. I was very pleasantly surprised the last time I looked. Good work over there.

 

Perhaps joining there is more likely than hoping for ex members to be invited back.

 

Rog

I suspect not many would wish to return. Forums do change members over time, some get bored and drift away, some jump and some pushed.

Rather than trying to recreate the 'good old days' which at times were not that good, we should take the 'improvements' Dan will no doubt introduce over the coming days and all look to get the forum looking forward and making the forum an interesting, stimulating and informative place that we will all enjoy using.

 

Added a couple of missing letters - fat finger trouble

Edited October 26, 2016 by Chewbacka

[Victor Vectis]

I have said before, I was part of this group and I have said before the chat was created to help support a friend who became a mod, as a sounding board, no more no less, think of a chat in the pub, at no point was Dan/lady Muck or the rest of the mods aware and no one presented a hit list to Dan, as far as I am aware.

 

In all honesty we also spoke about tiling a kitchen, and the best sort of grease to use on a cybermans joints and much other silliness.

 

The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion but as I've said much of this before and no one wanted to believe me and seemed to be happier to run with conspiracy theories I gave up.

Hear hear, and well said that monkey oops sorry, man.

[Guest]

It does seem to be taking off into a proper forum. I was very pleasantly surprised the last time I looked. Good work over there.

Perhaps joining there is more likely than hoping for ex members to be invited back.

Rog

Some members who were banned from here have actively said that they wouldn't return even if their ban was lifted. So even if they were invited back I think it would be fruitless.

 

There have also been some recent significant additions in the membership bolstering the potential for technical advice too.

 

Ed - just noticed Nick has said much the same already.

Edited October 26, 2016 by MJG

[DHutch]

If there are banned members who would like to be considered for re-application to Canal World I am happy to discuss this with the member in question on a case by case basis.

 

They can contact me, as always, using the email address sitehost@canalworld.net and I will review the reasons for the ban with the other site staff and the forum records and consider the options.

 

I do not visit Thunderboat often, however I happy for the above to be shared on that forum.

 

 

Daniel

Edited October 26, 2016 by DHutch

[Guest]

If there are banned members who would like to be considered for re-application to Canal World I am happy to discuss this with the member in question on a case by case basis.

 

They can contact me, as always, using the email address sitehost@canalworld.net and I will review the reasons for the ban with the other site staff and the forum records and consider the options.

 

 

 

Daniel

I believe some banned members cannot even visit this site ?? Their IP address has been blocked.

 

The wording has however been posted in a place where they might actually see it.

[DHutch]

I believe some banned members cannot even visit this site ?? Their IP address has been blocked.

 

The wording has however been posted in a place where they might actually see it.

 

 

Thank you for sharing my post Martin, I have added a line to the above post.

 

 

Daniel

[GoodGurl]

If there are banned members who would like to be considered for re-application to Canal World I am happy to discuss this with the member in question on a case by case basis.

 

They can contact me, as always, using the email address sitehost@canalworld.net and I will review the reasons for the ban with the other site staff and the forum records and consider the options.

 

I do not visit Thunderboat often, however I happy for the above to be shared on that forum.

 

 

Daniel

are you openly admitting that you or your mods were wrong to ban these people?

[Guest]

Thank you for sharing my post Martin, I have added a line to the above post.

 

 

Daniel

I can't take any credit for sharing it. Somebody else did.

I just subsequently added a link for those that can still visit here.

[DHutch]

are you openly admitting that you or your mods were wrong to ban these people?

No I am not, absolutely totally not.

 

 

 

I can't take any credit for sharing it. Somebody else did.

I just subsequently added a link for those that can still visit here.

Fair enough.

 

Daniel

[GoodGurl]

 

No I am not, absolutely totally not.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Daniel

if it wasn't wrong to ban them then why are you willing to have them back, is this to save face.

[DHutch]

if it wasn't wrong to ban them then why are you willing to have them back, is this to save face.

 

I have not said I am 'willing to have them back' at all.

I said that if members wish to be considered for a repeal of their ban, I am happy to discuss this on a case by case basis via email.

I am also happy to discuss the reason for a member being banned with them, via email, if they feel they did not get suitable explanation at the time.

 

This has in effect always been the case, as the site email address is when know, and while I am not perfect I aim to reply to all emails sent to it.

 

 

I am just trying to be open and reasonal. Please do not attack me for this.

 

 

 

 

Daniel

[GoodGurl]

 

I have not said I am 'willing to have them back' at all.

I said that if members wish to be considered for a repeal of their ban, I am happy to discuss this on a case by case basis via email.

I am also happy to discuss the reason for a member being banned with them, via email, if they feel they did not get suitable explanation at the time.

 

This has in effect always been the case, as the site email address is when know, and while I am not perfect I aim to reply to all emails sent to it.

 

 

 

Daniel

ok but if it was me that was banned i certainly wouldn't grovel to come back to be refused at will.

[Paul Evans]

if it wasn't wrong to ban them then why are you willing to have them back, is this to save face.

 

I regard Dan's willingness to review a ban as akin to the parole board considering whether a properly convicted and sentenced prisoner should be released on licence. I'm of the view that we all need to move on and away from the past and I see Dan's offer as a positive step forward.

[David Mack]

I believe some banned members cannot even visit this site ?? Their IP address has been blocked.

 

Can they not even view the forum as a guest?

[DHutch]

ok but if it was me that was banned i certainly wouldn't grovel to come back to be refused at will.

 

We all have to make our own choices. A requirement to grovel was not mentioned by me.

 

 

I regard Dan's willingness to review a ban as akin to the parole board considering whether a properly convicted and sentenced prisoner should be released on licence.

I'm of the view that we all need to move on and away from the past and I see Dan's offer as a positive step forward.

 

Exactly, all I am trying to do is the best by the member past and present, and to move forwards from where we are. Thanks.

 

 

 

Daniel

 

[GoodGurl]

Can they not even view the forum as a guest?

not if their IP's were banned, as some were so harshly banned and that was applied.

[billS]

So, just to be clear, all of the banned members were banned in accordance with the forum rules as published at the time. Is that correct?

[DHutch]

I believe some banned members cannot even visit this site ?? Their IP address has been blocked.

Can they not even view the forum as a guest?

 

In extreme cases where external spammers or banned members have repeatedly created new or duplicate accounts with the primary or sole intention of causing trouble on the forum in retaliation to the ban or otherwise, we have blocked specific IP addresses or very small ranges from being able to register a new account, to protect the site from this attack.

As far as I am aware we have not banned any IP addresses from accessing the site to view it or sign in using an existing account, however if this is not the case I will look into this.

 

Daniel

[Guest]

Can they not even view the forum as a guest?

My understanding is if your IP address is blocked then no. I believe some cannot even see the forum as a guest so I am making an assumption that this is what has happened.

 

You are greeted with 'You do not have permission to visit this community' or a similar message.

[DHutch]

So, just to be clear, all of the banned members were banned in accordance with the forum rules as published at the time. Is that correct?

Yes. Without exceptions.

 

 

Daniel

[mayalld]

 

I have not said I am 'willing to have them back' at all.

I said that if members wish to be considered for a repeal of their ban, I am happy to discuss this on a case by case basis via email.

I am also happy to discuss the reason for a member being banned with them, via email, if they feel they did not get suitable explanation at the time.

 

This has in effect always been the case, as the site email address is when know, and while I am not perfect I aim to reply to all emails sent to it.

 

 

I am just trying to be open and reasonal. Please do not attack me for this.

 

 

 

 

Daniel

 

I don't actually see it that way, if you will allow me to elaborate;

 

First off, I see no mileage in the current "bangate" hysteria. Yes, people talked about how nice it would be to just rid the forum of its "turbulent priests". Yes, they made suggestions as to persuading you that you should do this. But none of that adds up to much more than people chewing the fat about what they would like to do if they were in charge. As my grandma used to say "If I were a policeman...."

 

Secondly, I actually think that a significant number of those banned during the purge had at various times been acting in a way that was detrimental to the forum, and action had been needed. However the action taken didn't match what was required.

 

Bans for those who weren't actually posting at the time were silly, and lifetime bans are almost inevitably intended as a penalty rather than a measure to cool a situation and protect the forum.

 

Frankly, the purge was something that stirred up more inter-forum wars on [the forum that we can apparently now name]. It caused more problems than it solved.

 

There was a problem, people were unhappy, and you don't actually make people happy by telling them to shut up about being unhappy. You can't even shut them up, because there are other places where the mod's writ doesn't run.

 

As an exercise in conflict management, it could be taken as a textbook example of how NOT to do it.

 

It isn't beyond salvage, but it is getting that way, and a way forward is needed. Saying that people can ASK to be reinstated isn't going to cut it. They have, from their viewpoint, been badly treated. Why would the beg those who treated them badly to come back? You may say that you aren't asking people to grovel, but it amounts to the same thing in practice.

 

I would suggest that you sign up to the following;

 

• Those who were banned had at some time done things either on or off the forum that warranted action being taken.
• In some cases the time that elapsed between the poor behaviour and the ban meant that the ban served no useful purpose.
• Whilst it seemed proportionate at the time, a lifetime ban was seldom actually necessary.
• ALL bans that took place during this time will be proactively reviewed over the course of a few months.
• Anybody who wants to be reviewed more rapidly can ask.

[Alan de Enfield]

So, just to be clear, all of the banned members were banned in accordance with the forum rules as published at the time. Is that correct?

 

Yes. Without exceptions.

 

 

Daniel

 

When you said " I will review the reasons for the ban with the other site staff" you did not mean that you would actually review the reasons for the ban, you actually meant that if the banned members wished to re-apply for membership their previous behaviour would be taken into account.

 

If the rules 'at the time' were justifying their banning, what rules have changed, that have relaxed anything, which means that you would now consider their membership ?

[DHutch]

I don't actually see it that way, if you will allow me to elaborate;

 

First off, I see no mileage in the current "bangate" hysteria. Yes, people talked about how nice it would be to just rid the forum of its "turbulent priests". Yes, they made suggestions as to persuading you that you should do this. But none of that adds up to much more than people chewing the fat about what they would like to do if they were in charge. As my grandma used to say "If I were a policeman...."

Secondly, I actually think that a significant number of those banned during the purge had at various times been acting in a way that was detrimental to the forum, and action had been needed. However the action taken didn't match what was required.

Bans for those who weren't actually posting at the time were silly, and lifetime bans are almost inevitably intended as a penalty rather than a measure to cool a situation and protect the forum.

 

Frankly, the purge was something that stirred up more inter-forum wars on [the forum that we can apparently now name]. It caused more problems than it solved.

There was a problem, people were unhappy, and you don't actually make people happy by telling them to shut up about being unhappy. You can't even shut them up, because there are other places where the mod's writ doesn't run.

As an exercise in conflict management, it could be taken as a textbook example of how NOT to do it.

 

It isn't beyond salvage, but it is getting that way, and a way forward is needed. Saying that people can ASK to be reinstated isn't going to cut it. They have, from their viewpoint, been badly treated. Why would the beg those who treated them badly to come back? You may say that you aren't asking people to grovel, but it amounts to the same thing in practice.

I would suggest that you sign up to the following;

• Those who were banned had at some time done things either on or off the forum that warranted action being taken.
• In some cases the time that elapsed between the poor behaviour and the ban meant that the ban served no useful purpose.
• Whilst it seemed proportionate at the time, a lifetime ban was seldom actually necessary.
• ALL bans that took place during this time will be proactively reviewed over the course of a few months.
• Anybody who wants to be reviewed more rapidly can ask.

 

Thank you for taking the time to post the above, let me try and reply to it.

 

Your reading of 'bangate' is as per my own and as you suggest,I think its fair to say that a significant majoirty of the members understand that action was needed, to avoid detriment to the forum. The level of action required in each specific case is to an extent always something which could be debated, however members also need to consider that not all of the members banned where banned for their conduct on the public board. Members have also been banned for personal attack on moderators following lesser action or otherwise, as well as for continued abuse of the mod-que system, where large volumes of inapprpate posts where posted to the forum but never seen by the public, leading to otherwise lesser or short-term action being exculated to a ban after the last public content was posted.

 

All of the site staff, myself included, run the staff as volenteers and in many cases are not formally trained in, for instance, conflict managment. As such it is not perfect, and I will hold my hand up to that, we do the best we can with the resource we have. If where where a commertial site staff would go on paid training courses in all sorts of things, we are not.

 

You have worded it better than I have, however it is my intention over the next few weeks to review all banned members banded around the time we are talking about, if only for my own peice of mind.

I have a significant list of things I would like to review over the coming months, and am working through it as best I can in the pockets of time I have avilable to do so, around my wider lift outside of the site.

 

 

Daniel

[Dave Payne]

^well said.

[DHutch]

When you said " I will review the reasons for the ban with the other site staff" you did not mean that you would actually review the reasons for the ban, you actually meant that if the banned members wished to re-apply for membership their previous behaviour would be taken into account.

 

If the rules 'at the time' were justifying their banning, what rules have changed, that have relaxed anything, which means that you would now consider their membership ?

 

Would you suggest the members previous behaviour was not taken into account when reviewing the possibility reducing the duration of a ban?

 

- There has been no significant change to the site rules, which would affect the review process.

 

 

Daniel