CAN SOME ONE CONTACT ME AND TELL ME WHEN MY OPOINS DON,T COUNT AND WHEN I CAN BE ALLOWED BACK INTO CHAT
You were asked to cool it, and you ignored me. The person you were engaged in a row with respected that request.
You were warned, and you ignored it.
You were warned again, still you ignored.
You continued behaving in a manner which was spoiling other users’ enjoyment of the chat room, so you were removed.
The “kick” facility gives a cooling off period of 20 minutes before allowing you to re-enter.
However, make no mistake, continue down the same lines, and you will be removed from the chatroom again.
If you have a personal grievance to sort out, take it to PM or e-mail. Rikki and myself do not want the sort of behaviour you displayed on our website. Period.
Answered.
carlbrum:
CAN SOME ONE CONTACT ME AND TELL ME WHEN MY OPOINS DON,T COUNT AND WHEN I CAN BE ALLOWED BACK INTO CHAT
hi carlbrum
seems like i,m not the only one eh. word of caution to you m8, say wot ur thinking,speak your mind. dont go along with the general rule of agreeing with the clan, and you get the old black spot on t/net.
as ive found out. they dont like you speaking your mind and not going along with the SHEEP (as ive called them) for obvious reasons.
never in my life have i met (so to speak) a more honest do nothing wrong seat belt wearing none speeders law abiding people as here on t/net.
and here was i thinking they were truck drivers.
some decent sorts i agree, but without naming names, the majority agree with the word, cos…well its the t/net rule these days, you cannot have an opinion and air it without being blackspotted for being a villain or disruptive element…
i will have to stop these rants one day… 
ohterry:
never in my life have i met (so to speak) a more honest do nothing wrong seat belt wearing none speeders law abiding people as here on t/net.and here was i thinking they were truck drivers.
some decent sorts i agree, but without naming names, the majority agree with the word, cos…well its the t/net rule these days, you cannot have an opinion and air it without being blackspotted for being a villain or disruptive element…
Fraid to say i agree with you here but you forgot to mention the turncoats as well
simon
SimonRS2K:
ohterry:
never in my life have i met (so to speak) a more honest do nothing wrong seat belt wearing none speeders law abiding people as here on t/net.and here was i thinking they were truck drivers.
some decent sorts i agree, but without naming names, the majority agree with the word, cos…well its the t/net rule these days, you cannot have an opinion and air it without being blackspotted for being a villain or disruptive element…
Fraid to say i agree with you here but you forgot to mention the turncoats as well
simon
sorry about that si.
oh and not to forget the turncoats aswell
I was going to just ignore this thread, but I’m getting pig sick of the same few people bringing this up time and time again…yet persisting to use the site despite their apparent dislike for it. There are others out there, after all.
The incident refered to by Carlbrum at the top of this thread was quite simple. He came into the chatroom and he and another member had a MAJOR row. It reached a point where no-one else could actually continue to chat…in fact it was so bad that three seperate people phoned/texted my mobile asking me to do something.
I asked BOTH of them, very politely, to take it somewhere else - there is a “private” facility they could use, after all. One of them did as he was asked, Carlbrum did not. He continued to shout everyone else down with a stream of foul and abusive language aimed at the other member. I asked him again. He still ignored me. I then warned him that if he could not control himself or take it to Private, I would remove him from the room. He carried on. So I warned him again. Still he carried on. So I removed him.
The “kick” facility allows the Chatroom Admins (in this case me) to force a chatter to go and cool off - it automatically lets the member back in after 20 minutes. Carlbrum in fact returned after this time was up…only to get kicked again when he did the same thing. 
Now, I’m sorry, but when a member’s actions in chat are affecting the enjoyment of other members to the extent that they phone me up (something ANY member can do, my phone number is all over the site), then I have to do something. And if both polite request and fair warning are ignored, all there is left to do is remove the chatter for a cooling off period.
That would have been the same regardless of who was involved. Just as if Carlbrum had done as he was asked, he would not have been “kicked”. Simple.
As for other biased Moderation, if any of you can find me a single example of this then I will be happy to address the “charge”. Until that happens, then I see no “charge” to answer.
If you don’t like the website, and don’t like the rules under which it is run, then the answer is simple. Go away.
so it is true then, we cannot write an opinion without the above sort of rant then.
i,m a member aswell as the next, and until such time as i,m not, then havent i, aswell as any other member the right to say wot i think.
just because my opinions differ from some doesnt mean i cannot air them at any given time, unless i misread the rules.
since i put my reply to the topic up, ive had 3 emails from members agreeing with most of why i,m not on here much now, simple truth is it aint wot it used to be, though as a current member i will continue to put my views across.
you never know time might come when t/netters enter the real world, then it may become interesting again, so like i say, until such time as i,m not a member here i am.
Thank you for that full explanation Lucy. Too often when such things have blown up I am left wondering what the hell was that all about. It is difficult to understand a situation and banish natural sympathy for an agrieved person such as Carlbrum when not in full possession of the facts.
Information is understanding. Silence is disturbing.
Thanks again,
Salut, David.
No problem David. The reason why these incidents often seem a little mysterious is because we try and deal with issues privately so as to avoid embarrassment for the member. It’s for the same reason that people who are currently under warnings and/or Yellow Cards are not listed in the Public forums. We’re not teachers trying to make an example of schoolkids, after all…no-one is saying that anyone’s behaviour is “wrong” within the context of the real, adult world - it’s just a matter of what we (Rikki and I) find acceptable on what is, after all, our website.
The downside to that respect for our members’ privacy - because that, ultimately, is what it’s about - is that things can seem a little confusing from the outside. But you can always ask the member involved directly what happened, and then contact me if you have concerns about how they have been dealt with.
It’s like the whole thing when people are banned. Unless they have broken the rules to an extent which warrants an instant banning - in which case the reason will be obvious to all - you can be guaranteed that they will have had a whole string of formal and informal warnings… followed by a final warning… then a Yellow Card…and then[/i] usually an extra warning or two, because, hey, no one likes to actually do the banning, all before it actually happens. Just because we don’t make people look prats by doing all this in public, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t happened. And even then they can still apologise and come back once more.
Maybe that’s what we should be asking you guys as members…Would you rather we were one hundred percent transparent and did everything in the public domain, so that you could see how seriously we take even-handedness, consistency, and lack of bias?
I think it would be awful to start haing “public chastisements” like that…but what do you, the members want?
Lucy:
But you can always ask the member involved directly what happened, and then contact me if you have concerns about how they have been dealt with.?
With respect, Lucy, that is not always possible. Two instances which come to mind are Vince and RobK. I still don’t know why either fell foul of the rules and joined in messages of support at the time. If I had known the facts, perhaps I wouldn’t have. In Vince’s case I tried but couldn’t contact him because his details (email) weren’t listed. Can’t remember if I tried Rob though. I think at the time I wasn’t sure if he was the same bloke who had had a run in with the clampers and didn’t want to fire off emails to the wrong person.
As I said above, information is understanding, so yes, I would vote for more transparency. Provided a conduit is open to contact transgressors for the other side of the story. Am I right in thinking that suspension means PMs are not possible?
Salut, David.
Lucy,
Have just noticed the following passage in your last post which I missed originally:
‘Unless they have broken the rules to an extent which warrants an instant banning - in which case the reason will be obvious to all’
This is only obvious to those who were there at the time but to others it depends on whether the offending posts have been removed not.
Just a thought 
Salut, David.
Spardo:
Lucy:
But you can always ask the member involved directly what happened, and then contact me if you have concerns about how they have been dealt with.?
With respect, Lucy, that is not always possible. Two instances which come to mind are Vince and RobK. I still don’t know why either fell foul of the rules and joined in messages of support at the time. If I had known the facts, perhaps I wouldn’t have. In Vince’s case I tried but couldn’t contact him because his details (email) weren’t listed. Can’t remember if I tried Rob though. **I think at the time I wasn’t sure if he was the same bloke who had had a run in with the clampers and didn’t want to fire off emails to the wrong person.**[/u]
As I said above, information is understanding, so yes, I would vote for more transparency. Provided a conduit is open to contact transgressors for the other side of the story. Am I right in thinking that suspension means PMs are not possible?
Salut, David.
[/quote]
David, can you tell me what relevance the highlighted and underscored part has please?
Read again. If it isn’t obvious then you can guarantee they will have had several warnings etc. as explained above.
A thought…if you think going far more public is the way forward, would YOU be happy if you broke the rules through error or whatever (it happens, we’ve all done it, myself and Rikki included. I banned Rikki one night until he apologised like everyone else.), but rather than having a polite and private PM you were publically admonished in a locked forum for all to see?
I say locked forum because, frankly, if anyone seriously expects the staff here to get into a long public discussion about the rules everytime they acted - which is what would happen if such topics were open - then I can assure you we would ALL find that an unreasonable requirement for volunteer staff to follow and quit forthwith. End of website.
Perhaps, just perhaps…it is time that:
- People started accepting that they have to obey the rules that they signed up to by registering.
- They started to have a bit more faith and respect for the judgement of the Staff who are working very hard voluntarily to enable this website to exist so that you can use it.
- They accepted that if someone breaks the rules action will be taken, and that if someone is banned it is with good reason.
- That we don’t actually have to explain ourselves - or indeed have this very Forum for such queries at all - and that sometimes we make the decision that it is more respectful to all not to broadcast details of an incident.
- That actually, what is said between a Mod and a member is no-one else’s business
- And finally, that if they don’t like the site, it’s rules, and the atmosphere we try to maintain here, then the best thing to do is simply not use it!!!
Rob,
Would have thought it was obvious mate, but as it isn’t - I didn’t know you very well at the time and when it came up that you had been banned I only associated the name Rob with the incident where you had been hauled off to the pokey for allegedly trying to run over some clampers. I then asked if it was the same bloke. I then posted in your support. The absence of a smiley or three in your question makes me wonder now if I was right 
.
I see BTW that you do not display your email in your profile. Fair enough, but makes my comment to Lucy about contacting people the more relevant, if, as I suspect, PMs are not possible to a banned member.
Salut, David.
Spardo:
Rob,
Would have thought it was obvious mate, but as it isn’t - I didn’t know you very well at the time and when it came up that you had been banned I only associated the name Rob with the incident where you had been hauled off to the pokey for allegedly trying to run over some clampers. I then asked if it was the same bloke. I then posted in your support. The absence of a smiley or three in your question makes me wonder now if I was right
I see BTW that you do not display your email in your profile. Fair enough, but makes my comment to Lucy about contacting people the more relevant, if, as I suspect, PMs are not possible to a banned member.Salut, David.
I still don’t understand how being carted off to the pokey for allegedly trying to run over some clampers affects your “support” for me with regards to me being banned for a completely separate issue. Can you clarify please Dave?
Rob K:
[
I still don’t understand how being carted off to the pokey for allegedly trying to run over some clampers affects your “support” for me with regards to me being banned for a completely separate issue. Can you clarify please Dave?
For crying out loud, to get it clear in my mind who you were. I’m now beginning to think I still don’t.
Salut, David.
i must admit i do think sometimes there is too much back slapping and everyone jumping on the same band wagon but then thats the way it is. and i accept it.