Following this blog post (comments not apparently enabled) - https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/blog-post/community-notice#comment-form
- can I assume that *removed by mod* will also be rejoining us shortly? Or should he have been insulting AWeb, its moderators or its members publicly elsewhere to qualify? It seems only fair and equitable to let him back, and besides, he was a valued contributor with a great sense of humour.
I note that I'm breaking the rules and have mentioned a banned member, but naturally if I get banned too I'll assume it's acceptable to just come back repeatedly under false names until my suspension is up. And if it's permanent - well I'll just have to keep thinking up new names. Because apparently it's okay to circumvent your ban repeatedly. Or is it only okay for one particular member? It's difficult to tell.
I've never understood this AWeb inability to discuss moderation. If you operate a policy fairly then you have nothing to hide and no reason not to enter into a rational discussion. Refusing to let us talk about it suggests that its a hit and miss, highly biased procedure and based on favouritism. So we'll wait and see if this post gets to stay put and receive answers or whether Those Who Shall Not Be Named, Discussed or Challenged feel the need to remove it.
Replies (28)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I agree, Flash
Looks like I'll be joining you in your ban. To be honest, I'm not that bothered about being member of a forum where rules are flouted for the benefit of one member. In particular, a member who never helped anyone but himself in the first place. Can anyone prove me wrong?
Bye bye everyone.
CD too?
Will our Welsh friend be allowed back too?!
It's about consistency. Either you have rules and apply them across the board, or you don't.
Shirley - you can come back under the name of Shirely instead. Just change your picture.
CD was always entertaining
Will our Welsh friend be allowed back too?!
I do hope so!!!!!!
It's about consistency. Either you have rules and apply them across the board, or you don't.
Couldn't agree more. Looks like all the contributors to this thread will be banned then.........................
Football referees tend not to dissect their decision
Football referees tend not to dissect in public their decisions post match and the FA is not tolerant of those managers that comment on decisions.
However some managers flout these conventions and tell it as it is.
Are either of you, by any chance, the Special One or the Happy One? Surely you are not The Lord Alex ( the man who can start and stop time at will) returned to the fray?
.
Portia as mod might be quite funny, it would be worth stepping out of line just to get the creative put down.
Talking of bans, did my pal Bob get a go on the subs bench? Not seem him around for a couple of months.
All about the value
Portia as mod might be quite funny, it would be worth stepping out of line just to get the creative put down.
Talking of bans, did my pal Bob get a go on the subs bench? Not seem him around for a couple of months.
Perhaps the referee took the opportunity of value refereeing. The ref could possibly extract more value and profit by showing him a yellow?
@ DJKL
Yes but the FA doesn't ban all football fans and commentators from discussing the decisions. And managers do comment on them, just less so when they know the decision was justified!
(Special One? Happy One? You've lost me there. Football references? I'm American Footy myself)
I'd agree with a complete overhaul. And definitely Portia!
Reference to:
Yes but the FA doesn't ban all football fans and commentators from discussing the decisions. And managers do comment on them, just less so when they know the decision was justified!
(Special One? Happy One? You've lost me there. Football references? I'm American Footy myself)
I'd agree with a complete overhaul. And definitely Portia!
There you go then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mourinho
Has a bit of a reputation for on occasion speaking his mind, most entertaining manager going (Except Harry and his canine tax planning- but he has given up )
American Football, is that the game with a pointed rugby ball but they all cover themselves in padding and the smallest sized shirts are XXXL and then they get even bigger?
Bob
Who knows? We're not allowed to ask! You might be breaking the rules by mentioning his name. Or you might be a favourite and be allowed to get away with it. Or he might just be around and quiet.
Circumventing a ban...
by creating alternate accounts is not allowed. If you believe this to be the case, report the member and it will be looked into - this is not a watertight process due to the nature of the internet but we verify members wherever possible and it is feasible to do so. We cannot moderate content that isn't on the site. Members who have been banned can ask for a review once the ban has been served as has happened in this case.
The rule is against discussing moderation in specific cases rather than the process. Discussing individual cases is best done only with the individuals involved as a means to give chance for each member to explain away from the private forum. If this needs addressing and the rules clarified or re-written then that is something we can look into doing to make it clearer. I appreciate that moderation decisions aren't always correct 100% of the time, but when it comes to written word, there is always a judgement call to be made, correctly or incorrectly. As mentioned, if you have any concerns with any particular case please get in touch via email or PM.
Expand please
Please could you expand on this in general principle. In my experience, temporary bans are for at most a few weeks. It would appear that a ban considerably longer than that has been "served". Does this mean there is no such thing as a permanent ban? If not, why not? Members who have been banned can ask for a review once the ban has been served as has happened in this case.
Also, whilst I appreciate
is such content taken into consideration when reviewing whether bans should be lifted? If a banned member has continued to post unacceptable material aimed at AWeb members on other sites, that would seem relevant to such a review. We cannot moderate content that isn't on the site.
Reporting
Dan, come off it. Many members I know, myself included, don’t bother reporting anymore. The reports don’t even get acknowledged.
That's why..
I've been hired on. One of my jobs as community assistant is to make the moderation of the site more manageable. Don't lose faith in the reporting process, we will get to it.
In agreement
I agree with what Dan's said and would like to remind users of one of our community rules:
Sift Media reserves the right to enforce any ban across all of our online publications at the discretion of our moderation team
There are varying levels of bans depending on what rules are broken, etc - ranging from a week to a lifetime. It was at the discretion of the moderators that the member's ban lasted one year and we then reviewed this.
If you have any queries/comments, let us know via [email protected] or private message.
Reports are looked at every day by the moderation team and while not always responded to, are definitely acted on.
@ Rachael
But if someone has a year's ban and comes back onto the site several times during that year under different names (and gets kicked off again eventually) then they've not served a year's ban have they? It should be a year starting from their most recent ejection. Otherwise it's not a punishment at all.
And if you're aware (or it's brought to your attention, with proof) that someone is actively discussing their ban on external sites in a derogatory manner or is being downright rude about AWeb, its mods or its members, then how can that not be relevant and taken into account?
@ Dan - there's always been a ban on discussing moderation in general too.
I hope our welsh friend and 'removed by mod' are reading this under whatever guise and this will mean a return to the fold.
No, no, no, no
I hope our welsh friend ... reading this under whatever guise and this will mean a return to the fold.
Maybe
I hope our welsh friend ... reading this under whatever guise and this will mean a return to the fold.
Maybe he has something to contribute to the site. You might think of those fallen women and brace yourself for a bit of self-sacrifice.
Is that allowed?!
I hope our welsh friend ... reading this under whatever guise and this will mean a return to the fold.
Maybe he has something to contribute to the site. You might think of those fallen women and brace yourself for a bit of self-sacrifice.
What are you suggesting that BKD does as part of his self-sacrifice?!!
A permanent ban can be given if necessary. If a permanent ban is put in place then it may be reviewed after 6 months at request or at any time after at our discretion. It is at the point that we believe an individual has something positive to contribute to the site not to the detriment of the community that we will review access. This may indeed be never. External content may be taken into consideration to aid with the above. If a member is banned and returns to the site under a different name - and this can be proven, or we have enough evidence to suggest this is the case, then the ban will not be reviewed for another 6 months.
@ DJKL
Yes, that's the game. It's where you see one guy looking like a midget on the field next to his team-mates, only to discover that actually he's 6 foot and the rest are seriously big blokes. I think the padding is justified!
Sorry, Andy, but ...
... the individual in question has not convinced me that he has anything to contribute to the site other than lies, threats and abuse. I'm not known for harbouring grudges but I'm more than prepared to make an exception in this case. That's the matter closed as far as I'm concerned.
I understand
But the real question is whether or not the matter is closed as far as Sift is concerned. You and I are mere pawns in the game.That's the matter closed as far as I'm concerned.
Welcome back FT!
This site has been poorer without you. Get posting!
I miss CD but also Angus, especially when he called Paul Scholes "a nasty little gingery git". It was surreal.
We need fewer cliques. They're unhealthy.
Swiss Toni
Come back Swiss Toni. AccountingWEB without you is not like making love to a beautiful woman!
RM
Cliques
I don't think there are cliques on AWeb. But there are a minority of people who claim there are when it suits their purposes - normally when they have one opinion and everyone is disagreeing. It is actually possible for a large number of intelligent adults to share the same opinion, having come to that opinion of their own accord.