I notice that the mods have closed the thread I started for Giancarlo. I have read their answer to it which is fair enough. However, there appears to be a stifling of any debate where the mods are seen to be at odds with the rest of the forum users. We, who use this site and indirectly help pay for it and are the reason it exists and has existed for so long, appear not to able to use it for ourselves. We are being treated like 5 year olds or worse. We don't have a right to a simple warning, just punitive actions.
Giancarlo may have been wrong in his actions, but it wasn't malicious. He was even trying to help a fellow poster. All the mods have to do is delete the post and issue a warning, a yellow card. That gives that person a 'heads up', and less likely to re-offend. Prevention is better than cure.
"Got Blue and Black 'cos I likes to chill..." My Adidas by RunDMC
If this was a state then we would have a right to a justification. As it is it is a business and they are free to do as they pleased within the constraints of the contract and general legality. Democracy doesn't really come into this.
However this is a business and every good business should respond to the needs of its customers/stakeholders. As BnB so rightly points out, our use of this forum generates income for C4. As such I believe that C4 has a moral duty and a financial interest in securing our continues use. Dire moderation is an issue and ther moderators are behaving like facist dictators. Here is a short list of my complaints about moderation. 1) Criticism is not accepted even if it is moderated and justified (in the sense of being substantiated). This point shall almost certainly prove to be ironic as this thread will probably be deleted because of the criticism held herein. 2) There is no transparancy. Users do not know how they are expected to use the forum. There are certain buzzwords which automatically delete the post before it is ever put on the board. This leaves the mods with no chance to recover it. When asked, the mods said that the list of buzzwords cannot be divulged. The buzzwords are not always obvious. 3) Bannings are given too freely. Warnings should be issued.
The incentive to start a renegade forum (easily done for nowt pounds and nowt pence) is growing.
Originally posted by blackandblue: I notice that the mods have closed the thread I started for Giancarlo. I have read their answer to it which is fair enough. However, there appears to be a stifling of any debate where the mods are seen to be at odds with the rest of the forum users. We, who use this site and indirectly help pay for it and are the reason it exists and has existed for so long, appear not to able to use it for ourselves. We are being treated like 5 year olds or worse. We don't have a right to a simple warning, just punitive actions.
Giancarlo may have been wrong in his actions, but it wasn't malicious. He was even trying to help a fellow poster. All the mods have to do is delete the post and issue a warning, a yellow card. That gives that person a 'heads up', and less likely to re-offend. Prevention is better than cure.
Well, thanks to the C4Eds for providing the links (as requested a while ago in a now disappeared thread). The Forum rules appearing in 'help'is not immediately obvious, especially if your use of this site predates the rearrangements when such matters were in the Terms and Conditions, so it's good to be pointed in their direction.
I'd respectfully point out that bits of the Terms and Conditions appear to contradict bits of the forum rules - for instance, the posting of e-mail addresses appears legitimate under the T&C (accompanied by a warning of the dangers of doing this), while in the forum rules, it's clearly not allowed.
Going on to the banning of asterisks to cover profanity (yes, here I go again...) since we're all over 16 now, it does seem rather puritanical to ban asterisks. Agreed, if one letter is starred out then that's pushing it, but a string of asterisks to do nothing other than provide emphasis by hinting at use of a rude word doesn't seem to be a particularly serious offence in 2006 if (I think it was)Nicholas Monserrat was getting away without the Lord Chancellor's department getting apoplectic and banning The Cruel Sea for doing the same 50 years ago.
Also, there's no obvious statement of what counts as swearing and what counts as risque language. When Dave Gorman can safely say a word very similar but not quite identical to 'bullocks' on Radio 4 at 6.40pm on a Thursday evening, it seems a little perverse if that word, partly censored, but used for the same effect (humour) picks up a ban if used here. Likewise, given the level of inuendo and the aural equivalent of asterisks - the bleep, often applied after the necessary syllable has been heard - that can be heard on family TV these days, is this really consistent?
Finally, the point about warnings is not unreasonable. Most other forums I use (in fact, thinking about it, all of them) have a system whereby a user gets a post edited by the Mods with a warning not to repeat, with recividism treated in almost the same way - content of post disappears to be replaced by a 'you were warned, you're barred for [insert period of time if appropriate].
While I welcome the Mod's or Mods' (being a puncuation nazi I have to cover both bases with the apostrophe there) reply, I would urge them to think about being a little more interactive and to communicate with the forum. Otherwise the sense that we're being treated like small children will persist, which isn't good for the forum.
I'd just like to say that I concur wholeheartedly with the views of .Dave.. I tend to think 'live and let live' and that while many members have been banned (including myself) they tend to return. However, it is getting to the stage that all enjoyment of these boards is scuppered by the draconian 'moderation'. This board and the associated subsite are only so popular because of the quality of the posts and the enduring popularity of Italian football. Having ignored the latter for several years, C4 seem intent on killing off the former.
Originally posted by Phonicsdude: ...When asked, the mods said that the list of buzzwords cannot be divulged. The buzzwords are not always obvious. 3) Bannings are given too freely. Warnings should be issued.
The incentive to start a renegade forum (easily done for nowt pounds and nowt pence) is growing.
A list of buzzwords would be handy, but i suppose they cannot list a load of swear words in the 'forum rules' and then ask us not to repeat them. However, my interpretation of a swear word would be different to other peoples.
Anyone have the skills to set up a renegade forum?
I'm offended by the use of the icon I'm scared of , , , and especially
Originally posted by Phonicsdude: ...When asked, the mods said that the list of buzzwords cannot be divulged. The buzzwords are not always obvious. 3) Bannings are given too freely. Warnings should be issued.
The incentive to start a renegade forum (easily done for nowt pounds and nowt pence) is growing.
A list of buzzwords would be handy, but i suppose they cannot list a load of swear words in the 'forum rules' and then ask us not to repeat them. However, my interpretation of a swear word would be different to other peoples.
Anyone have the skills to set up a renegade forum?
I'm offended by the use of the icon I'm scared of , , , and especially
What we could do is devise a secret code using these emoticon things to represent swear words - that goal was offside! But I reckon eventually C4 would set up a crack code breaking team (like the ones during the Second World War) and we'd be rumbled. I wouldn't worry too much about Giancarlo being allowed back, they just make you sit on a virtual naughty step for a few days then let you back, that's what seems to have happened with most people anyway. I don't really know what to make of it all now, I do think no matter how miffed we all get they're not going to change anything so folk should read posts like this and make a note of what we're not allowed to do - but then this post will probably end up deleted soon! Personally I wish they'd put a very short concise banner thread at the top of the forum saying in bullet points what we're not allowed to do - personally I can't stand the idea of going off and reading some long terms and conditions thing just to make sure I don't type where there isn't supposed to be any kids anyway
To be fair, the swearing issue seems only to concern the use of asterisks to block out the word. I've used [censored] instead of asterisks, and this seems to be acceptable, since '[censored]' doesn't hint at what word is being used, leaving it to the reader's imagination. In which case, code would seem a complication.
Unless the mods have missed it and I've just been [censored] lucky until now...
After assuring the mods I wouldn't post another like the one I was banned for, I have been allowed back in. Thanks for the "support" during my 2 day absence.
I have inlcuded the text that was e-mailed me in hope that it saves someone else from getting suspended:
quote:
GIVING OUT PERSONAL CONTACT INFORMATION We’re sorry but, for your own safety, we do not allow users to give out any kind of personal contact information or anything that would enable another forum user to find out who you are/where you live. This includes msn IDs, email addresses, phone numbers, exact places of work etc. You may think you know the people you are chatting to on the forum, but you do not know the many thousands of casual guests who wander the forums and can read what you post.
Glad to be back
ONCE I LIVED IN CAPITALS, MY LIFE INTENSELY PHALLIC. but now i'm sadly lowercase with the occasional italic.
This is, I'm afraid, a classic example of over-reaction. Chop the post, paste the "we're sorry, but for your own safety..." bit and move on. If the user does it again in wilful disobedience of the regs, then fair enough, a ban's not unreasonable (harsh, yes, unfair, no).
So we get suspended for our own saftey. What a splendid public service by C4, protecting us timid little foro users.
I'm reassured that should I, aged 34 and with an IQ higher than plant life (albeit only just), make the conscious decision to give out my exact place of work (known to at least five forum users and easily guessed by anyone who pays attention and uses a degree of logic), C4 will ban me to save me from the prospect of a slightly nutty casual foro user tracking me down and endangering my safety.
Well, endangering me once they've got past the men equipped with assault rifles and the odd Heckler und Koch MP7 sub machine gun guarding the gate at work, that is.
So forgive me for being slightly underwhelmed by the notion that should I choose to give out my personal info on the web, C4 will swing into action to protect me by telling me I'm a very naughty boy who won't be allowed to use the forum until I humbly apologise for putting myself at risk. <Sigh>.
Originally posted by .Dave.: Well, endangering me once they've got past the men equipped with assault rifles and the odd Heckler und Koch MP7 sub machine gun guarding the gate at work, that is.
.
, 
, 
, 
and especially 
where there isn't supposed to be any kids anyway
