quote:

Originally posted by Paula C4:
Mods have some very specific training that enables them to tell the difference between humour and libel or defamation. If you think they are erring on the safe side and can give some examples, I can look into this in more detail.

Paula

I can provide some individual details from a list of posts that were quoted to me, given as a reason for me having my account suspended, which when you consider how many posts I have contrubuted and that we are discussing emotive issues just seemed ridiculous to me. My account was only re-opened when I promised not to do it again, but I have to be honest with you I couldn't see what was wrong with many of the posts quoted. I can either quote them here to you or could check them out for yourself with the mods. I used to be a very regular poster, but now I am merely an occasional, because I don't feel as though we are free to express ourselves sensibly anymore. This used to be a lively and intelligent place to discuss topical issues and I can point to precisely when it all changed ans I would gamble good money it coincided with C4 changing the company it employed to do its moderating.

Oh and I too would like to see FatDave back - he was never anything but affable and informative as far as I could see.

The issue I have with the whole procedure of emailing to ask for your account to be re-instated is that it seems entirely automated.

If you take issue with anything on the forum and email the address provided, you're simply given a cut and paste from the T's and C's as a response and if you continue to press the issue, you're simply given another cut and paste from another part of the T's and C's.

If there was a sense of "well we feel you've consistently hijacked threads with off topic remarks" then you'd at least understand why.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Slippy:
The issue I have with the whole procedure of emailing to ask for your account to be re-instated is that it seems entirely automated.

If you take issue with anything on the forum and email the address provided, you're simply given a cut and paste from the T's and C's as a response and if you continue to press the issue, you're simply given another cut and paste from another part of the T's and C's.

If there was a sense of "well we feel you've consistently hijacked threads with off topic remarks" then you'd at least understand why.

I did not get a cut and paste letter when I asked why I was banned.

I've just posted the following on the Big Brother forum.

Last week I was banned for swearing. When you emailed me my list of "transgressions" (all 8 of them harking back to 2006 - good to see Big Brother working well!!) they contained posts that whilst technically containing swear words did not contain the sort of obscenities that most of us would consider offensive. My children use the Shavian adjective and IMO it's no longer considered an obscenity, neither is the Father Ted word or frankly any of the ones I posted

And now gigglejuice has been banned for offensive posting. Little GIGGLEJUICE!! Probably the least offensive and one of the sweetest people I know. She's still waiting to hear what exactly she said that was so utterly shocking.

And yet today's SIT contained a swear word in it's title and that's just been edited and as far as I know profile is still about. Have absolutely no problem with profile at all but just at a loss to understand the reasoning behind this.

As I have said to you previously, if a word is that offensive then why not just block it? You know you can...It's utterly bizarre.Wouldn't it just save a whole heap of trouble to block the words you don't want? I don't use what I consider to be unacceptable swear words here ... but frankly if a post is accepted then it seems to me that the content of that post (in terms of words used, if not the opinion conveyed)is acceptable.

It seems to me that what is and is not acceptable is such a subjective issue I fail to see how you can penalise some of our most inoffensive posters for using words that are not generally considered to be offensive, whilst seeming to overlook the most consistently atrocious behaviour of others.

What exactly are the parameters of behaviour?

I believe the MODs dont even read the thread in question once the report button has been hit half the time.

Last year someone reported a thread to the MODs because they say " Do use the alert button that is present on every post if you think a moderator needs to check the post for any reason. You may think it is offensive, inappropriate or really really funny and want us to have a laugh. (Use the alert button if you think someone is misusing the forum, if you attack back your own account could be bopped by the banstick).

The thread in question was around 14 pages long and side splitting funny and the person thought the MODs would enjoy it as well within a couple of minutes of the person saying they had told the MODs about it pop it had gone.

Can you explain or ask the MODs to explain why they keep records that are so old to use against members surely if the member was that bad they wouldnt need to use outdated posts that are nothing to do with the bopping in the first place.

What zero defects says ^^ is what i'd like to know aswell.

Why when you get banned for something, do C4 email you with a list of posts that have already been used from a previous banning that you've apologised for and been reinstated for?
It's like doing your time in prison for something, and then coming out and getting sentenced again for the exact same incident.

Here's the link guys...

LINK

quote:

This used to be a lively and intelligent place to discuss topical issues and I can point to precisely when it all changed ans I would gamble good money it coincided with C4 changing the company it employed to do its moderating.

I concur.

It appears to me that incidents were dealt with on a case by case basis.

Moderators used to use their own discretion. Now it appears they don't. The moderating is reactive rather than 'policed'.

It wouldn't take more than a minute to skim a thread and get the general 'gist' of the tone...and a few seconds to keep checking back that it isn't getting out of hand.

It now appears that they are letting the users do the moderating for them, anyone complains and its a pulled thread or a bop, whether it's warranted or not.

And as a quick aside, the 'old mods' were more available for discourse regarding all aspects of foruming.

quote:

This used to be a lively and intelligent place to discuss topical issues and I can point to precisely when it all changed ans I would gamble good money it coincided with C4 changing the company it employed to do its moderating.

That would be around the time we lost the 24/7 access, I`ll bet.

Mr C4 Ed

Thank you for "confirming" that AKKcrawley has been banned.

quote:

Originally posted by cariad:
Here's the link guys...

LINK

Just been reading the thread on BBGF, and the reply from the moderation team (which really amounts to a reminder of the rules of the forums ). The thread's been closed, so have had to come over here to express my view..
I think the mods' reply is missing the point a wee bit.. my reading of it is that people are not querying the forum rules, but the way the rules are applied ( or not applied sometimes!) - the approach appears to lack cohesion, consistency and fairness . I understand that mods are party to info that we're not, and that there may be repeat " offences" that result in an account suspension when totalled up, but I think the fact that people are expressing concerns about the equality and fairness of the process warrants a wee bit more of a response than a " here are the rules.. conversation closed" type response?

quote:

Originally posted by karinray:

quote:

Originally posted by cariad:
Here's the link guys...

LINK

Just been reading the thread on BBGF, and the reply from the moderation team (which really amounts to a reminder of the rules of the forums ). The thread's been closed, so have had to come over here to express my view..
I think the mods' reply is missing the point a wee bit.. my reading of it is that people are not querying the forum rules, but the way the rules are applied ( or not applied sometimes!) - the approach appears to lack cohesion, consistency and fairness . I understand that mods are party to info that we're not, and that there may be repeat " offences" that result in an account suspension when totalled up, but I think the fact that people are expressing concerns about the equality and fairness of the process warrants a wee bit more of a response than a " here are the rules.. conversation closed" type response?

yeah that's well said karinray.

The most annoying thing for me is when you e mail the mods to query something and all you get back is the 'standard response' e mail which in no way answers your original question.

Then users get banned for supposedly repeat offenses and get mailed a list of their transgressions going back months, some of which the fm wasn't aware were offenses in the first place.

Paula
Why don't your mods have a policy of emailing users whenever they step over the line so at least an fm would know that they were on a warning.

Why can your mods not respond to a query without lazily sending out a standard response.

Is it not possible for Ch4 to hire mods with a sense of humour - we used to have them.

quote:

Originally posted by Angelus the Vampire:
Mr C4 Ed

Thank you for "confirming" that AKKcrawley has been banned.

Hi Angelus I also asked on here about Akkcrawley but got no answer to my post do you know if he has been banned for good thank you

quote:

Originally posted by wolfram:
At least now there is a viewers ed. taking some interest.

Far too little far too late, wolfram. The C4 forums have even become a laughing stock on other forums. The best forums have named mods with whom users can have regular dialogue. There are no other forums where the mods are less accountable to users than here, and no other mods that are as lazy. I have often had threads which simply report news stories of the day removed even before there have been any responses. When you ask for a response, as others here say, you get either the stock answer or, more often, no answer at all.

It is about time C4 realised these froums or supposed to be run for the benefit of users, not as an ego trip for lazy and incompetent mods.

quote:

Originally posted by Marguerita:

quote:

Originally posted by Angelus the Vampire:
Mr C4 Ed

Thank you for "confirming" that AKKcrawley has been banned.

Hi Angelus I also asked on here about Akkcrawley but got no answer to my post do you know if he has been banned for good thank you

They`ve not said anything officially.

But it deosn`t take a genius to work it out.

If Akk had left of his own accord, then Mr C4 Ed would have come back and told us that akk hadn`t been banned by them.

But their silence on the matter is deafening.

And they seem to have gone back to ignoring everyone else as well.

The last time they replied in here was thursday lunchtime.

Not ignoring.....but listening quite closely


Paula

nuff wimble wamble wat bout us chat refugees????


we demand an answer

bout time we took it 2 our union man !!


dare i say one cud class this as oppression .......


hmmmmmmm......mayb not lol

but u gets my point

*hopes ur listenin 2 me n all....*


we gots rites !!

well dunno bout rites xactly but consideration surely

i mean lets b honest guvnor...the chat refugees were treated appallingly ...no farewell....jus gaaaaaazzzzzzump were refugess wit no home :|

quote:

Originally posted by karinray:

quote:

Originally posted by cariad:
Here's the link guys...

LINK

Just been reading the thread on BBGF, and the reply from the moderation team (which really amounts to a reminder of the rules of the forums ). The thread's been closed, so have had to come over here to express my view..
I think the mods' reply is missing the point a wee bit.. my reading of it is that people are not querying the forum rules, but the way the rules are applied ( or not applied sometimes!) - the approach appears to lack cohesion, consistency and fairness . I understand that mods are party to info that we're not, and that there may be repeat " offences" that result in an account suspension when totalled up, but I think the fact that people are expressing concerns about the equality and fairness of the process warrants a wee bit more of a response than a " here are the rules.. conversation closed" type response?

That's exactly it karin. I don't need to be referred to the forum "rules" like some simpleton - I am querying the manner in which those rules are applied. I cannot see any consistency at all.

I've just seen the list of gigglejuice's transgressions. There are no more than 6 going back to 2006 and they all involve use of the Father Ted word.

I'd have liked to have seen the mods response myself but given that I am gainfully employed during the day it's not always possible for me to access the forum - how bizarre to reply to a legitimate query and then not keep the thread available for the OP to read the response! Maybe a copy of that reply here would assist?