UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Welcome to the UK Justice Forum => Admin introduction, forum rules, colours and requests for documents and photos. => Topic started by: G-Unit on August 18, 2017, 12:49:19 PM
-
If you see something that you believe breaks the rules there's a 'report to moderator' link provided. Alternatively you can pm admin. If you feel you have been unfairly moderated you are free to raise that with admin also.
Publicly posting your opinion won't achieve anything because nobody knows what you mean. I recommend using the officially provided channels if you have a complaint.
36
-
If you see something that you believe breaks the rules there's a 'report to moderator' link provided. Alternatively you can pm admin. If you feel you have been unfairly moderated you are free to raise that with admin also.
Publicly posting your opinion won't achieve anything because nobody knows what you mean. I recommend using the officially provided channels if you have a complaint.
Thank you for your advice. I am sure it is well meant but I have tried those avenues of approach.
You will possibly disagree with me that the moderation is rather unfair against the supporters but posters who leave have not "spat out their dummies".
They are genuinely frustrated at the path the forum is going down.
I know I am.
-
Thank you for your advice. I am sure it is well meant but I have tried those avenues of approach.
You will possibly disagree with me that the moderation is rather unfair against the supporters but posters who leave have not "spat out their dummies".
They are genuinely frustrated at the path the forum is going down.
I know I am.
If you post within the rules you can't be penalised, no matter what your stance. If you prefer to ignore the rules your complaints will not be satisfied. It's really not difficult!
-
Thank you for your advice. I am sure it is well meant but I have tried those avenues of approach.
You will possibly disagree with me that the moderation is rather unfair against the supporters but posters who leave have not "spat out their dummies".
They are genuinely frustrated at the path the forum is going down.
I know I am.
Some days you will be the bug somedays you will be the windshield.
Roll with it, accept the forum for what it is.
Two posters in recent times have spat their dummies out after running unsuccessful vendettas against some moderators.
It is not real life it's an internet forum. If you don't like it find another one you do not have to remain under sufferance you have free will presumably?
-
If you post within the rules you can't be penalised, no matter what your stance. If you prefer to ignore the rules your complaints will not be satisfied. It's really not difficult!
I do post within the rules.
I do not ignore the rules but keeping strictly within those guidelines seems to be a straight jacket only laced on one side of the debate.
Anyway enough said.
-
Some days you will be the bug somedays you will be the windshield.
Roll with it, accept the forum for what it is.
Two posters in recent times have spat their dummies out after running unsuccessful vendettas against some moderators.
It is not real life it's an internet forum. If you don't like it find another one you do not have to remain under sufferance you have free will presumably?
Thank you for your advice.
The latter may be an option.
-
I don't know what the fuss is about. I think I usually manage to get my points across and stay within the rules.
Most posters do and that is why unusual activity/disruption is easily identified.
-
Thank you for your advice. I am sure it is well meant but I have tried those avenues of approach.
You will possibly disagree with me that the moderation is rather unfair against the supporters but posters who leave have not "spat out their dummies".
They are genuinely frustrated at the path the forum is going down.
I know I am.
Could that be because the tide has turned with the SC ruling and the impending closure of the SY investigation? I have certainly noticed a lemming mentality recently with several supporters effectively committing forum suicide. Its a true saying, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
-
Most posters do and that is why unusual activity/disruption is easily identified.
The problem may lie within the sphere of not so much unusual activity or disruption but rather when that can be looked at as being the norm and when it is a complaint being voiced and ultimately being acted upon by the resignation of those feeling abused.
Whether they are right or whether they are wrong ... it cannot be denied that one side of an admirable forum which prides itself on diversity are voting with their feet. I think there is something wrong with that.
-
The problem may lie within the sphere of not so much unusual activity or disruption but rather when that can be looked at as being the norm and when it is a complaint being voiced and ultimately being acted upon by the resignation of those feeling abused.
Whether they are right or whether they are wrong ... it cannot be denied that one side of an admirable forum which prides itself on diversity are voting with their feet. I think there is something wrong with that.
I honestly think they have given up trying to persuade others because of recent events. You only need to look at the official Madeleine sites on the internet which are contracting constantly. Several unofficial websites like www.mccannfiles.com have now disappeared completely.
-
Could that be because the tide has turned with the SC ruling and the impending closure of the SY investigation? I have certainly noticed a lemming mentality recently with several supporters effectively committing forum suicide. Its a true saying, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
As far as I am concerned, as a Madeleine supporter, the problem of the SC ruling is one which should be of great concern to Portuguese citizens as they are the ones more likely to be affected by precedent than I am.
I await with interest to see how the Christovão case pans out.
I am hoping that the SY investigation continues for as long as there is justification to do so ... the costs have still a way to go before matching what it has cost for an invisible bridge over the Thames.
-
There is always room for informed debate. The Madeleine case is indeed an intriguing mystery which may or may not be solved as time goes on. It will be interesting to see what if anything fills the void left by SY when they eventually pull the plug, personally I fear the days of the 'no stone unturned' campaign are well and truly numbered. The fate of Madeleine McCann might never be determined.
-
The problem may lie within the sphere of not so much unusual activity or disruption but rather when that can be looked at as being the norm and when it is a complaint being voiced and ultimately being acted upon by the resignation of those feeling abused.
Whether they are right or whether they are wrong ... it cannot be denied that one side of an admirable forum which prides itself on diversity are voting with their feet. I think there is something wrong with that.
The "other side" did it about three years ago. I don't recall you expressing disquiet about that.
Maybe I missed it, if so I apologise.
p.s I have already checked the dates ?{)(**
-
The problem as far as I see it is that certain Moderators are using their biased power to silence what they personally don't like.
I am fairly sure that they don't realise what it is that they are doing.
There are often deletions for Libel which in fact aren't Libel at all. This is so often a personal opinion, which actually isn't good enough.
We now have only Brietta and me as Supporter Mods, and neither she or I ever do this. So she and I are always going to lose in the deletion stakes, and the silencing of opinions opposed to our own.
But if this is what John wants then all I can say is on his own head be it.
-
The problem as far as I see it is that certain Moderators are using their biased power to silence what they personally don't like.
I am fairly sure that they don't realise what it is that they are doing.
There are often deletions for Libel which in fact aren't Libel at all. This is so often a personal opinion, which actually isn't good enough.
We now have only Brietta and me as Supporter Mods, and neither she or I ever do this. So she and I are always going to lose in the deletion stakes, and the silencing of opinions opposed to our own.
But if this is what John wants then all I can say is on his own head be it.
I think the truth is nearer to what John said. Some members were so convinced that they were right and couldn't deal with it when events proved them wrong imo.
-
I think the truth is nearer to what John said. Some members were so convinced that they were right and couldn't deal with it when events proved them wrong imo.
No events have proved anyone wrong. You seem to think that they have, when I know that nothing has been proved.
That is the basic difference.
-
The problem as far as I see it is that certain Moderators are using their biased power to silence what they personally don't like.
I am fairly sure that they don't realise what it is that they are doing.
There are often deletions for Libel which in fact aren't Libel at all. This is so often a personal opinion, which actually isn't good enough.
We now have only Brietta and me as Supporter Mods, and neither she or I ever do this. So she and I are always going to lose in the deletion stakes, and the silencing of opinions opposed to our own.
But if this is what John wants then all I can say is on his own head be it.
I can sympathise with the libel that isn't libel argument and have tried to get this across to moderators. The difficulty for me as an admin is that we cannot bring back a post which is deleted, all we can do is reintroduce it as a quote. In fact I did that very thing with a post the other day which a mod deleted as a libel so the problem is not confined to one particular viewpoint. All we can ask of mods and editors is to be careful what they delete and if borderline or in doubt just leave it.
I was thinking of allowing guest posting for a trial period. We used to have it at the beginning but it only took one idiot to ruin it for everyone else. Maybe with more moderators on the forum it could work, any thoughts?
-
I honestly think they have given up trying to persuade others because of recent events. You only need to look at the official Madeleine sites on the internet which are contracting constantly. Several unofficial websites like www.mccannfiles.com have now disappeared completely.
I don't think what is happening in the outside world has been the motivating factor as far as our lost members were concerned ... I think their resignations have been precipitated as a direct result of what has been happening to them on the forum.
-
I was thinking of allowing guest posting for a trial period. We used to have it at the beginning but it only took one idiot to ruin it for everyone else. Maybe with more moderators on the forum it could work, any thoughts?
I think that there is quite enough Moderating going on already, thank you very much.
-
I think that there is quite enough Moderating going on already, thank you very much.
Weans in a sweetie shop springs to mind.
-
I don't think what is happening in the outside world has been the motivating factor as far as our lost members were concerned ... I think their resignations have been precipitated as a direct result of what has been happening to them on the forum.
I disagree, take fm for example, his continued libel of a certain dog handler was beyond a joke. He brought it upon himself in the end. Same with Alf, his posts towards the end were outrageous despite being given upteen opportunities to conform. They were disrespectful imo so surely you don't condone such conduct Brietta?
-
I disagree, take fm for example, his continued libel of a certain dog handler was beyond a joke. He brought it upon himself in the end. Same with Alf, his posts towards the end were outrageous despite being given upteen opportunities to conform. They were disrespectful imo so surely you don't condone such conduct Brietta?
I saw cause and effect, Angelo. I watched initially with puzzlement as deletions happened and points were awarded until they became meaningless and whether consciously planned or not I could see the effect it was having ... remember Countess Mayberry?? I warned about it then without having any axe to grind.
-
I saw cause and effect, Angelo. I watched initially with puzzlement as deletions happened and points were awarded until they became meaningless and whether consciously planned or not I could see the effect it was having ... remember Countess Mayberry?? I warned about it then without having any axe to grind.
I agree. It was a horror story. It looked as though they were being deliberately targeted.
-
I agree. It was a horror story. It looked as though they were being deliberately targeted.
On the other hand rules must have been broken, unless someone was doing to them what Brietta appears to have done to me? Is it possible for Admin to look at the posts in question to see if they did break the rules? Then the matter will be clarified and the accusations of bias can be proved or disproved,
-
Personally, I think the moderators do a good job---but then, I don't post on many threads.
I know of one forum where people are allowed to say whatever they like, and some very nasty stuff is getting through-------.
-
Personally, I think the moderators do a good job---but then, I don't post on many threads.
I know of one forum where people are allowed to say whatever they like, and some very nasty stuff is getting through-------.
I think you'll find it's obligatory. They stand to get Banned if they don't say something horrible.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way. Some of us really do try.
-
I think you'll find it's obligatory. They stand to get Banned if they don't say something horrible.
Thanks for the compliment, by the way. Some of us really do try.
I commend anyone who agrees to be a moderator, it's a thankless task even though it's a necessary one. Most posters stay within the rules but there are a few who have consistently refused to do so in my opinion.
-
So Murat's situation is also unresolved?
-
So Murat's situation is also unresolved?
The easiest way of answering that would be to restate that Madeleine's fate and involvement have not be resolved. Both the PJ and SY have for one reason or another publicly identified several suspects/persons of interest in this case, some have died while others are very much alive.
-
The easiest way of answering that would be to restate that Madeleine's fate and involvement have not be resolved. Both the PJ and SY have for one reason or another publicly identified several suspects/persons of interest in this case, some have died while others are very much alive.
... and they do not include either parent ...
Pedro do Carmo, deputy director of the Judiciary Police: "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period."
-
... and they do not include either parent ...
Pedro do Carmo, deputy director of the Judiciary Police: "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period."
Can that be compatible with what the SC stated three months earlier ie, is the statement by a SC Judge that, "Madeleine McCann's parents have not been ruled innocent" compatible with "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period"?
I assume both are referring to Madeleine's disappearance rather than what occurred later?
-
Can that be compatible with what the SC stated three months earlier ie, is the statement by a SC Judge that, "Madeleine McCann's parents have not been ruled innocent" compatible with "Maddie's parents are not suspects. Period"?
I assume both are referring to Madeleine's disappearance rather than what occurred later?
Whatever the PJ are thinking now, the fact remains that the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving dispatch, which is what their lawyer claimed in her Supreme Court appeal.
-
Whatever the PJ are thinking now, the fact remains that the McCanns were not cleared by the archiving dispatch, which is what their lawyer claimed in her Supreme Court appeal.
If I recall correctly, the blame for that was placed squarely with those members of the tapas group who ultimately refused to assist the enquiry when asked to take part in a reconstruction.
-
Are we any nearer to knowing whether some forum members pretty much committed forum suicide or were hounded out by unfair and biased moderating?
I'm not privy to all the deleted posts but the ones I did read before they went appeared to me to be against the rules.
-
Are we any nearer to knowing whether some forum members pretty much committed forum suicide or were hounded out by unfair and biased moderating?
I'm not privy to all the deleted posts but the ones I did read before they went appeared to me to be against the rules.
Hounded out is just an excuse. Recently two members have been expelled for blatant rule breach and for using bad language, more recently one left voluntarily for his own reasons. People move on regularly for all sorts of reasons, some return, others don't.
-
Are we any nearer to knowing whether some forum members pretty much committed forum suicide or were hounded out by unfair and biased moderating?
I'm not privy to all the deleted posts but the ones I did read before they went appeared to me to be against the rules.
Ah, well. This depends on what anyone might choose to think. Me? I have no idea.
-
Ah, well. This depends on what anyone might choose to think. Me? I have no idea.
You can guarantee it. When there is something in the mainstream news the posters come scuttling back but while it's quiet they take a well earned rest. One can nearly predict what the next MSM news will be.
-
Re: Rules are there for a reason
I disagree, take fm for example, his continued libel of a certain dog handler was beyond a joke. He brought it upon himself in the end. Same with Alf, his posts towards the end were outrageous despite being given upteen opportunities to conform. They were disrespectful imo so surely you don't condone such conduct Brietta?
I never saw anything but FACTS come from ferryman .... and Alfie too. Both brilliant posters and researchers in their fields
But I constantly watched their "nasty" points mounting and saw to my horror, despite them being within the bounds of the rules that their scores, and davels too, (another brilliant researcher and fast poster of facts), were always teetering at the edge of being banned. This constant threat must have limited their ability to speak freely. When I was posting more effectively, the same happened to me all the time, huge "nasty" scores ...and TBH I thought "sod it all" and carried on as I wished.
I have spoken personally to one of the trio and he was banned definitely ... and it was nothing to do with the forum per se but more of a personal argument with John. John banned him.
I also have close information about the other two and know that they were effectively hounded out, by bullying mostly by mods and unnecessary deleting of posts and constantly huge nasty points limiting them. They were being prevented from getting their views across.
I think this forum will die the death because of this bullying and unfairness by three of the mods. Why can't we have a level playing field, with FREEDOM OF SPEECH on both sides .. and not just one as at present?
And how about cutting the silly rules that have been imposed which restrict the free speech of the Mccann supporters? It is so one sided.
AIMHO
-
Re: Rules are there for a reason
I never saw anything but FACTS come from ferryman .... and Alfie too. Both brilliant posters and researchers in their fields
But I constantly watched their "nasty" points mounting and saw to my horror, despite them being within the bounds of the rules that their scores, and davels too, (another brilliant researcher and fast poster of facts), were always teetering at the edge of being banned. This constant threat must have limited their ability to speak freely. When I was posting more effectively, the same happened to me all the time, huge "nasty" scores ...and TBH I thought "sod it all" and carried on as I wished.
I have spoken personally to one of the trio and he was banned definitely ... and it was nothing to do with the forum per se but more of a personal argument with John. John banned him.
I also have close information about the other two and know that they were effectively hounded out, by bullying mostly by mods and unnecessary deleting of posts and constantly huge nasty points limiting them. They were being prevented from getting their views across.
I think this forum will die the death because of this bullying and unfairness by three of the mods. Why can't we have a level playing field, with FREEDOM OF SPEECH on both sides .. and not just one as at present?
And how about cutting the silly rules that have been imposed which restrict the free speech of the Mccann supporters? It is so one sided.
AIMHO
We have freedom of speech but defamatory and abusive posts will always be removed. We have many posters who have never received warning points for breaking the rules so if they can get their points across without incurring the wrath of the moderators why can't you?
Nobody has ever been banned because they had an argument with me, I don't do personal arguments. Alfie was banned for badmouthing the forum in his final posts. Ferryman committed forum suicide by posting libellous material despite being given numerous second chances to reform. Davel choose to retire, he can return any time he desires.
I think you should gather the true facts before you go accusing people Sadie.
-
We have freedom of speech but defamatory and abusive posts will always be removed. We have many posters who have never received warning points for breaking the rules so if they can get their points across without incurring the wrath of the moderators why can't you?
Nobody has ever been banned because they had an argument with me, I don't do personal arguments. Alfie was banned for badmouthing the forum in his final posts. Ferryman committed forum suicide by posting libellous material despite being given numerous second chances to reform. Davel choose to retire, he can return any time he desires.
I think you should gather the true facts before you go accusing people Sadie.
Oh Dear.
-
Re: Rules are there for a reason
I never saw anything but FACTS come from ferryman .... and Alfie too. Both brilliant posters and researchers in their fields
But I constantly watched their "nasty" points mounting and saw to my horror, despite them being within the bounds of the rules that their scores, and davels too, (another brilliant researcher and fast poster of facts), were always teetering at the edge of being banned. This constant threat must have limited their ability to speak freely. When I was posting more effectively, the same happened to me all the time, huge "nasty" scores ...and TBH I thought "sod it all" and carried on as I wished.
I have spoken personally to one of the trio and he was banned definitely ... and it was nothing to do with the forum per se but more of a personal argument with John. John banned him.
I also have close information about the other two and know that they were effectively hounded out, by bullying mostly by mods and unnecessary deleting of posts and constantly huge nasty points limiting them. They were being prevented from getting their views across.
I think this forum will die the death because of this bullying and unfairness by three of the mods. Why can't we have a level playing field, with FREEDOM OF SPEECH on both sides .. and not just one as at present?
And how about cutting the silly rules that have been imposed which restrict the free speech of the Mccann supporters? It is so one sided.
AIMHO
Your are entitled to your opinion, but it can be so easily disproved. Ferryman argued that no tracker dogs were brought to Luz, but he was proved wrong. Alfie argued that there was evidence of abduction, but was unable to provide it.
All three broke the rules constantly and were treated very leniently in my opinion. Despite that, they regularly complained of being victimised which was clearly not true.
Anyone having a theory other than abduction has always been hampered on the Forum because of the libel problem. Only those promoting the abduction theory were free of this restriction. As a result it was constantly promoted as a fact, even though there's no evidence which proves that. It is that 'freedom' which has been curtailed and in my opinion that is a change for the better.
-
Your are entitled to your opinion, but it can be so easily disproved. Ferryman argued that no tracker dogs were brought to Luz, but he was proved wrong. Alfie argued that there was evidence of abduction, but was unable to provide it.
All three broke the rules constantly and were treated very leniently in my opinion. Despite that, they regularly complained of being victimised which was clearly not true.
Anyone having a theory other than abduction has always been hampered on the Forum because of the libel problem. Only those promoting the abduction theory were free of this restriction. As a result it was constantly promoted as a fact, even though there's no evidence which proves that. It is that 'freedom' which has been curtailed and in my opinion that is a change for the better.
I second that. The abduction claim has been extremely convenient and lucrative for some despite there being not a shred of evidence to support it. In fact there was no evidence of any intruder, no forced entry, no disturbed belongings, no scuff or scratch marks on the bedroom window, no boot marks on the wall or carpet, no screaming children. All very odd imho. 😊
-
Thank you for your advice. I am sure it is well meant but I have tried those avenues of approach.
You will possibly disagree with me that the moderation is rather unfair against the supporters but posters who leave have not "spat out their dummies".
They are genuinely frustrated at the path the forum is going down.
I know I am.
Oh don't worry, the supporting MODS are getting revenge. snapping valid posts and threads.
-
Oh don't worry, the supporting MODS are getting revenge. snapping valid posts and threads.
Oh Really?
Strange that because neither of them is on duty and neither was on duty when I just signed in
Yet, at least one of YOUR sides (Gunits) posts has vanished. The one I quote in my last post on here... just vanished
No MODS from our side present. So just who deleted it? And why?
-
Oh Really?
Strange that because neither of them is on duty and neither was on duty when I just signed in
Yet, at least one of YOUR sides (Gunits) posts has vanished. The one I quote in my last post on here... just vanished
No MODS from our side present. So just who deleted it? And why?
I don't know and don't much care.
I just thought this was a Justice for Maddie thread.. I was wrong.
I don't have a side, I am not a child I think independently.
-
Oh Really?
Strange that because neither of them is on duty and neither was on duty when I just signed in
Yet, at least one of YOUR sides (Gunits) posts has vanished. The one I quote in my last post on here... just vanished
No MODS from our side present. So just who deleted it? And why?
That rather destroys the assertions of biased moderating in my opinion. Perhaps people are just noticing when their own posts are moderated and failing to notice that it happens to everyone.
If one of '
-
There is no law in this country against libelling the dead, however I received a warning for suggesting that perhaps a (now dececeased) individual should have been a suspect. Is it against forum rules to libel the dead? Please clarify.
-
The forum rules relating to members and moderators are very clear in my opinion. Members are reminded of them at various times too. Despite that they are often ignored by both members and moderators.
If a member has broken the rules then a moderator should take the appropriate action even if they agree with the points the member is making. Moderators aren't required to be neutral in regard to a case, but they are required to be neutral in regard to the rules.
If a moderator breaks the rules those in charge of the moderators should take the appropriate action also. Perhaps they do, but ordinary members don't know if this happens or not.
The issues become confused when members who have allegedly broken the rules refuse to accept the fact. They accuse the moderator involved of bias. I think that every such accusation should be investigated. The outcome should be communicated to the member and to the moderator so they both know who was right.
If a member makes repeated false accusations against moderators they should be sanctioned.
Of a moderator repeatedly allows bias to influence their actions they should be sanctioned.
I think a few weeks of this would stamp out a lot of the rule breaking and arguing.
-
The forum rules relating to members and moderators are very clear in my opinion. Members are reminded of them at various times too. Despite that they are often ignored by both members and moderators.
If a member has broken the rules then a moderator should take the appropriate action even if they agree with the points the member is making. Moderators aren't required to be neutral in regard to a case, but they are required to be neutral in regard to the rules.
If a moderator breaks the rules those in charge of the moderators should take the appropriate action also. Perhaps they do, but ordinary members don't know if this happens or not.
The issues become confused when members who have allegedly broken the rules refuse to accept the fact. They accuse the moderator involved of bias. I think that every such accusation should be investigated. The outcome should be communicated to the member and to the moderator so they both know who was right.
If a member makes repeated false accusations against moderators they should be sanctioned.
Of a moderator repeatedly allows bias to influence their actions they should be sanctioned.
I think a few weeks of this would stamp out a lot of the rule breaking and arguing.
Great post G-Unit!! 8@??)(
-
The forum rules relating to members and moderators are very clear in my opinion. Members are reminded of them at various times too. Despite that they are often ignored by both members and moderators.
If a member has broken the rules then a moderator should take the appropriate action even if they agree with the points the member is making. Moderators aren't required to be neutral in regard to a case, but they are required to be neutral in regard to the rules.
If a moderator breaks the rules those in charge of the moderators should take the appropriate action also. Perhaps they do, but ordinary members don't know if this happens or not.
The issues become confused when members who have allegedly broken the rules refuse to accept the fact. They accuse the moderator involved of bias. I think that every such accusation should be investigated. The outcome should be communicated to the member and to the moderator so they both know who was right.
If a member makes repeated false accusations against moderators they should be sanctioned.
Of a moderator repeatedly allows bias to influence their actions they should be sanctioned.
I think a few weeks of this would stamp out a lot of the rule breaking and arguing.
I think it would also be helpful when points are added to be told why the points were added and by whom. This may also help to stamp out bias.
-
Bullying and cheating IMO. Changing the Status Quo to his own advantage, as only a Mod can do.
That is TYRANNY = the ways of a Police State.
One Law for a certain Mod and another Law for the rest of us.
Forum Rules broken by this post;
Abuse of another member
Abuse of a Moderator
Criticising the Forum
-
Forum Rules broken by this post;
Abuse of another member
Abuse of a Moderator
Criticising the Forum
Show me the rules specifically please?
Even in my time on the forum John has from time to time brought in a new rule, but what I'm not aware whether all those were added as an addition to the rules as such.
"These rules will be amended periodically as the need arises." But are they?
Is there actually a rule forbidding criticising the forum? Show me the actual wording please?
-
Show me the rules specifically please?
Read and learn, Mr Moderator.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0
As to abuse of other members, it's at the top of the main page;
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
-
Forum Rules broken by this post;
Abuse of another member
Abuse of a Moderator
Criticising the Forum
YAY!
And when a moderator abuses posters (and readers by changing posts etc) on a regular basis publicly, what other resounding means do we have to let the world know. He also bullies.
-
Read and learn, Mr Moderator.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0
As to abuse of other members, it's at the top of the main page;
* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
There are also the rules we agree to when we sign up, Do the two sets of rules match?
When someone criticises a moderator I'm not party to the difficulty that member has with that moderator. I feel reluctant to join in, and I just have to leave it to admin or John or whoever is up there.
-
There are also the rules we agree to when we sign up, Do the two sets of rules match?
When someone criticises a moderator I'm not party to the difficulty that member has with that moderator. I feel reluctant to join in, and I just have to leave it to admin or John or whoever is up there.
Any criticism of a mod should be referred to the admin team.
-
Any criticism of a mod should be referred to the admin team.
If I get criticised generally I deserve it, and I try and learn from it. But I will refer to the admin team in future.
-
If I get criticised generally I deserve it, and I try and learn from it. But I will refer to the admin team in future.
In those circumstances you might well be best not to flag them up. It's up to individual mods at the end of the day.
What really annoys me though is that once the forum achieves an equilibrium, along comes a poster who has been absent for ages and immediately creates disharmony. They wrongly perceive that the atmosphere on the forum is the same as when they last logged on and posted.
-
If I get criticised generally I deserve it, and I try and learn from it. But I will refer to the admin team in future.
Constructive criticism is one thing. Personal abuse is quite different.
-
seems to be a lot of rules and mods on this forum
-
seems to be a lot of rules and mods on this forum
As compared to where else? In my experience most reputable forums have similar rules and mods to enforce them.
-
As compared to where else? In my experience most reputable forums have similar rules and mods to enforce them.
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules. I have posted on newspaper forums and the British Democracy forum, both much higher profile and much more lenient. This is not a complaint, simply an observation.
-
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules. I have posted on newspaper forums and the British Democracy forum, both much higher profile and much more lenient. This is not a complaint, simply an observation.
The rules here were introduced to deal with problems arising from the behaviour of members. Posting opinions but insisting they were facts. Misquoting evidence.
-
As compared to where else? In my experience most reputable forums have similar rules and mods to enforce them.
compared to every other forum I've posted on.
-
compared to every other forum I've posted on.
How do their rules differ?
-
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules. I have posted on newspaper forums and the British Democracy forum, both much higher profile and much more lenient. This is not a complaint, simply an observation.
You get about a bit Vertigo Swirl. I suspect they are all McCann related too. Just my opinion of course.
-
I have posted on numerous forums in the last 10years and this is the only one where posters MUST write IMO when expressing an opinion, or provide cites. It’s also the only forum I’ve posted on where posters are punished with points for breaking the rules. I have posted on newspaper forums and the British Democracy forum, both much higher profile and much more lenient. This is not a complaint, simply an observation.
I first cut my teeth in forum land on a diy site,this lot are pussies compared to that,but on there the mods never posted using their mod status so it was never known who the mods were,sometimes it could be worked out but any hint of a name was soon whooshed.
-
For future reference a “roll it up and shove it up your arse” post attracts a 10% watched tariff.
-
For future reference a “roll it up and shove it up your arse” post attracts a 10% watched tariff.
I'm pleased to hear that the rules are being enforced. 8((()*/
-
I'm pleased to hear that the rules are being enforced. 8((()*/
Perhaps we should have a list of transgressions that show the sanctions that will be applied.
Aggressive posting =
Sarcastic posting =
Use of bad language =
Insulting a mod =
criticising and attacking other members who do not share your opinions =
posting content which may constitute defamation or libel =
making snide remarks towards other member =
and so on. I have received 25% before in one go but have never been as rude as to tell another member to shove anything up their arses before.
-
At the top of the forum on every page is this instruction / warning:
*Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!
What sort of abuse would result in a ban? Clearly not “roll it up and shove it up your arse”, so what then?
-
Perhaps we should have a list of transgressions that show the sanctions that will be applied.
Aggressive posting =
Sarcastic posting =
Use of bad language =
Insulting a mod =
criticising and attacking other members who do not share your opinions =
posting content which may constitute defamation or libel =
making snide remarks towards other member =
and so on. I have received 25% before in one go but have never been as rude as to tell another member to shove anything up their arses before.
You seem very dissatisfied with this forum. You seem to spend all your time criticising other members, the moderating and the rules. Yet here you remain.
-
You seem very dissatisfied with this forum. You seem to spend all your time criticising other members, the moderating and the rules. Yet here you remain.
”You seem, you seem” you seem to spend all your time belittling my posts, and here you are again.
-
How do their rules differ?
not as strict and the thing with the imo is annoying, especially getting pms about it . you say no abuse but then you allow members here to post abuse about members on the blue forum who are not here to defend themselves, that doesn;t seem particularly fair . i will say i am new to both forums and dont know any of the members particularly well yet but that is my observation about this forum, why the need to slag off people who dont even post here, just seems rather mean to me
-
For future reference a “roll it up and shove it up your arse” post attracts a 10% watched tariff.
#
LOL! sorry , that just made me laugh @)(++(*
-
not as strict and the thing with the imo is annoying, especially getting pms about it . you say no abuse but then you allow members here to post abuse about members on the blue forum who are not here to defend themselves, that doesn;t seem particularly fair . i will say i am new to both forums and dont know any of the members particularly well yet but that is my observation about this forum, why the need to slag off people who dont even post here, just seems rather mean to me
It has a long history and a bit of a tradition between the blue forum and the red forum.
-
It has a long history and a bit of a tradition between the blue forum and the red forum.
Could someone tell me what the blue forum is please as I expect this is the red one.
-
Could someone tell me what the blue forum is please as I expect this is the red one.
http://www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk
-
http://www.jeremybamberforum.co.uk
Thank you John 8@??)(
-
“Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban”
Unless the abuse is by Alice and the mod on duty is Slartibartfast of course.
This post has been permitted to stay on the forum and has received the thumbs up from G-Unit and Shining In Luz amongst others
“Online Alice Purjorick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8586
Total likes: 4022
Purveyor of Nonsense and nfl3/nEI
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #341 on: Today at 06:44:04 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Snowgirl on Today at 05:01:11 PM
I came into this forum because I wanted to take part with others more experienced than myself . Now I'm being accused amongst other things of playing a game . I don't know what kind of minds some in here have but it's not a pleasant place to be at all . I ask simple questions as a newcomer, I don't play games!!
Yes I know.... I can go elsewhere .
Don't do that. Just stick it back to the bullying assholes.They know who they are but always deny all knowledge of it.Thinking their faecal matter is not malodorous but that of others is.
VertigoSwirl
Davel
Brietta
Eleanor
Well there aren't many left are there so they have to make a noise and love dishing it out but every manjack of them the first to squeal foul when it's stuck back. Lilly livered toe rags.
All in my opinion in the nicest possible way.”
Alice seems to have a thing about arses and assholes, he sure likes to bandy these terms about in an abusive manner much to the approval of those that profess to be against online abuse and rule breaking.
Is there a single McCann supporter on this forum who is as abusive or as bullying as Alice Purjorick?
-
“Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban”
Unless the abuse is by Alice and the mod on duty is Slartibartfast of course.
This post has been permitted to stay on the forum and has received the thumbs up from G-Unit and Shining In Luz amongst others
“Online Alice Purjorick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8586
Total likes: 4022
Purveyor of Nonsense and nfl3/nEI
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Re: Did Gonçalo Amaral misinterpret the evidence?
« Reply #341 on: Today at 06:44:04 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Snowgirl on Today at 05:01:11 PM
I came into this forum because I wanted to take part with others more experienced than myself . Now I'm being accused amongst other things of playing a game . I don't know what kind of minds some in here have but it's not a pleasant place to be at all . I ask simple questions as a newcomer, I don't play games!!
Yes I know.... I can go elsewhere .
Don't do that. Just stick it back to the bullying assholes.They know who they are but always deny all knowledge of it.Thinking their faecal matter is not malodorous but that of others is.
VertigoSwirl
Davel
Brietta
Eleanor
Well there aren't many left are there so they have to make a noise and love dishing it out but every manjack of them the first to squeal foul when it's stuck back. Lilly livered toe rags.
All in my opinion in the nicest possible way.”
Alice seems to have a thing about arses and assholes, he sure likes to bandy these terms about in an abusive manner much to the approval of those that profess to be against online abuse and rule breaking.
Is there a single McCann supporter on this forum who is as abusive or as bullying as Alice Purjorick?
If we are going to get picky VS. I have seen snowgirl bulled from the forum today by a pack of hounds including one of our moderators. That same moderator (who actually WAS online when Alice made that post) said to snowgirl:
Why don't you just abide by Forum Rules, and stop trying to be a smart arse? Everyone is welcome here, but there is a limit to silly demands for Cites that everyone knows are already available. Many things that have long been discussed over and over, and none of us have the time or the patience to comply with your demands made in ignorance.
If you have a problem with this then there is a Private Message Facility. You could always ask one of the people of like mind to explain to you what ever it is with which you have a problem.
Now that is against moderator rules. I have reported her to John.
-
If we are going to get picky VS. I have seen snowgirl bulled from the forum today by a pack of hounds including one of our moderators. That same moderator (who actually WAS online when Alice made that post) said to snowgirl:
Why don't you just abide by Forum Rules, and stop trying to be a smart arse? Everyone is welcome here, but there is a limit to silly demands for Cites that everyone knows are already available. Many things that have long been discussed over and over, and none of us have the time or the patience to comply with your demands made in ignorance.
If you have a problem with this then there is a Private Message Facility. You could always ask one of the people of like mind to explain to you what ever it is with which you have a problem.
Now that is against moderator rules. I have reported her to John.
You accused me of bullying her when I did no such thing. If Eleanor ‘s post constitutes abuse in your view then what do you make of Alice’s posts directed at me, such as the one above and his earlier demand that I shove something up my arse? Is this any way to address fellow forum members? Why is he allowed to get away with it time and time again, and applauded for his abuse into the bargain?
-
You accused me of bullying her when I did no such thing. If Eleanor ‘s post constitutes abuse in your view then what do you make of Alice’s posts directed at me, such as the one above and his earlier demand that I shove something up my arse? Is this any way to address fellow forum members? Why is he allowed to get away with it time and time again, and applauded for his abuse into the bargain?
I didn't accuse you of bullying only goading, which IMO you were VS. I agree Alice's post was unpleasant but I saw the supporters including supporting moderators ganging up on snowgirl which has now lead (i believe) to her leaving the forum. I am hopeful that she will change her mind.
-
I didn't accuse you of bullying only goading, which IMO you were VS. I agree Alice's post was unpleasant but I saw the supporters including supporting moderators ganging up on snowgirl which has now lead (i believe) to her leaving the forum. I am hopeful that she will change her mind.
You are entitled to your opinion but on this occasion you are wrong. As for the ganging up, it has happened to me on more than one occasion. I always find a sense of humour and a bit of perspective helps, as does a breath of fresh air or other change of activity. In any case, I didn’t notice this ganging up of which you speak, are you positive it happened?