Ummmm....banned ??

[Jeremy]

No ES doesn't allow personal insults.

The problem here is that what many might see as harmless banter, others will see as an insult. If I'm perfectly honest there are things you've posted here, Lynda, that have made my hackles rise to a far greater extent than anything that Eddie's ever posted. You had a serious poke at me not too long ago, for example, which I have to say did seem at the time to be a borderline insult from my perspective.

My lack of reaction to Eddies style of posting may well be because I've just had a couple of years longer to get used to it, or it may well be that I spent most of my working life working very closely with the military, where his brand of banter is the norm (if anything I'd say his was mild, by that standard). For example, if I wasn't greeted by a few choice insults when walking into the crew room in the morning I'd have wondered what was wrong with everyone.

It's all well and good to say that his banning now was as a consequence of past apparent transgressions, but is that reasonable? Punishment long after an event, and with no warning, is not considered reasonable by most, I would have thought.

 

[GaRRy]

Its one thing getting annoyed and having a tiff , that happens everywhere, but I certainly dont find it amusing when banter turns to personal insults and downright rudeness, the like of which was seen from eddieo previously on several occasions..........mild,yes, sometimes, but many other times, it certainly wasnt......
and they got banned for it, reinstated then warned about it.....just how many warnings do some people expect.

I will take your word for this Lynda as I really cant be bothered with reading a load of old posts to see what you mean. However as I understand it these warnings and bans were for being offensive/insulting and as you say down right obnoxious. Yet they seem to of been banned for upsetting a supplier/manufacturer/importer.

Yet I dont remember anything remotely offensive/insulting or obnoxious in their posts in the threads under discussion. So as far as I can see even if they have committed some form of offence recently (As I say cant see what). What has the offence got in common with what they were warned about to warrant a ban ?.

 

[jackhandy]

'Tis a big electric bike forum, but very global, rather than UK only. It's very roughly three times the size of this forum, and more active than here because of that.

It tends not to discuss low powered EU legal type ebikes, though.

I've been keeping an eye on the Speedict thread Over There & it seems the ozzies' adoption of Eurospec is generating some interest in low-power ebikes & the tweaking thereof.

 

[funkylyn]

No ES doesn't allow personal insults.

The problem here is that what many might see as harmless banter, others will see as an insult. If I'm perfectly honest there are things you've posted here, Lynda, that have made my hackles rise to a far greater extent than anything that Eddie's ever posted. You had a serious poke at me not too long ago, for example, which I have to say did seem at the time to be a borderline insult from my perspective.

My lack of reaction to Eddies style of posting may well be because I've just had a couple of years longer to get used to it, or it may well be that I spent most of my working life working very closely with the military, where his brand of banter is the norm (if anything I'd say his was mild, by that standard). For example, if I wasn't greeted by a few choice insults when walking into the crew room in the morning I'd have wondered what was wrong with everyone.

It's all well and good to say that his banning now was as a consequence of past apparent transgressions, but is that reasonable? Punishment long after an event, and with no warning, is not considered reasonable by most, I would have thought.

Sorry if you have thought I have almost insulted you in the past Jeremy.

Yes, we all make each others hackles rise at times and as we have said that is normal in 'forum land '

The fact is they did have several warnings and not that long ago were told publicly by Russ that they were on their final warning and if he thought they had overstepped the mark again they would be out...without further warning.......you cant be clearer than that I dont think and in fact it was also a general warning to all of us to watch what we said.

Maybe he thought that the post was started deliberately with the intention of flaming........

Lynda

 

[funkylyn]

I will take your word for this Lynda as I really cant be bothered with reading a load of old posts to see what you mean. However as I understand it these warnings and bans were for being offensive/insulting and as you say down right obnoxious. Yet they seem to of been banned for upsetting a supplier/manufacturer/importer.

Yet I dont remember anything remotely offensive/insulting or obnoxious in their posts in the threads under discussion. So as far as I can see even if they have committed some form of offence recently (As I say cant see what). What has the offence got in common with what they were warned about to warrant a ban ?.

Well......as Russ has said, we arent privy to all the facts so theres not really any point in speculating the whys and wherefores.....as I said above maybe the thread was perceived to have been started to be deliberately flaming.........

Lynda

 

[bazwaldo]

Well this thread comes as a complete surprise to me!
I have missed everything alluded to about mis-informing suppliers and rudeness and now the bans have been enforced and the thread(s) removed I won't be able to catch up.
Indalo never seemed to be very offensive to me.
Eddieo on the other hand sometimes seemed to be incapable of preventing a malicious streak from causing him at times to be rather vulgar and offensive with remarks which appeared to be just vindictive personal insult rather than reasoned argument.
Most of the time he was informative and humorous and I think he will be missed for his positive contributions.
As others have suggested perhaps the banned members will be re-instated after a cooling off period.
I never like rudeness or insults or foul language of any kind but I am a bit of a softy!

Barry.

 

[funkylyn]

My lack of reaction to Eddies style of posting may well be because I've just had a couple of years longer to get used to it, or it may well be that I spent most of my working life working very closely with the military, where his brand of banter is the norm (if anything I'd say his was mild, by that standard). For example, if I wasn't greeted by a few choice insults when walking into the crew room in the morning I'd have wondered what was wrong with everyone.
.

Just re reading this jeremy, Ive probably spent 8 years on various forums and I AM a geordie which is probably akin to being in the military lol

But the point you have made about insults when walking into the crew room is a good one .........it makes a world of difference saying things face to face rather than anonymously on a forum when words can and are taken out of context.

Lynda

 

[Jeremy]

Sorry if you have thought I have almost insulted you in the past Jeremy.

Yes, we all make each others hackles rise at times and as we have said that is normal in 'forum land '

The fact is they did have several warnings and not that long ago were told publicly by Russ that they were on their final warning and if he thought they had overstepped the mark again they would be out...without further warning.......you cant be clearer than that I dont think and in fact it was also a general warning to all of us to watch what we said.

Maybe he thought that the post was started deliberately with the intention of flaming........

Lynda

It's hard to be sure of what was written now, as it's been hacked, censored and deleted, but from memory I'm reasonably certain that there was nothing at all offensive or rude in anything that either Eddie or Indalo posted on the thread in question. What's more, Eddie actually got "permission" from Russ (apparently) to post.

The whole thing seems bizarre, almost as if we have slightly schizophrenic moderation here, where one mod implies something is OK and another bans two members shortly afterwards. The whole thing seems very odd and does, at least in my mind undermine confidence.

The idea of just making an assumption, a false one at that, not doing any checking, and then using that as a reason for banning two long standing members seems very odd to me, if that is what happened.

My personal view is that there is more to this than we're aware of, and that the reason for banning these two may have nothing at all to do with the use of language or apparent behaviour. I (amongst others) was banned from another forum some time ago simply for helping lift the lid on the blatant censorship that was going on. At no time did I breach any of that forum's rules, but the forum owner took exception to being found out and kicked us out for revealing it.

 

[rsscott]

.... What's more, Eddie actually got "permission" from Russ (apparently) to post.

To correct you Jeremy, I told Eddie he would only be able to link to the source on the German website, not reproduce the email in its entirety. As stated, we were informed this was a private communication and not for general consumption.

This is the only thing I gave 'permission' for, if that's the word you want to use. This is not the reason a ban was issued.

 

[rsscott]

Jeremy, as a moderator I hope you don't mind me reproducing the following T&Cs from your own site:


"We reserve the right to delete your posts and/or ban you from this forum without prior warning."


"Repeated problems with a user will result in account termination"


"DON'T post abusive, inflammatory, or threatening messages"


"As a general policy, we discuss moderation-related topics only via private contact"


"DO think before you type; remember you are dealing with real people and you are not anonymous "


Similar to ours, don't you think?


You've told us how we should run this site (with caveats and AFAICS), claimed more posts are missing (they're not) and said that commercial pressures will influence content and direction (wrong again). As you've been told, several times now, the two concerned have had repeated warnings. Again we've said you're not party to all the facts and you're choosing to judge based on what you can, or have, seen. So while you don't know the specifics I don't appreciate you speculating in the way you have been.


While we appreciate everyone will moderate differently, may we suggest that you moderate yours your way and we do as we see fit here.


We have left this thread open today so that everyone can air views and you can debate the baseless 'what ifs' and 'maybes' you seem so fond of, however this matter is now closed and this thread will be locked. If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, you can reach me by email or PM.

 

[Jeremy]

Right to reply

I had typed this and it got rejected, but I think you owe me the right to reply:

To correct you Jeremy, I told Eddie he would only be able to link to the source on the German website, not reproduce the email in its entirety. As stated, we were informed this was a private communication and not for general consumption.

This is the only thing I gave 'permission' for, if that's the word you want to use. This is not the reason a ban was issued.

Thanks for the clarification, the reason I used quotes around the word and added the "apparently" was because I wasn't sure.

I have to say that making the distinction between posting a link to information on a website and posting the same information directly as quoted in an email (which isn't, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, a privileged communication anyway) seems a bit of a slight distinction, and for the life of me I cannot see how that justifies a ban, but that is your call.

Finally, what about Indalo? What did he do wrong?

[edited to add later, when the above wouldn't post:

Your subsequent post quoting from the ES rules doesn't take account of the way they are applied in practice, although I fully accept that you cannot have been aware of that. I cannot ever recall someone being banned without several warnings, for example, and even then only after a debate between several of the moderators on their private forum to reach a consensus. Of course you must run your forum as you wish, but is it wrong to make a fair and reasonable comparison with other forums from time to time? I've not once used derogatory language here, and have always strived to caveat any post carefully to try and avoid offence, as I think you've noted. If you wish me to leave, as I rather think you seem to from that last post, then I will]

 

[rsscott]

Jeremy,


"I cannot see how that justifies a ban, but that is your call."


This is not why he was banned. We've told you this already. And,as we've also already repeatedly told you, there are other factors that we take into account when making these decisions and you should understand as a member and not a moderator you do not have full sight of all the facts.


" I cannot ever recall someone being banned without several warnings"


Warnings and a previous ban have already been issued. You've been told this too.


We personally feel there is no place on Pedelecs for repeated detrimental assumptions, sprinkled with 'get out' caveats. That is our view, because we do not feel that is what we want Pedelecs to be representive of. We want it to be a helpful, constructive forum for all.