When I was in self isolation for two weeks I noticed a rash 'downstairs' and obviously couldn't go anywhere so I took a pic to send to the doctor, but I accidentally sent it to everyone in my address book!! 😬Maybe it wasn't a mistake.......
I wasn't a mod at the time, but my impression is that that was a myth created by Nobber. It's typical Nobber diversion tactics, repeatedly deny something you've never been accused of so that the real reason gets forgotten.
OK, it seems the mods have now changed the banner that appears when you get banned.
Its changed from, "Banned," to an explanation of what for and a date of return.
Please dont ask me the reason because that is between the mods and nobber.
Okay, so I wouldn't normally comment on this, and to be honest if Nobber has broken rules then fair do's. Maybe I'm being nosey, but maybe I'm also just wanting to have a bit of clarity as to what constitutes bans. It could possibly prevent others from going down the same road. I know there could be particular details that can't be disclosed, but surely there's a 'forum suitable' response that maybe should be broadcast to all members as and when a ban happens? Just a thought.I don't see anybody else crying out for details.
Just you being a nosey bastard!
So he didn't call anyone a Nazi!I am not sure your impression is correct. Like I said, I scanned the relevant posts at the time - and going back now to refresh my mind, it’s easy to conclude that Nobber has not created a myth.
The real “trigger” was surely post #26178. You don’t need me to tell you that that post is within the normal range of piss-taking posts we see all the time from a range of posters.
Why the first response #26198 was written the way it was? Take a judgement. For me, it’s a rather large jump to suggest that anybody’s mother had been besmirched!!! And this seems to me to be the root of “myth” which appears not to be a myth!
now why can't our government come up with something like this? Single men and women in the Netherlands are being advised to organise a seksbuddy (sex buddy) after criticism of rules dictating that home visitors maintain a 1.5-metre distance from their hosts during the coronavirus lockdown. In a...www.pne-online.net
Okay, so I wouldn't normally comment on this, and to be honest if Nobber has broken rules then fair do's. Maybe I'm being nosey, but maybe I'm also just wanting to have a bit of clarity as to what constitutes bans. It could possibly prevent others from going down the same road. I know there could be particular details that can't be disclosed, but surely there's a 'forum suitable' response that maybe should be broadcast to all members as and when a ban happens? Just a thought.
Well no, he clearly didn’t. But someone did the equivalent of squeal and roll round on the floor IMO. And the yellow/red card wasn’t far behind.So he didn't call anyone a Nazi!
The myth for me isn't so much that, but that Nobber was banned for repeated and multiple reasons, not just one post as claimed by Nobber.
If you say so, but my only point is that that wasn’t the sole reason for the ban. As I said, I wasn’t involved so like everyone else, I’m not really qualified to comment as I don’t know what happened exactly.Well no, he clearly didn’t. But someone did the equivalent of squeal and roll round on the floor IMO. And the yellow/red card wasn’t far behind.
As for the second para - yes these bans are normally an accumulation of sins but there is almost always a post or incident that is the main trigger and so it does matter.
When the papers publish a “this week in magistrates court” and you find out Billy Boswell got given a 2 week suspended sentence for nicking a packet of crisps from NSS. We don’t know what flavour crisps they were or if they were a decent packet or he only nicked them because his grandma is starving so it was an honourable rather than a bad crime.
Very few users get reported, those that do get spoken too and asked to rein in their behaviour if it’s causing offence, or annoyance or being disruptive. Some take those warnings and change their behaviour. Some challenge those warnings and make it into a bigger thing over and over or continue those behaviours.
Ultimately they end up with some sort of sanction as a way of showing that we’ve asked them to change how they act and they choose not too. This cycle repeats. Much the same as the courts, when people repeat offend, sanctions increase over time. If people really want to think we act over a single post in most circumstances(unless it really is an offensive or legally dodgy single post ) then you’ll be mistaken. Most of the time sanctions happened for prolonged periods of behaviour or multiple reports.
we don’t want it to happen, the ball is entirely in the posters court, everyone has their own personally responsibility to behave and post in a decent manner. It really is that simple and achieved by 99% of posters
we took some action on some recent posts that were beyond the pale, and ultimately made the wrong call maybe in shutting a whole section rather than ejecting some users. That seemed to be a view shared by many that “why punish the majority”? So we took that on board, reopened the section and instead will target the minority.
only now we’re being asked “why punish the minority”?
And so the circle continues