# Mod mis-use of power?



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

Something is wrong!



ttcycle said:


> Once a thread goes round in circles, no matter how entertaining for those taking actual part or on the peripheries it's not constructive for it to stay open.


 
So the 'Tea' thread and 'Post a lie ...' should be pulled too, in that case!?

Too many people want to play God here, methinks.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

Iv been locked out of the pingmrpaul thread too??


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

Strange how mtpaul starts questiong me then it all happens eh?


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

It certainly wasn t going round in circles and it was getting amusing.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

And you wondered why I thought of conspiracy, here is the proof I think


----------



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> It certainly wasn t going round in circles and it was getting amusing.


 
Obviously not for some non participants!


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2011)

Chaps, calm theeselves...tis the season of goodwill.


----------



## colly (30 Dec 2011)

Well I found it amusing for all the right reasons. A good example of others deciding what's good for us. What's Korean for Cyclechat?


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

Noodley said:


> Chaps, calm theeselves...tis the season of goodwill.


 Iv saved everything they said to me in pm, if anyone wants the file pm me your email, just to show whats caused all this bad behaviour from some


----------



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

If a single mod (regardless of who it is) doesn't like a post, but hasn't personally contributed to it, does he/she have the right (on their SOLE judgement) and power to close a thread?

I, as a spectator, along with many others, contributing or not, 'seemed' to be enjoying the banter going 'both' ways.

This smacks too much of the baiting of AFS, with the same mods involved.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

Has whoever is doing this got the courage to speak and tell us why?


----------



## colly (30 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> This smacks too much of the baiting of AFS, with the same mods involved.


 
It happens in schools everyday, a bunch of 'smartarse' bullies taunt someone until they react then it's the victim who gets the punishment.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2011)

I'm usually a laissez faire person but the arbitrary closing of a couple of threads one on the basis that it's a circular posting


Dayvo said:


> Something is wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm with you on this one Dayvo.

Let's see the Tea and Post a Lie thread closed too as they set the precedent for circular posting they should also close.


----------



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

col said:


> Has whoever is doing this got the courage to speak and tell us why?


 
Doubt it! I sent a polite pm to the mod who pulled the 'bin' thread but am still awaiting a reply.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2011)

Should there be a poll on whether the Binmen thread be re-opened?

The thread closure has left a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2011)

Poor judgement on the moderator's part IMHO.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

vernon said:


> Should there be a poll on whether the Binmen thread be re-opened?
> 
> The thread closure has left a bad taste in my mouth.


 Likewise, I feel its my fault for making light of mickles threats to me in pm. And speaking my mind, looks like its get back at me time , sorry lads.


----------



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

vernon said:


> The thread closure has left a bad taste in my mouth.


 
+1 (of many, I suspect).

That thread was harmless fun, with BFF taking the piss out of himself as much as the others. There was not the malice or venom found in many of the CAD threads.

If the mod responsible won't make a public comment explaining their decesion (apart from it going round in circles), then maybe we should ask for clarification from Shaun as to where the limit goes for a thread being pulled. And when a mod goes too far.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2011)

The going round in circles argument


Dayvo said:


> +1 (of many, I suspect).
> 
> That thread was harmless fun, with BFF taking the piss out of himself as much as the others. There was not the malice or venom found in many of the CAD threads.
> 
> ...


----------



## mcshroom (30 Dec 2011)

Must admit I was surprised. The thread is definitely less nasty than the Falklands one where they are still fighting a 30yo war and accusing each other of being war mongers or surrender monkeys and saying that people have blood on their hands.


----------



## Shaun (30 Dec 2011)

I'm not up to speed as I've had a few days away to spend time at home with my family, so can someone outline what the problem is so I can look into it please?

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## mcshroom (30 Dec 2011)

Hi Shaun,

It's this thread: - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/do-bin-men-deserve-a-pension.92416/

Basically (unless something has been going on by PM we don't know about) this thread was more tongue in cheek than anything, but the Mods seem to have thought it was serious and locked it.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

All pretty good humoured I thought others obviously thought otherwise.


----------



## vernon (30 Dec 2011)

A perfectly decent thread, Do bine men deserve a pension' has been arbitrarily locked on the basis that it's cyclical. It was clearly a spoof thread there were some acerbic comments made within the thread but on the whole the thread has been a great source of entertainment, so much so that it has been nominated for thread of the year.

I'm not one to gripe but I do think that the locking is difficult to justify using the grounds that the thread was going in circles. Using that argument also justifies the two large thread that populate the Cafe - 'Tea?' and 'Post a lie... ' being locked.


----------



## mcshroom (30 Dec 2011)

Am I the only one to find locking a thread because it is cyclical on a cycling forum a bit ironic?


----------



## Dayvo (30 Dec 2011)

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON BUT I OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO BEING GIVEN A 'COOLING DOWN BAN' BY A MOD WITH A PROBLEM (somehow I'm allowed back in, in recognition of a mod over-reaction, possibly?), AND NOT EVEN SHOWING ANY DECENCY EXPECTED BY SOMEONE IN THAT POSITION, TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS, AND NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE A PARTICULAR THREAD OR POSTERS.

AND I'M TALKING ABOUT TT CYCLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

TIME FOR A RETHINK, SHAUN, I THINK, AS TO WHO IS FIT TO MODERATE.


----------



## col (30 Dec 2011)

I feel the same, I have been banned before and no real reason given other than the usual inapropreate stuff. Im now un banned too. Im a bit paranoid as it seems to be getting back at me stuff, as i speak my mind. Iv had threads deleted and locked because coincidentally a friend of a mod reported things nowhere near as bad as most others. so yes Im a little caught up in the conspiracy thing, and no wonder after tonight mrpaul baiting me, to which i didnt bite to i might add. The way Iv been treat by some mods on here is rediculous, relative minor things could have been handled in different ways, but not the im in charge end of, way. very annoyed , and feel the same as Davyo .


----------



## Shaun (30 Dec 2011)

Well having read a considerable section of the latter part of the thread I can see why it has been closed - not because I personally feel it is cyclical, but because I find the tone and nature of some of the latter posts (_and the assumptions made within them_) unpleasant.

With regard to moderator actions - if anyone has an issue regarding the modding of CC just PM me or start a thread in the support forum and give me a chance to look into it. Kicking off, posting status comments, starting multiple threads, adding signatures intended to ruffle feathers, and shouting the odds isn't helpful and doesn't help to resolve anything.

If it is unclear to members which moderators have taken action or why, simply ask in the support forum or PM me. This will avoid any misunderstandings - which, in this case, appear to have happened - especially in relation to which moderators took action (_the guesses were wrong_).

Please also take into consideration that myself and the moderators cannot read every single thread or post and so whilst there may be "other" posts on CC that you feel are worse than those being reviewed/moderated, we may _not_ be aware of them if we haven't received any reports about them.

Shaun


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON BUT I OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO BEING GIVEN A 'COOLING DOWN BAN' BY A MOD WITH A PROBLEM (somehow I'm allowed back in, in recognition of a mod over-reaction, possibly?), AND NOT EVEN SHOWING ANY DECENCY EXPECTED BY SOMEONE IN THAT POSITION, TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS, AND NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE A PARTICULAR THREAD OR POSTERS.
> 
> AND I'M TALKING ABOUT TT CYCLE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
> 
> TIME FOR A RETHINK, SHAUN, I THINK, AS TO WHO IS FIT TO MODERATE.





col said:


> I feel the same, I have been banned before and no real reason given other than the usual inapropreate stuff. Im now un banned too. Im a bit paranoid as it seems to be getting back at me stuff, as i speak my mind. Iv had threads deleted and locked because coincidentally a friend of a mod reported things nowhere near as bad as most others. so yes Im a little caught up in the conspiracy thing, and no wonder after tonight mrpaul baiting me, to which i didnt bite to i might add. The way Iv been treat by some mods on here is rediculous, relative minor things could have been handled in different ways, but not the im in charge end of, way. very annoyed , and feel the same as Davyo .


 

You were both temporarily banned so you could cool-down as you were both making a great deal of the "modding issues" - based partly on your own misunderstandings.

I asked for your temporary bans to be reversed so we could disucss the modding in this thread. Hopefully in a more structured and less emotive way.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## col (31 Dec 2011)

Fair enough Shaun, but I feel you may be getting an explanation that probably doesnt match our experience on things.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Dec 2011)

Why did the mod say they locked a thread when they didn t Shaun ? Im a little confused.


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

col said:


> Fair enough Shaun, but I feel you may be getting an explanation that probably doesnt match our experience on things.


 
So, tell me what you _think_ has happened and why?


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Why did the mod say they locked a thread when they didn t Shaun ? Im a little confused.


 
What mod? What thread?


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

Just sent you a pm, Shaun, but if you follow the chronologigcal order of posts and relevant comments, you'll see that a mod, in 'our' opinions, acted beyond her jurisdiction.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> What mod? What thread?


 here http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/ping-mrpaul.92622/


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> What mod? What thread?


 
I couldn't quote directly as the thread is locked (or something), but in her own words in col's 'ping mr paul' thread, TTC says - '
Sorry Col to burst your conspiracy theory - it was me that locked the thread.​


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Just sent you a pm, Shaun, but if you follow the chronologigcal order of posts and relevant comments, you'll see that a mod, in 'our' opinions, acted beyond her jurisdiction.


 
No, you feel the action the moderator took was unfair. _(Mods are free to take any and all actions they feel are appropriate to the thread/post/situation/member.)_

So why didn't you simply ask me to look into it?


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> I couldn't quote directly as the thread is locked (or something), but in her own words in col's 'ping mr paul' thread, TTC says - '
> Sorry Col to burst your conspiracy theory - it was me that locked the thread.​


 
But didn't Col - wrongly - assume Mr. Paul had locked the thread?


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> No, you feel the action the moderator took was unfair. _(Mods are free to take any and all actions they feel are appropriate to the thread/post/situation/member.)_
> 
> So why didn't you simply ask me to look into it?


 
Because I was, IMO, unfairly banned and when I found out I could get back in, I firstly wanted to find out what the heck ttc was up to, in her role as mod. I wasn't the only one annoyed by her action.


----------



## col (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> So, tell me what you _think_ has happened and why?


 Well when I have private messages warning me about a post I made, which was deleted on complaint by someone, it ended up being a back and forth thing with me playing it with humour, but the mod seemed to be losing his temper and saying give it up, if you read the posts you will understand what I mean. I then said my mind on what I thought on the subject. I had an official warning saying my posts would be deleted or changed if i wasnt careful. then mr paul starting asking questions in the binmen thread, but rather strange ones wanting proof, even though it was just an example, then the thread was locked, and others as we tried to figure out what was going on. then a mod said it was locked due to it being cyclic? and no good would come from it, or something similar. On top of this I had a thread locked by doc as soon as arch joined in the banter, no reason or warning on all these. I cant remember all the times, but it made me think some mods or friends of mods were working together to be awkward , and when asked about it come up with the trump card of, we acted as mods to reports recieved. well i dont believe it for one second, and i dont think im the only one. It seems if you dont agree or you say it how you see it, someone starts playing games, and friends help, then its all denied. Im the first to admit Ill say it how i see it, but ill only respond to same when its directed at me. And then it seems the op doesnt like it when you dont fold.Basically, I wont back down from a debate, and wont let someone get away with ignoring or sarcasm to avoid what they started. this seems to get the reaction that iv experienced from some mods.


----------



## col (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> But didn't Col - wrongly - assume Mr. Paul had locked the thread?


 Yes I did, as it seemed coincidental that as he seemed to be trying to flame me , as I starting asking questions back it was locked mid post.


----------



## col (31 Dec 2011)

Im sorry but I have to go, im up at five, ill look in tomorrow to answer any questions that might be here. Goodnight.


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> But didn't Col - wrongly - assume Mr. Paul had locked the thread?


 
I'm not aware of col's issues with Mr Paul. I objected to the way a certain mod acted by pulling a thread, and then ignored my polite (and I MEAN polite) pm to ask them (although it wasn't until later that I discovered it was her, when she posted that fact) to explain their actions,

I received no explanation, just a 'cooling down' ban, which had quite the opposite effect.


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Because I was, IMO, unfairly banned and when I found out I could get back in, I firstly wanted to find out what the heck ttc was up to, in her role as mod. I wasn't the only one annoyed by her action.


 
Again, a misunderstanding - it wasn't ttc who banned you, so perhaps a retraction of your prior comment towards her may be appropriate?

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## YahudaMoon (31 Dec 2011)

Some moderater removed my post for the use of the word 'Bummed'

OK for a moderator to use the word 'Twat' though >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bummed is in the English dictionary. Twat aint


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> Again, a misunderstanding - it wasn't ttc who banned you, so perhaps a retraction of your prior comment towards her may be appropriate?
> 
> Cheers,
> Shaun


 
So, we have one mod who pulls a thread for no (GENUINELY) good reason (in comparison to any number of threads made every day in CAD, Commuting etc.), and another who bans me for asking for an explanation as to why.

If I wrongly assumed that TTC was the mod behind my temporary banning, then I *sincerely* apologise to her.

Which now makes me ask the question - was my banning (albeit briefly, so far) justified and fair, or was _THAT_ mod unable to see how my comments could be interpreted as 'unacceptable'?


----------



## brokenflipflop (31 Dec 2011)

Looks like I'm back to watching Emmerdale and the Street now......and looking at my Audi Q7 4.2....oh forget it !


----------



## Ashtrayhead (31 Dec 2011)

I was enjoying that thread! It was a bit of festive banter.


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> I objected to the way a certain mod acted by pulling a thread, and then ignored my polite (and I MEAN polite) pm to ask them (although it wasn't until later that I discovered it was her, when she posted that fact) to explain their actions.


 
Again, another misunderstanding - your PM wasn't a PM at all - it was a profile comment posted on the generic Moderators account, which wasn't discovered until later.


----------



## slowmotion (31 Dec 2011)

If "circular" is a crime, I'll fess up to mentioning the bodacious Nigella on a tedious number of times in the TWG. Am I out too?


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

Dayvo said:


> So, we have one mod who pulls a thread for no (GENUINELY) good reason (in comparison to any number of threads made every day in CAD, Commuting etc.), and another who bans me for asking for an explanation as to why.


 
We also had a thread that was closed and a couple of forum members who were unhappy about this and so lambasted the moderation, took pot-shots at the moderators, and posted recalcitrant threads and profile comments and so were temporarily suspended for a few minutes to regain some order.

I think it'll be simpler to just ask in the support forum or PM me in the future if it isn't obvious why a thread has been closed. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2011)

It's always the same people kicking off though - this is a cycling forum - TBH I'm surprised Admin hasn't pulled CA&D permanently as this is where all the bun fights start, and none of it is to do with cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2011)

Ashtrayhead said:


> I was enjoying that thread! It was a bit of festive banter.


me too, and I admit to being completely bamboozled by BFF (I think) (possibly)


----------



## Fab Foodie (31 Dec 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Looks like I'm back to watching Emmerdale and the Street now......*and looking at my Audi Q7 4.2.*...oh forget it !


 Best thing to do with it .... 

Overabundant smilies added to ensure mild tongue-in-cheekness is noted.


----------



## Fab Foodie (31 Dec 2011)

fossyant said:


> It's always the same people kicking off though - this is a cycling forum - TBH I'm surprised Admin hasn't pulled CA&D permanently as this is where all the bun fights start, and none of it is to do with cycling.


Au contraire, P&L lite C&D has been peaceful of late almost to the point of banality.


----------



## smokeysmoo (31 Dec 2011)

colly said:


> What's Korean for Cyclechat?


 
사이클 채팅


----------



## Archie_tect (31 Dec 2011)

smokeysmoo said:


> 사이클 채팅


 
How very dare you!


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2011)

1661188 said:


> The thread in question was not in CA&D though.


 
Couldn't care less where it was - it's the usual suspects kicking off, then complaining when a thread gets moderated. If you don't like it, then there are far more suitable forums for bun fights !


----------



## smokeysmoo (31 Dec 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> How very dare you!


 
정말 미안 archie_tect, 나의 사랑스런 사과를 받아주세요


----------



## brokenflipflop (31 Dec 2011)

1661247 said:


> It ceased to be amusing at the point where BFF offended PBancroft and passed up the opportunity to apologise, thus firmly showing himself to be the unpleasant troll he is.


Well, that's one way to look at it. The way I look at it is the guy obviously didn't like me (which is fine) and so he chose to use only some of what I had written which matched a few bits of his relatives life, who happens to have a disabled child, just to establish the moral high ground. Instead of banter it then instantly turned me into some kind of hater of disabled people and their families. I viewed it as a cheap shot and treated it as such. I think the guy got what he wanted, I don't see what I need to apologise about, so I apologise for that.


----------



## derrick (31 Dec 2011)

Poll, or reopen it.


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2011)

Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget. Apply this to the posts that get pulled !
Fairly obvious eh. If you don't like it - you know where the door is.

*Guidelines to using CycleChat*


*CycleChat* is a growing online community for cyclists. It is aimed at a general audience so to help us keep CycleChat a friendly place please follow these simple site usage guidelines:

*Respect - *Please be respectful and considerate to other CycleChat members.
*Inappropriate conduct -* Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat. If a disagreement makes you angry, take a break and come back later when you are more composed.
*Inappropriate content - *Do not post anything that is obscene, vulgar, contains sexual imagery or text, is racist (_including slang_), hateful, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate for a cycling forum. Common sense should guide you in this.
*Swearing* - Don't overly use swear words (_including using *'s or other shortcuts to indicate swear words_) - it is unnecessary and undesirable.


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2011)

Uncle Mort said:


> I've tidied that one up for you.


 
That one is next on the list.


----------



## vernon (31 Dec 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Well, that's one way to look at it. The way I look at it is the guy obviously didn't like me (which is fine) and so he chose to use only some of what I had written which matched a few bits of his relatives life, who happens to have a disabled child, just to establish the moral high ground. Instead of banter it then instantly turned me into some kind of hater of disabled people and their families. I viewed it as a cheap shot and treated it as such. I think the guy got what he wanted, I don't see what I need to apologise about, so I apologise for that.


 
As so much of the thread was pure fabrication, the Bancroft posting could easily be interpreted as counter trolling measures. I for one didn't take his posting as being a serious one and anyone who was offended by proxy needs to ask why make the posting in the first place unless he's a member of the suffering by proxy community. Disability is no fun for some of the sufferers but why drag them into a thread with which they have no connection other than the poster's need to spread misery around? It has to be remembered that there was a considerable amount of (t)role play in the thread and BFF stayed in role.

I am not normally a grouch but some folk need to develop a thicker skin.


----------



## Nantmor (31 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1661298, member: 3143"]imo it was fairly obvious from an early stage that the bin thread was trolling. 

[/quote]

I thought it was obvious trolling when I read the heading and the poster's name. I didn't bother to open it. I guess it was a sucessful troll, since the thread had so many posters.


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

fossyant said:


> Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget.
> 
> 
> *Inappropriate conduct -* Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat. If a disagreement makes you angry, take a break and come back later when you are more composed.


 

I agree with you, Fossy, but the above applies to *BOTH* mods and ordinary posters alike.

Some mods have a history of baiting and undermining other forumers. If they take their mods hats off during a thread, that's fine, but they shouldn't then able to pull 'rank' when the going gets tough and become all 'holier than thou' and act heavy-handed. In other words, how can a mod be neutral whilst being subjectively involved in a thread?


----------



## ttcycle (31 Dec 2011)

Where has this happened Dayvo?

Firstly, you are unhappy that I've pulled the thread as I haven't taken part in it and now you're questioning neutrality? The reason it was me that closed the thread was precisely due to me not being involved at any point. To clear something up, it's not often the case that decisions are made by one moderator alone- there's a lot of discussion and behind the scenes stuff that goes on. You posted a slew of stuff which was full of misunderstandings as Admin has pointed out. I accept your apology but moderation is not as you misunderstand it to be.


----------



## Shaun (31 Dec 2011)

I feel, on reflection, this could have been handled differently and have said as much in the mods fourm; but in future if anyone has a problem with the modding or with a specific moderator, then please just PM me. Then I can look into it.

Also, it would probably be best if people don't start wind-up (baiting) threads without making it _very_ clear they are taking the Michael; because implying people have "no sense of humour" when they respond seriously to such threads is a poor excuse for baiting them in the first place - and the disparaging "character" comments on that thread were undoubtedly written specifically to draw people into responding seriously.

I'm going to head off for the day and spend it with my family (_building flat-pack kids bedroom furnitue - wish me luck!!_) so let me wish you all a happy new year, and hope you have a lovely day/evening.

See you all in 2012. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

ttcycle said:


> Where has this happened Dayvo?
> 
> Firstly, you are unhappy that I've pulled the thread as I haven't taken part in it and now you're questioning neutrality? The reason it was me that closed the thread was precisely due to me not being involved at any point. To clear something up, it's not often the case that decisions are made by one moderator alone- there's a lot of discussion and behind the scenes stuff that goes on. You posted a slew of stuff which was full of misunderstandings as Admin has pointed out. I accept your apology but moderation is not as you misunderstand it to be.


 
Firstly I was surprised and disappointed that a popular thread had been pulled by a mod, disguised as PC Dixon. I sent, what I believed would be a direct sms to the mod concerned, asking for an explanation, which was not forthcoming, which then started to rile me, as the thread was an amusing and entertaining one.

I posted once on it, early on, and identified it as a wind-up. There was no hate or malice in it, but I understand there was a comment made by BFF, that unfortunately later upset a forumer.

It was only later that I found out you had pulled the thread, although that is irrelevant. I was most upset for being given a cooling down ban, which I felt was totally unjustified, seeing as all I did was ask for an explanation. I wrongly assumed you had banned me without having the decency to explain (something the other mod didn't do).

I'd like to know what the grounds were for the 'other' mod to ban me.

I am pleased you accepted my apology.


----------



## brokenflipflop (31 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> I thought it was obvious trolling when I read the heading and the poster's name. I didn't bother to open it. I guess it was a sucessful troll, since the thread had so many posters.


That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.


----------



## Dayvo (31 Dec 2011)

OK, Shaun!

All understood and taken on board.

Have a great new year.


----------



## Nantmor (31 Dec 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.


As I say, I didn't bother to open the thread. `Maybe I was unfair, but look at the results of that first post.


----------



## ttcycle (31 Dec 2011)

More things to be clear about- the mod account doesn't get checked frequently- and as Admin has written already it wasn't a PM you'd sent (and if no-one is logged into the mod account it wouldn't get seen anyway) you posted on the moderator profile page which is even less likely to be seen. You weren't being ignored at all.

You recognise you got riled, probably for the wrong reasons and for misinterpreting processes. I can't speak for the banning but you weren't exactly a reasoned poster yesterday. You posted several comments about me and about moderation directly hinting at removing me as a mod which in light of your misunderstandings was well off the mark. Did you give people time to actually get back to you? It is Xmas/New Year after all and there are less of us modding in general. However, I could have retaliated and been unpleasant to you in public but what is the point in that as you really were just getting the wrong end of the stick and that's not the kind of person I am.


----------



## potsy (31 Dec 2011)

Is it still up for thread of the year?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> That's a bit unfair. My opening post wasn't a troll, it happened and I chucked in my opinion. Following on I entered into what I thought was banter and I thought was light-hearted and throughout I did maintain my stance about the bin facts and the bin men. And "the posters name", *you're suggesting there that I'm a bit of a dick and..............yeah, Ok, fair comment.*


see my thread on auctioning sig lines........


----------



## fossyant (31 Dec 2011)

If you are all going to be posting 'under the influence later', many of us will be off celebrating - so behave and be nice to each other !


----------



## col (1 Jan 2012)

fossyant said:


> Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget. Apply this to the posts that get pulled !
> Fairly obvious eh. If you don't like it - you know where the door is.
> 
> *Guidelines to using CycleChat*
> ...


 
Here Here. Im for once in agreement with you.


----------



## col (1 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1660985, member: 45"]It wasn't flaming col. You made a comment about vulnerable people who couldn't manage their bins, and I said that there were arrangements in place to deal with this. You started talking about 'examples', and I was trying to establish whether you really had any examples or had just come up with a scenario which you thought might happen. We weren't able to get to the bottom of that because the thread was closed. I'd have been happy to continue that discussion, but doing that in a thread created to circumvent a thread closure isn't the right way imo.[/quote]

I thought I had made it clear it was a possible example. Its the seemingly grossly unfair reason the thread was closed which caused all the anger amongst others, which was very reasonable to expect, given the suspect reason it was closed, and then myself locked out totally with another because they dared question it too. It seems you are well known for flaming or baiting, it does also seem you try to annoy or insult in a roundabout way, to get a reaction when your not hearing what you want to hear, but hey ho eh?
Aaaanyway, back to the topic you want to carry on discussing.
Are you willing to accept that someone with memory problems, who may not have been for help about it as they dont feel they have a problem, could possibly forget to place their bin properly. Then the binmen deciding to not take it , as its a few feet further away from where they want it to be, so incuring the red tape and worry that entails? Especially when our council for one, are now sending fines to people who have their rubbish out on a wrong day.


----------



## col (1 Jan 2012)

[QUOTE 1663555, member: 45"]My post wasn't baiting or flaming. I was seeking clarity. If someone is exaggerating or making stuff up then I'm always keen to clarify what's actually being said, otherwise a response is inaccurate.

I see what they mean about you using word play to try and get a reaction. But I think I made it clear it was an example or possibility. And in no way exaggerating on something. 

It's possible. And as I said there are measures in place to solve the problem. It usually should just take a carer or concerned person contacting the local authority. Sometimes it's a bit more involved, but the support is there. I know, because I used to deal with these very issues in my job.

Not everyone who forgets things easily is on the radar. But it doesnt stop the worry or shock if they recieve a fine through the door, if they did have rubbish out on the wrong day. Not until there has been communication to the relavent people will help be forthcoming. And this wont happen until a person who forgets is recognised as such. How many shocks do they need before they are recognised as needing help?

I've not heard of anyone with issues making it difficult for them to manage their bins being fined for not doing it properly. It's your scenario being taken a step further to talk about fining that interested me, which is why I asked whether you had any examples.

There were incidents here sometime ago that had fines sent to houses as they had their rubbish out the day before it should have been. the fines were quashed, but not until there was comunication between enraged people and the council. Ad this is the possible type of scenario Im asking about, but when some simply forget or didnt realise it was left by the binmen.

But hey, that's explained now and this thread isn't the one for carrying on the discussion. Start another one if you like, but I don't think there's much more to be said. I'll not be carrying on this discussion in here as it's not the right place.[/quote]

Your first two words "its possible" answer my theoretical question, thanks
I would have started this somewhere else, but seeing as you posted your answer to me here, I didnt realise you meant for me to answer it somewhere else. But seeing as you agree with me anyway, I suppose your right, no need for further discussion, cheers


----------



## Zoiders (2 Jan 2012)

fossyant said:


> Just a reminder of the first few rules that folk seem to forget. Apply this to the posts that get pulled !
> Fairly obvious eh. If you don't like it - you know where the door is.
> 
> *Guidelines to using CycleChat*
> ...


These two, especialy the stalking and baiting bit.

Sorry to tell you this but it becomes fairly obvious to some of us that mods follow certain members as they are looking for excuses to ban people, they don't really care about the content of threads or the other individuals involved.

Some of us are not huge fans of the threatening, patronising and bullying tone used in the PM's from mods either.

It's not doing the forum any good as a clique are controling freedom of speech with constant threats of bannings, and despite claims to the contrary it is often political and personal in nature with some huge ego's being waved about by the mods.


----------



## col (2 Jan 2012)

Single word posts which are sarcastic, and intended as an insult seem a fave from even some mods. isnt this trolling?


----------



## Zoiders (2 Jan 2012)

col said:


> Single word posts which are sarcastic, and intended as an insult seem a fave from even some mods. isnt this trolling?


Trailing you through section after section with pedantic one liners and no real contribution to a thread?

Spookily familiar.


----------



## Shaun (2 Jan 2012)

If you're going to reduce the thread to speculative mod-bashing it's time to draw it to a close.

The best advice I can offer anyone with regard to avoiding moderator attention, is simply to use CC in a considerate and respectful manner.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

