Sick of being told "Go to After Hours"

keanooo

Anytime I make any type of mildly humourous or controversial comment on any of the other fora I get the moderators jumping on me saying either "This isn't After Hours you know" or "Save that for After Hours son!".

For example a few months ago I complained on the politics forum that if the government slashed the dole by too much I was going to protest by going returning to work... Mods all over me.

Yesterday on an "Online Dating" thread a lady, Jenna69 no less, said she wished someone would bring her out for a few drinks and see where it led. One fella replied by saying (in all seriousness) that he couldn't stay out late but that they could go for afternoon coffee instead... In a moment of madness I suggested his reply was "totally gay". I got a few snarky comments on the thread (I exercised restraint by not replying "Maybe you are all homosexual"), was warned by one mod, told it wasn't AH and then was banned from the forum two hours later by another mod.

Is this normal? Is this what boards is about?

_blank_

Let's get this straight.

You want to be allowed to clog up threads in topic-specific forums, with off topic "funny" posts?

Is that correct?

keanooo

It hardly "clog".

How come it's always the Mods throwing in their 2 cents, complaining and defending the actions of other Mods? Let everyone else have their say for at least one thread please.

_blank_

If everyone did it, it would then be clogged, and there's be no place for proper discussion of the specific topics that the hundreds of forums are provided for.

Moderators are tasked with keeping the threads in the forums which they moderate free from the type of crap that you are saying should be allowed.

So, I'll ask again

You want to be allowed to clog up threads in topic-specific forums, with off topic "funny" posts?

Do you want special dispensation for this activity, or can everyone do it?

Or should we direct people who want to post such inanities to the more light-hearted and general topic forum called After Hours, and leave the people who want to seriously discuss their chosen topic, without interruption from your undoubtedly witty repertoire of comments, to their topics' specific forum?

mstan

To be fair to the OP when I seen that Gay comment yesterday it did make me laugh. It's just a bit of harmless banter. Some people seem far to caught up on being "politically correct". I did think keanooo was hard done by getting banned for that joke.

keanooo

Des wrote: »

If everyone did it etc. etc. blah, blah, blah...

You people just can't stop yourselves, can you?

Insect Overlord

keanooo wrote: »

You people just can't stop yourselves, can you?

*jumps on the bandwagon*

You're going to last ages around here with your charm, wit and eloquence.

You posted rubbish, you got caught out for it, you were punished for it. Boo friggin' hoo.

Chris P. Bacon

I'd hardly call it rubbish it was a joke for gods sake,some mods on here are way to sensitive when people come into their forum.

dr.bollocko

Different forums have different tolerance levels for banter.

That said after hours gets a bad rep all over boards.

Loads of charters have "this is not after hours" etc in it. Mods often chant out the ole "this is not after hours" mantra.

Often its done for stuff which isn't allowed in after hours either but it's part of the moderatorial lexicon now innit.

It used to bother me but now I just post in after hours instead.

zuroph

keanooo wrote: »

You people just can't stop yourselves, can you?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l2VT7bYUEaY/TPLy-mvjPaI/AAAAAAAAPJg/KmZjKZk3nR0/s1600/what-do-you-mean-you-people.jpg

Oryx

Ah, go take your gay complaint home to Yore Ma. *









*Do you see how inappropriate and derailing that remark is in this thread? Can you see why similar remarks of yours are cautioned when you post them in a thread where they are not wanted?

dr.bollocko

For example "yore ma" would be the type of comment we actively remove from after hours threads and have done for years as a result of poster feedback. However many people assume that's still going on.

Oryx

I know its now removed but thought for the purpose of this illustration it was worth it.

MitchKoobski

I can see the point the OP is trying to make....in a way....

I do feel sometimes like AH and Humour are the only two places where you can crack a joke without being told "There's no place for that here" or "Take it to AH". There's the odd glimpse of a sense of humour here and there but a lot of the time I feel like I'm posting in two different modes. AH/Humour mode and Cagey, Watch What I Say mode.

tbh

keanooo wrote: »

Anytime I make any type of mildly humourous or controversial comment on any of the other fora I get the moderators jumping on me saying either "This isn't After Hours you know" or "Save that for After Hours son!".

For example a few months ago I complained on the politics forum that if the government slashed the dole by too much I was going to protest by going returning to work... Mods all over me.

Yesterday on an "Online Dating" thread a lady, Jenna69 no less, said she wished someone would bring her out for a few drinks and see where it led. One fella replied by saying (in all seriousness) that he couldn't stay out late but that they could go for afternoon coffee instead... In a moment of madness I suggested his reply was "totally gay". I got a few snarky comments on the thread (I exercised restraint by not replying "Maybe you are all homosexual"), was warned by one mod, told it wasn't AH and then was banned from the forum two hours later by another mod.

Is this normal? Is this what boards is about?

Hey OP, I'm the mod that banned you for the "thats so gay" post you made.
Here's the post I made on thread, and the text of the message I sent you at the time.

Ok chap, I don't think this forum is for you to be honest. Banned for the foreseeable, if you want to come back at some stage, drop me a pm and we can chat about it. Leave it a few months tho, I haven't the time or the inclination to be dealing with the whole "that's so gay" thing. It's probably hilarious in school, but it's just annoying here. OK?

So, I gave you a permanent ban, but that's not because I never want to see you posting in the GC again. I didn't ban you to punish you, I banned you so that we (the mods) didn't have to deal with the fallout of those type of posts.
As I said above, I'm not here to explain to you why I'm not going to allow you to post that kind of.....post on a thread. It's a lesson you'll either learn, or you won't. If you care, that's grand, you'll apologise and the ban will be lifted. If you don't, that's grand too, and you can post anywhere the mods will let you. I don't have any grudge against you, I'm not angry with you, I'm just making sure that you don't post like that again.

Sam gave you a warning on thread, and that's fine too, but my thought process was "if we have to explain to this guy why that kind of post isn't acceptable, then either he's doing it deliberately to cause trouble, or he's just got a sense of humour that's going to lead to lots more inappropriate posts like this". So I decided to cut to the chase and let you do your maturing somewhere else on boards.

I notice you said the post was made "in a moment of madness" but I also notice you said "I exercised restraint by not replying "Maybe you are all homosexual"". That's the kind of statement that reassures me I made the right call.

Like I said, you're welcome back anytime if you're willing to suck it up and assure us that kind of behaviour won't be repeated. I'm not trying to humiliate you and I promise, it's not a power thing - I don't care either way. As long as the behaviour isn't repeated, I don't care what method achieves that.
Totally up to you.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

From what I've seen on my time here it's always been ok to joke on any of the forums as long as that is not all your post consists off.
You can craic a joke, often followed by ":pac:" then add your say to the conversation

Such threads make the best reading tbh, you can have a laugh and a decent discussion and maybe even learn something

AH is often the nest for these type threads as well btw, true there tends to be a lot of sh1te but some threads are highly entertaining and informative (usually when all the kids are busy doing exams )

Handsome Bob

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That said after hours gets a bad rep all over boards.

Loads of charters have "this is not after hours" etc in it. Mods often chant out the ole "this is not after hours" mantra.

Often its done for stuff which isn't allowed in after hours either but it's part of the moderatorial lexicon now innit.

R&R gets that too. It's not very respectful is it? Regardless of one's opinion on a forum, the least you can do is show a bit of class towards your fellow mod.

OP, I'd be one for banter as well, it's like walking a fine line though. You gotta get a feel for a forum and understand what's acceptable and what's not. To be honest, if I was on the receiving end of your "that's gay" comment I would have felt slightly antagonised.

keanooo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

OP, I'd be one for banter as well, it's like walking a fine line though. You gotta get a feel for a forum and understand what's acceptable and what's not. To be honest, if I was on the receiving end of your "that's gay" comment I would have felt slightly antagonised.

Okay kidz, I'm going to break this down for you.

The comment: The comment was "That is totally gay". Note the "totally". It implies that there may a shade of sarcasm in the comment.

The context: Online dating sites are full of male perverts looking for sex from women. Full of them. Finally a woman comes along and says actually, she's not looking for long romantic walks by the beach or debates about whether Jane Austen or the Emily Bronte were the best authors of their era... she's actually hoping to go for a few drinks and get laid. She is effectively saying: "Are you up for it?"

The "victim": Clark Kent then comes along and says, without a hint of irony, that he can't stay up late but that he can go for afternoon coffee and scones.

Have I gone insane? Does no one else understand that that is a complete reversal of the male/ female role on an online dating site? That there could be no more appropriate a context into which to enter, "That is totally gay" for a few cheap laughs?

Gordon

keanooo wrote: »

Anytime I make any type of mildly humourous or controversial comment on any of the other fora I get the moderators jumping on me saying either "This isn't After Hours you know" or "Save that for After Hours son!".

For example a few months ago I complained on the politics forum that if the government slashed the dole by too much I was going to protest by going returning to work... Mods all over me.

Yesterday on an "Online Dating" thread a lady, Jenna69 no less, said she wished someone would bring her out for a few drinks and see where it led. One fella replied by saying (in all seriousness) that he couldn't stay out late but that they could go for afternoon coffee instead... In a moment of madness I suggested his reply was "totally gay". I got a few snarky comments on the thread (I exercised restraint by not replying "Maybe you are all homosexual"), was warned by one mod, told it wasn't AH and then was banned from the forum two hours later by another mod.

Is this normal? Is this what boards is about?

Has this only happened twice in all your time on boards?

El Weirdo

keanooo wrote: »

Okay kidz, I'm going to break this down for you.

The comment: The comment was "That is totally gay". Note the "totally". It implies that there may a shade of sarcasm in the comment.

The context: Online dating sites are full of male perverts looking for sex from women. Full of them. Finally a woman comes along and says actually, she's not looking for long romantic walks by the beach or debates about whether Jane Austen or the Emily Bronte were the best authors of their era... she's actually hoping to go for a few drinks and get laid. She is effectively saying: "Are you up for it?"

The "victim": Clark Kent then comes along and says, without a hint of irony, that he can't stay up late but that he can go for afternoon coffee and scones.

Have I gone insane? Does no one else understand that that is a complete reversal of the male/ female role on an online dating site? That there could be no more appropriate a context into which to enter, "That is totally gay" for a few cheap laughs?

I don't get it.

keanooo

Gordon wrote: »

Has this only happened twice in all your time on boards?

No. A few times. But the other examples make me look really bad, so I've decided to leave them out.

tbh

Jaysus dude, the ones you included don't exactly make you look like Oscar Wilde.

TouchingVirus

Can I just ask, from an entirely neutral standpoint I might add, is it often that a moderator decision is overruled by one particular mod? I just seems pretty strange that one mod in a forum can deal with the issue, and then it be upgraded by a mod of equal status (i.e. not a CMod, or group mod decision). Not getting at you in particular tbh, it really isn't something I've come across too often

tbh

Don't worry - I appreciate where you're coming from. It's not usual, no. I had missed sams warning post to the OP and if I'd seen it, I would have contacted Sam and Otis first. I think we've a good enough relationship that a: they knew where I was coming from and b: if either of them had objected, they would say it and I would of course had retracted. But was more of a case of me thinking I was first on the scene and wasn't meant to overrule Sam at all.

Gordon

keanooo wrote: »

No. A few times. But the other examples make me look really bad, so I've decided to leave them out.

Were they before the one that you commented on in the OP about the dole, which you posted in 2010, or after?

TouchingVirus

tbh wrote: »

Don't worry - I appreciate where you're coming from. It's not usual, no. I had missed sams warning post to the OP and if I'd seen it, I would have contacted Sam and Otis first. I think we've a good enough relationship that a: they knew where I was coming from and b: if either of them had objected, they would say it and I would of course had retracted. But was more of a case of me thinking I was first on the scene and wasn't meant to overrule Sam at all.

I had assumed that you mods had a discussion about it but the content of your message to the OP left me scratching my head. Thanks for the clarification

keanooo

Gordon wrote: »

Were they before the one that you commented on in the OP about the dole, which you posted in 2010, or after?

I was being a bit sarcastic in my first answer to you. But yeah, the other one was after the dole post. I got a lot of abuse from the other thread members and the mods on it, but they left my posts up, which was surprising.

It was the dole post that really annoyed me, but as has been mentioned elsewhere, they are very heavy-handed there.

Where is this going?

pickarooney

I find the kind of remark paraphrased by the OP a bit irritating and I imagine that goes double for those that moderate AH. If you don't want a particular type of post in your forum, all well and good but why make a call about its suitability to another forum which you don't moderate? If a bouncer kept turning away drunks and telling them they'd get served in my pub I'd get pissed off fairly quickly.

Gordon

keanooo wrote: »

I was being a bit sarcastic in my first answer to you. But yeah, the other one was after the dole post. I got a lot of abuse from the other thread members and the mods on it, but they left my posts up, which was surprising.

It was the dole post that really annoyed me, but as has been mentioned elsewhere, they are very heavy-handed there.

Where is this going?

I'm trying to judge frequency of your experience. So that's one time it happened yesterday, and the only other time this happened was last year, so I'm not sure how two separate occurances in different years makes you 'sick of being told' something.

keanooo

Gordon wrote: »

I'm trying to judge frequency of your experience. So that's one time it happened yesterday, and the only other time this happened was last year, so I'm not sure how two separate occurances in different years makes you 'sick of being told' something.

I don't post that often. I have done so a lot this week, but prior to that, very little. It's only been three times since November fair enough, but it's been everytime I've said anything mildly not in keeping with whatever way the mods want us to express ourselves.

As I said I thought the dole one was really heavy-handed and in fact out of line. I pursued it with his superiors (only because I thought he was being a little Hitler and that it was bad to have someone like that modding on boards) but they backed him to the hilt. And I was told "this is not AH".

Last night was an innocuous little comment and again... banned from the forum.

I probably deserved the slap on the face I eventually got on the other thread, my "fake tan" comments. Though I was well-intentioned to start out with.

Black Swan

MitchKoobski wrote: »

I can see the point the OP is trying to make....in a way....

I do feel sometimes like AH and Humour are the only two places where you can crack a joke without being told "There's no place for that here" or "Take it to AH".

In addition to AH and Humour, there is also TCN. Plus the American Football forum allows banter in its charter and in practice. In addition to the occasional banter that occurs on most AF threads, there is also a specific banter thread that has been running for quite some time.

The USA & Canada Travel and United States forums allow a bit of humour, provided you don't go off-topic or abuse anyone. The point being made here is that there is not a nominal either/or divide for all forums on boards.ie regarding a bit of humour; i.e., some are relatively serious in content like Politics, whereas humour is a part of the game in American Football.

Dravokivich

keanooo wrote: »

The comment: The comment was "That is totally gay". Note the "totally". It implies that there may a shade of sarcasm in the comment.

Your comment was considered abuse, or did you not realise that?

keanooo

Dravokivich wrote: »

Your comment was considered abuse, or did you not realise that?

If it was it shouldn't have been. I wouldn't abuse anyone on boards unless they really deserved it. Clark Kent didn't say anything that deserved abuse.

He just made a post that was a bit gay.

Oryx

On the one hand your saying calling someone gay is light hearted humour, and on the other you point out that you consider it an insult. (exercising restraint in not calling someone homosexual). Youre trying to say the ethos here is too serious while ignoring the posts you made where you know your brand of humour overstepped the mark. I think maybe its you that needs to reassess and not the forums you post in.

keanooo

Oryx wrote: »

On the one hand your saying calling someone gay is light hearted humour, and on the other you point out that you consider it an insult. (exercising restraint in not calling someone homosexual). Youre trying to say the ethos here is too serious while ignoring the posts you made where you know your brand of humour overstepped the mark. I think maybe its you that needs to reassess and not the forums you post in.

Oryx, I think that's a bit harsh. Everyone knows that the term "that's gay" does not refer to a thing's sexuality. There's a whole South Park episode dedicated to the topic. Now in my exchange with Clark Kent there is a cross-over between the modern-day sense of "gay" and the more traditional "not being a heterosexual" sense; in that Clark wasn't pursuing a potential opportunity to go out on the lash with a woman and wanted to go admiring flowers with her instead. But I think that the cross-over makes my comment even funnier.

As for the restraint, I meant restraining from saying what the mods don't want me to say. The "maybe you are all homosexuals" is a Simpson's line. It is funny because it parodies the neanderthal views of the person who speaks it, not because it questions the sexuality of the people it's directed at.

AlmightyCushion

tbh wrote: »

Hey OP, I'm the mod that banned you for the "thats so gay" post you made.
Here's the post I made on thread, and the text of the message I sent you at the time.




So, I gave you a permanent ban, but that's not because I never want to see you posting in the GC again. I didn't ban you to punish you, I banned you so that we (the mods) didn't have to deal with the fallout of those type of posts.
As I said above, I'm not here to explain to you why I'm not going to allow you to post that kind of.....post on a thread. It's a lesson you'll either learn, or you won't. If you care, that's grand, you'll apologise and the ban will be lifted. If you don't, that's grand too, and you can post anywhere the mods will let you. I don't have any grudge against you, I'm not angry with you, I'm just making sure that you don't post like that again.

Sam gave you a warning on thread, and that's fine too, but my thought process was "if we have to explain to this guy why that kind of post isn't acceptable, then either he's doing it deliberately to cause trouble, or he's just got a sense of humour that's going to lead to lots more inappropriate posts like this". So I decided to cut to the chase and let you do your maturing somewhere else on boards.

I notice you said the post was made "in a moment of madness" but I also notice you said "I exercised restraint by not replying "Maybe you are all homosexual"". That's the kind of statement that reassures me I made the right call.

Like I said, you're welcome back anytime if you're willing to suck it up and assure us that kind of behaviour won't be repeated. I'm not trying to humiliate you and I promise, it's not a power thing - I don't care either way. As long as the behaviour isn't repeated, I don't care what method achieves that.
Totally up to you.

So for saying "that's totally gay" he got an indefinite ban which will last at least a few months and can only get back in once he's discussed it with you. That's a completely over the top decision.

tbh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So for saying "that's totally gay" he got an indefinite ban which will last at least a few months and can only get back in once he's discussed it with you. That's a completely over the top decision.

he got a ban which will not be auto-lifted because he displayed a complete lack of understanding of whats expected of him in the forum.

AlmightyCushion

tbh wrote: »

he got a ban which will not be auto-lifted because he displayed a complete lack of understanding of whats expected of him in the forum.

So does everyone else who breaks the rules. Maybe it's just me but I'd consider abuse or trolling worse than what he posted and unless someone had a history or it was some extreme situation I wouldn't issue that sort of ban for those.

tbh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So does everyone else who breaks the rules. Maybe it's just me but I'd consider abuse or trolling worse than what he posted and unless someone had a history or it was some extreme situation I wouldn't issue that sort of ban for those.

There are mitigating circumstances to a lot of cases, like when someone loses their temper. In that case, usually I wouldn't ban at all, because a quick chat with the user makes them realize their behavior is unacceptable, and is enough to resolve the situation. Someone trolling or posting abuse deliberately would get a ban - that wouldn't be lifted - because it is usually clear that the sole reason they are posting is to troll or post abuse. In that case, a ban is the only method which will stop the behavior.

In the OP's case, as I pointed out, the permaban was given, not for the length, but so it wouldn't be auto-lifted. I want the OP to acknowledge that the post he made isn't acceptable in the forum - if the forum is important to him, he can get the ban lifted today, if it's not, then we're saving ourselves a load of hassle in the future.

by the way - I don't have a problem with people posting jokes per se. I took the post he made in the context of the thread he was making it in. If someone was talking about a date on the forums off-topic thread, and he'd replied with the post he made, I doubt it would have warrented a yellow card.

sam34

keanooo wrote: »

Oryx, I think that's a bit harsh. Everyone knows that the term "that's gay" does not refer to a thing's sexuality. There's a whole South Park episode dedicated to the topic. Now in my exchange with Clark Kent there is a cross-over between the modern-day sense of "gay" and the more traditional "not being a heterosexual" sense; in that Clark wasn't pursuing a potential opportunity to go out on the lash with a woman and wanted to go admiring flowers with her instead. But I think that the cross-over makes my comment even funnier.

As for the restraint, I meant restraining from saying what the mods don't want me to say. The "maybe you are all homosexuals" is a Simpson's line. It is funny because it parodies the neanderthal views of the person who speaks it, not because it questions the sexuality of the people it's directed at.

not everyone bases their opinion of what's funny on american tv shows.

ironically, in your PM to me after i gave you the yellow card you complained about the actions of another poster in the forum and ended with "gentlemens club indeed" ... do you think your gay comment was gentlemanly?

it's an immature, juvenile insult at best... if I heard my ten year old nephew saying it to someone i'd tell him to cop on.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

In the OP's case, as I pointed out, the permaban was given, not for the length, but so it wouldn't be auto-lifted. I want the OP to acknowledge that the post he made isn't acceptable in the forum - if the forum is important to him, he can get the ban lifted today, if it's not, then we're saving ourselves a load of hassle in the future.

tbh wrote:

Ok chap, I don't think this forum is for you to be honest. Banned for the foreseeable, if you want to come back at some stage, drop me a pm and we can chat about it. Leave it a few months tho, I haven't the time or the inclination to be dealing with the whole "that's so gay" thing. It's probably hilarious in school, but it's just annoying here. OK?

Your two statements are in direct contrast to each other. You tell the OP not to contact you for "a few months" and yet, in the next breath you suggest that he can get the ban lifted today? How exactly is he to do that?

Secondly, as childish as he remarks are perceived by you (and others), and I ask this genuinely, does his pattern of behavior on the GC forum really warrant an open ended ban? Really? Banned for a few months for what was obviously a lame attempt at humor?

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Your two statements are in direct contrast to each other. You tell the OP not to contact you for "a few months" and yet, in the next breath you suggest that he can get the ban lifted today? How exactly is he to do that?

that's a fair point and that's my bad. OP, you can ignore the bit about leaving it a few months. If you want to get back in, pm me and we can talk about it.

Secondly, as childish as he remarks are perceived by you (and others), and I ask this genuinely, does his pattern of behavior on the GC forum really warrant an open ended ban? Really? Banned for a few months for what was obviously a lame attempt at humor?

yeah, it does. As I said, it was in the context of the thread he made it in. The ban is to draw his attention to the fact that that kind of posting won't be tolerated. It's not intended to punish him. I want him to acknowledge that it was a stupid remark to make and to give assurances that it won't be repeated. If he's prepared to do that, he can come back today. If he isn't, he can't.

IITYWYBMAD

tbh wrote: »

yeah, it does. As I said, it was in the context of the thread he made it in. The ban is to draw his attention to the fact that that kind of posting won't be tolerated. It's not intended to punish him. I want him to acknowledge that it was a stupid remark to make and to give assurances that it won't be repeated. If he's prepared to do that, he can come back today. If he isn't, he can't.

I seem to remember DeV saying that a ban is kinda a "last resort" thing.

Do you not feel that an editing of his comment, followed up with a PM explaining what you have said above, would have a been a fairer and more "even handed" approach to something that while hugely objectionable to you, can be viewed as quite harmless in the "cold light of day"?

I don't know this posters history, but on the face of it, it looks like a huge overreaction to a fairly innocuous comment. I also don't like the whole "school teacher" type mentality of "I want him to acknowledge etc...", but that's just me.

keanooo

tbh wrote: »

yeah, it does. As I said, it was in the context of the thread he made it in. The ban is to draw his attention to the fact that that kind of posting won't be tolerated. It's not intended to punish him. I want him to acknowledge that it was a stupid remark to make and to give assurances that it won't be repeated. If he's prepared to do that, he can come back today. If he isn't, he can't.

Instead of an apology by PM I thought the manner of this apology might be more to your liking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0nHIXcc7Sw

old hippy

keanooo wrote: »

It hardly "clog".

How come it's always the Mods throwing in their 2 cents, complaining and defending the actions of other Mods? Let everyone else have their say for at least one thread please.

Like a graffitti wall? That's just anarchy.

tbh

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Do you not feel that an editing of his comment, followed up with a PM explaining what you have said above, would have a been a fairer and more "even handed" approach to something that while hugely objectionable to you, can be viewed as quite harmless in the "cold light of day"?

There are certainly arguments to be made for that approach in other situations, but to be perfectly honest with you I don't feel like my time, and the time of the other mods, is best spent messaging someone explaining to them why we're not going to allow them to post "that's so gay" in a thread, and in that thread in particular. Put simply, if he thinks that that kind of post is ok, then he doesn't get what's expected of him, or he doesn't care. In either case, I'm happy to let him decide how he wants to play it, while at the same time making sure there are no repeats. That's my call to make as the mod of the forum, and it's how I'll continue to mod. If the admins, cmods, other mods or the users of the forum object to that, then I'll happily stand aside with no bad feeling at all.

I don't know this posters history, but on the face of it, it looks like a huge overreaction to a fairly innocuous comment. I also don't like the whole "school teacher" type mentality of "I want him to acknowledge etc...", but that's just me.

I take your point and I'll bear it in mind. I would however dispute the overreaction aspect to it - I'm not angry about it, I didn't do it in a fit of pique and I'm not looking to humiliate the poster. If he had contacted me and said either "sorry - didn't realise what I was saying" or "sorry - was a moment of madness" or "you guys have no sense of humour but I won't say that again", then ban would have been lifted immediately - I would act the same way as I have always acted when someone contacts me after a ban. I've said before -the ban isn't a punishment, it's a time-out - once I'm assured that the behavior won't be repeated, the ban is pointless. To paraphrase a cliche, if someone acts like a schoolboy, then they can't be suprised if I act like a school teacher.

tbh

keanooo wrote: »

Instead of an apology by PM I thought the manner of this apology might be more to your liking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0nHIXcc7Sw

funneh but seriously, whatever about the heavy-handedness of a ban or whatever, is there anyone who would argue that the forum isn't better off without this guy?

Chinafoot

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I seem to remember DeV saying that a ban is kinda a "last resort" thing.

Do you not feel that an editing of his comment, followed up with a PM explaining what you have said above, would have a been a fairer and more "even handed" approach to something that while hugely objectionable to you, can be viewed as quite harmless in the "cold light of day"?

I was always under the impression that editing of someone's posts was, in most instances, a complete no-no.

Doctor DooM

Chinafoot wrote: »

I was always under the impression that editing of someone's posts was, in most instances, a complete no-no.

It's ok as long as it's not for nefarious ends, like going back and changing what someone said to make them look bad for the lulz (which occasionally used to happen).

If someone put something totally illegal in a post I'd edit it in a heartbeat.

Chinafoot

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It's ok as long as it's not for nefarious ends, like going back and changing what someone said to make them look bad for the lulz (which occasionally used to happen).

If someone put something totally illegal in a post I'd edit it in a heartbeat.

Something illegal is different though, or personal phone numbers and addresses. Editing a post because it has an inappropriate or off-topic comment shouldn't happen though. If its a bannable offence then ban them and leave the comment or soft-delete it if you're worried about it completely derailing a thread. I posted in feedback about mods editing posts before and it was confirmed that its not the done thing nor should it be.

keanooo

Chinafoot wrote: »

Something illegal is different though, or personal phone numbers and addresses. Editing a post because it has an inappropriate or off-topic comment shouldn't happen though. If its a bannable offence then ban them and leave the comment or soft-delete it if you're worried about it completely derailing a thread. I posted in feedback about mods editing posts before and it was confirmed that its not the done thing nor should it be.

Does that mean that they can ban you but would still have to leave your comment up?