Pres Cafe Watch News and Information Board

[all new Phil]

It is indeed absolutely ridiculous and pathetic, having your account restricted with no explanation whatsoever. I can only imagine it's because we said things that Andrew Wood (yes, we know it's you running the show, why bother hiding?) didn't particularly like. The Schofield thing was a classic example - a few people got upset about the discussion, went crying on here, and the next thing, discussion of This Morning as a whole is banned. Incredible.

And then you have to deal with having to pussyfoot around certain members on Pres Cafe, lest they or their minions go crying about it on here. I didn't realise All New Phil was the Pope, whose ring we all have to kiss! That is the only reason I can think of for Jonwo's stupid little comment about another user, Studio7. In future why don't we just run all of our posts past Phil and Jonwo first for approval? Hey! Maybe they are two of the secret mods? And then there's Phil (again!) and Cando demanding that anyone who dares criticise BBC News be burned at the stake. Cando obviously works for BBC World so can perhaps be forgiven, but I bet the rest of you don't even think the new channel is that good, really - because it's not. It's fucking dire. You only make out it's God's gift to TV news because it's the opposite to what everyone else on PC says. Childlike behaviour.

Peter, it's a real shame your forum never took off. At least we knew who the moderators were! It's a real shame that two wonderful forums both shut down, to be replaced by this pathetic little ego trip by a few saddos. But hey. I'm shouting into the void here. Pete's probably going to ban me because he doesn't like anyone interrupting his little clique. That's fine. I've said my bit. It was nice knowing you all. Now it's time I moved on. I think that would be better for everyone.

Pleased to see you’re still obsessed with me 👍

[DTV]

Regardless of people's thoughts on individual members, I can't say I particularly understand the rationale or care for the execution of this posting subject to approval. Surely, if somebody has broken the rules or their posts are so repeatedly contentious that they need to be pre-moderated, they should be warned, then banned if they continue. Having posts have to wait to be approved is a) surely needlessly time consuming for the moderators themselves and b) leading to weird situations in discussions where posts suddenly appear hours after they should - which is making some threads unnecessarily repetitive with unmoderated members unaware that moderated ones have already said the same thing.

[WillPS]

Regardless of people's thoughts on individual members, I can't say I particularly understand the rationale or care for the execution of this posting subject to approval. Surely, if somebody has broken the rules or their posts are so repeatedly contentious that they need to be pre-moderated, they should be warned, then banned if they continue. Having posts have to wait to be approved is a) surely needlessly time consuming for the moderators themselves and b) leading to weird situations in discussions where posts suddenly appear hours after they should - which is making some threads unnecessarily repetitive with unmoderated members unaware that moderated ones have already said the same thing.

Entirely agree that the second part is making threads flow weirdly to occasional/sporadic readers.

Seems like avoiding confrontation is the number one priority rather than actually creating valuable records of discussion.

[bilky asko]

Regardless of people's thoughts on individual members, I can't say I particularly understand the rationale or care for the execution of this posting subject to approval. Surely, if somebody has broken the rules or their posts are so repeatedly contentious that they need to be pre-moderated, they should be warned, then banned if they continue. Having posts have to wait to be approved is a) surely needlessly time consuming for the moderators themselves and b) leading to weird situations in discussions where posts suddenly appear hours after they should - which is making some threads unnecessarily repetitive with unmoderated members unaware that moderated ones have already said the same thing.

Entirely agree that the second part is making threads flow weirdly to occasional/sporadic readers.

Seems like avoiding confrontation is the number one priority rather than actually creating valuable records of discussion.

I think that's definitely the case, hence having the forum as readable to members only. Still, it's up to the site's owner(s) as to how they run the forum.

[Kojak]

It is indeed absolutely ridiculous and pathetic, having your account restricted with no explanation whatsoever. I can only imagine it's because we said things that Andrew Wood (yes, we know it's you running the show, why bother hiding?) didn't particularly like. The Schofield thing was a classic example - a few people got upset about the discussion, went crying on here, and the next thing, discussion of This Morning as a whole is banned. Incredible.

And then you have to deal with having to pussyfoot around certain members on Pres Cafe, lest they or their minions go crying about it on here. I didn't realise All New Phil was the Pope, whose ring we all have to kiss! That is the only reason I can think of for Jonwo's stupid little comment about another user, Studio7. In future why don't we just run all of our posts past Phil and Jonwo first for approval? Hey! Maybe they are two of the secret mods? And then there's Phil (again!) and Cando demanding that anyone who dares criticise BBC News be burned at the stake. Cando obviously works for BBC World so can perhaps be forgiven, but I bet the rest of you don't even think the new channel is that good, really - because it's not. It's fucking dire. You only make out it's God's gift to TV news because it's the opposite to what everyone else on PC says. Childlike behaviour.

Peter, it's a real shame your forum never took off. At least we knew who the moderators were! It's a real shame that two wonderful forums both shut down, to be replaced by this pathetic little ego trip by a few saddos. But hey. I'm shouting into the void here. Pete's probably going to ban me because he doesn't like anyone interrupting his little clique. That's fine. I've said my bit. It was nice knowing you all. Now it's time I moved on. I think that would be better for everyone.

Pleased to see you’re still obsessed with me 👍

Love you too xx 😍

[Newsroom2018]

Regardless of people's thoughts on individual members, I can't say I particularly understand the rationale or care for the execution of this posting subject to approval. Surely, if somebody has broken the rules or their posts are so repeatedly contentious that they need to be pre-moderated, they should be warned, then banned if they continue. Having posts have to wait to be approved is a) surely needlessly time consuming for the moderators themselves and b) leading to weird situations in discussions where posts suddenly appear hours after they should - which is making some threads unnecessarily repetitive with unmoderated members unaware that moderated ones have already said the same thing.

Entirely agree that the second part is making threads flow weirdly to occasional/sporadic readers.

Seems like avoiding confrontation is the number one priority rather than actually creating valuable records of discussion.

Great to read that some people are on board. The moderation is appalling and a one way street! This is dramatic but I can really only think of one big thing that springs to mind and that's MAGA. Their way or no way. There is no debate!

If a child was reprimanded in class, the child and its parent would know why! Why the hell is PC so different?

I do understand and indeed note that after the very public issues our friend Rob (tvlifeforum) encountered when running his own foru, abuse, online trolling etc is a very good issue to remain anon whilst being a moderator. However, Rob and his admins would ALWAYS communicate if/when there was issue - THAT is moderation.

I've been on MacRumours for as long as I laid hands on a keyboard. They moderate their forum with due-diligence and personal outreach when rules are breached! That site handles millions of hits each week.

PC have no argument about the way that site is moderated and it is truly appalling the way many of us are just ignored.

[Newsroom2018]

It is indeed absolutely ridiculous and pathetic, having your account restricted with no explanation whatsoever. I can only imagine it's because we said things that Andrew Wood (yes, we know it's you running the show, why bother hiding?) didn't particularly like. The Schofield thing was a classic example - a few people got upset about the discussion, went crying on here, and the next thing, discussion of This Morning as a whole is banned. Incredible.

And then you have to deal with having to pussyfoot around certain members on Pres Cafe, lest they or their minions go crying about it on here. I didn't realise All New Phil was the Pope, whose ring we all have to kiss! That is the only reason I can think of for Jonwo's stupid little comment about another user, Studio7. In future why don't we just run all of our posts past Phil and Jonwo first for approval? Hey! Maybe they are two of the secret mods? And then there's Phil (again!) and Cando demanding that anyone who dares criticise BBC News be burned at the stake. Cando obviously works for BBC World so can perhaps be forgiven, but I bet the rest of you don't even think the new channel is that good, really - because it's not. It's fucking dire. You only make out it's God's gift to TV news because it's the opposite to what everyone else on PC says. Childlike behaviour.

Peter, it's a real shame your forum never took off. At least we knew who the moderators were! It's a real shame that two wonderful forums both shut down, to be replaced by this pathetic little ego trip by a few saddos. But hey. I'm shouting into the void here. Pete's probably going to ban me because he doesn't like anyone interrupting his little clique. That's fine. I've said my bit. It was nice knowing you all. Now it's time I moved on. I think that would be better for everyone.

Pleased to see you’re still obsessed with me 👍

This made me LOLZ!

[Charlie Wells]

Regardless of people's thoughts on individual members, I can't say I particularly understand the rationale or care for the execution of this posting subject to approval. Surely, if somebody has broken the rules or their posts are so repeatedly contentious that they need to be pre-moderated, they should be warned, then banned if they continue. Having posts have to wait to be approved is a) surely needlessly time consuming for the moderators themselves and b) leading to weird situations in discussions where posts suddenly appear hours after they should - which is making some threads unnecessarily repetitive with unmoderated members unaware that moderated ones have already said the same thing.

I think this post sums up a lot of my own opinion. Having been a moderator personally I wouldn't want to be creating work for myself by having to approve user's posts. I also agree that it can be disruptive to threads if posts appear hours later, which isn't great for other users and the forum in general in my view.

Personally, I'd have thought it better if possible to use posting restrictions linked to user warnings. For example limiting the number of posts a user could make a day (e.g. 5 posts per day) and/or preventing them from starting new topics. Similar automated restrictions could also potentially be used on new members who for example have made less than 10 posts (via member group restrictions?). Those sort of measures can help resolve a lot of common forum problems without manual involvement (or outright bans).

I do hope the pre-approved post restrictions on some accounts isn't purely due to some users re-posting Pres Cafe's ITV rebrand exclusive (4th Oct 22) elsewhere and the subsequent fallout. If it is then I'd like to think that with more than six months having elapsed they might reconsider the restriction, if only to save themselves some work.

[dosxuk]

Yay, another week, another outing of the same two people complaining like spoilt tweenagers that the nasty mods at pres cafe won't let them play with their toys and it's SOOOOO UNFAIR...

The way some people on here are going on about that site you'd think they're talking about being banned from Morrisons, not a niche web forum. Nobody has any sort of right to post on the forums, and if you don't like the rules, go elsewhere - leave with the smug satisfaction that if everyone does the same the forum will die.

Pres Cafe is really shit anyway.

Then why are you so upset about having to abide by their rules? Assuming, as you do, that the admins of that site also read up on here, you're hardly selling yourself in a way which would make them want to reconsider allowing you to post freely on their site.

[Kojak]

Yay, another week, another outing of the same two people complaining like spoilt tweenagers that the nasty mods at pres cafe won't let them play with their toys and it's SOOOOO UNFAIR...

The way some people on here are going on about that site you'd think they're talking about being banned from Morrisons, not a niche web forum. Nobody has any sort of right to post on the forums, and if you don't like the rules, go elsewhere - leave with the smug satisfaction that if everyone does the same the forum will die.

Might have known YOU'D be on their side, Mr I'm All Right Jack, Stuff Everyone Else. You're like Reek from Game of Thrones, only much sadder.

Then why are you so upset about having to abide by their rules? Assuming, as you do, that the admins of that site also read up on here, you're hardly selling yourself in a way which would make them want to reconsider allowing you to post freely on their site.

You know what, I'm past caring at this point. You're a complete and utter tool, and if being able to post on that forum means having to suck up to people like you, I'd rather not. (By the way your username is ridiculous and sounds like the noise you make when you get you genitals clamped in a dictionary)

[dosxuk]

You know what, I'm past caring at this point. You're a complete and utter tool, and if being able to post on that forum means having to suck up to people like you, I'd rather not.

Considering I don't post on that forum because I'm not a fan of the rules they've applied, you won't have to do much sucking. The difference is I'm not on here every week complaining about how unfair everything is - their site, their rules - I'll have my discussions elsewhere thank you.