cat in TVF ban farce - Troutie tells critics to **** off
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
Ah.... that brings back memories of the NOTBBC forum- I just did a search for it and i'm quite suprised not only is it still there, it still looks the same as i remember!
Upload service: http://www.metropol247.co.uk/uploadservice
Anyone? Maybe James, you'd like to look up the 'P' in PM.James H wrote:I'll remove it if anyone wishes.
Whilst I'd quite happily reiterate those views in public, the message was private and as such it would be nice if you respected that. Good luck with any PM replies from me in the future.
It is, and I still post in there.Dr Lobster* wrote:Ah.... that brings back memories of the NOTBBC forum- I just did a search for it and i'm quite suprised not only is it still there, it still looks the same as i remember!
At present, in the age-old Suiii Thread, we are discussing how fit Ben Cohen is.
However, Dr Lobster, if memory serves me right you are a homophobic bigot and as such are unlikely to want to join in. Am I right?
probably because you're more educated than me. Or read the name properly before you'd got a pronounciation stuck in your head.DAS wrote:That's odd - I also think of cat as cheshirec, but read as "cheshire cat".
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Or else it will become another Digital Spy, where the only people able to post without falling foul of the rules are ranting schoolchildren spouting complete bollocks (for an example, head over to DS's DTT forum and search for 'Freeview').If you continue with this servere form of punishment for minor violations against the Forum rules then I am sure that one day you will find that you are the only ones who are still posting here!
When selecting moderators for an internet forum, it's surely important to appoint people who do realise that they are in fact moderators for an internet forum, and that they are not dictators with the power to control people's lives. Anyone who aspires to be a moderator just so they can feel important as they wield the power that comes from being able to click a few extra buttons in a web browser is by definition a terrible moderator - their motives and 'moderate' don't really go together. Dilusional power-mad idiots like Beth Hart on Digital Spy (along with short-sighted administration which seems to back this approach) are what is ruining the quality of posts at that place.
I'd never say that TV Forum is anywhere near that (and indeed, ISTR Asa has publicly condemned Digital Spy's practices in the past), but the appointment of Charlie Wells as moderator, who seems to certainly be leaning in that direction, I find quite worrying.
27th December 2005 marked the passing of my 4th year of being an active poster at TVF (hell, I'm one of the ever dwindling number of people who actually remembers when The Lounge was part of TV Forum, before the Metropol days) - I consider myself to be part of the 'old school' that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone else, nor that I feel I've contributed more (indeed, I've been quite a bit quieter over the past year or so), but nevertheless as a member of the old school, can I stand up and publicly condemn the banning of another member of the old school - it was a bad decision by a bad moderator, and if bad moderation like this is allowed to continue, then I do fear for the future of TVF - I don't want it to become another Digital Spy.
You know what Chris, I actually agree with you (for once?!cwathen wrote:Or else it will become another Digital Spy, where the only people able to post without falling foul of the rules are ranting schoolchildren spouting complete bollocks (for an example, head over to DS's DTT forum and search for 'Freeview').If you continue with this servere form of punishment for minor violations against the Forum rules then I am sure that one day you will find that you are the only ones who are still posting here!
When selecting moderators for an internet forum, it's surely important to appoint people who do realise that they are in fact moderators for an internet forum, and that they are not dictators with the power to control people's lives. Anyone who aspires to be a moderator just so they can feel important as they wield the power that comes from being able to click a few extra buttons in a web browser is by definition a terrible moderator - their motives and 'moderate' don't really go together. Dilusional power-mad idiots like Beth Hart on Digital Spy (along with short-sighted administration which seems to back this approach) are what is ruining the quality of posts at that place.
I'd never say that TV Forum is anywhere near that (and indeed, ISTR Asa has publicly condemned Digital Spy's practices in the past), but the appointment of Charlie Wells as moderator, who seems to certainly be leaning in that direction, I find quite worrying.
27th December 2005 marked the passing of my 4th year of being an active poster at TVF (hell, I'm one of the ever dwindling number of people who actually remembers when The Lounge was part of TV Forum, before the Metropol days) - I consider myself to be part of the 'old school' that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone else, nor that I feel I've contributed more (indeed, I've been quite a bit quieter over the past year or so), but nevertheless as a member of the old school, can I stand up and publicly condemn the banning of another member of the old school - it was a bad decision by a bad moderator, and if bad moderation like this is allowed to continue, then I do fear for the future of TVF - I don't want it to become another Digital Spy.
). I've been around TVF for about 3 and a half years now (bloody hell!) and I can't really remember the forum being so dull than it is now.To keep on topic, cat has been around there for donkeys, he doesn't deserve a ban. I didn't realise that Charlie was only 16 (is that REALLY true?), in which case, no disrespect to him, but at that age it's impossible to have formed the experience necassary of dealing with people required for that role.
I'm not sure what we can do to get TVF back on track, I'm less and less bothered about it these days, and in fact, Charlie's probably done Tom a favour by banning him.
I am, apparently, unbanned. But not from the Newsroom, which was supposedly the only place I was banned from in the first place.
I was told that it was expected that I understood why I had been a bad boy.
You may/may not be interested to read the message I sent in response:
I'm afraid I can't appreciate that I stepped over the mark with regards to criticising James.
If you object to the word I used, well, there is little I can say to that, it is a personal issue.
However, I maintain that I was well within my rights to launch a personal attack (which, let's face it, was hardly a crushing assault on the person involved) on James.
That his and the moderating team's shock at my use of a swear word should garner more condemnation than my outrage at the posting of a picture with a caption basically amounting to ''she has hair on her tits" fills me with absolutely no confidence in the decision making procedures whatsoever.
I very rarely post in the main TVF, and am not intending to return to posting in the Newsroom after the ban has lapsed, but I appreciate your message, and the clarification you have provided. It's not your job to justify every decision that is made, but I thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. I hope you understand mine.
As James has said, I'm not actually feeling that a ban from there is such a bad thing.
I was told that it was expected that I understood why I had been a bad boy.
You may/may not be interested to read the message I sent in response:
I'm afraid I can't appreciate that I stepped over the mark with regards to criticising James.
If you object to the word I used, well, there is little I can say to that, it is a personal issue.
However, I maintain that I was well within my rights to launch a personal attack (which, let's face it, was hardly a crushing assault on the person involved) on James.
That his and the moderating team's shock at my use of a swear word should garner more condemnation than my outrage at the posting of a picture with a caption basically amounting to ''she has hair on her tits" fills me with absolutely no confidence in the decision making procedures whatsoever.
I very rarely post in the main TVF, and am not intending to return to posting in the Newsroom after the ban has lapsed, but I appreciate your message, and the clarification you have provided. It's not your job to justify every decision that is made, but I thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. I hope you understand mine.
As James has said, I'm not actually feeling that a ban from there is such a bad thing.