cat in TVF ban farce - Troutie tells critics to **** off

[Gavin Scott]

The thread is not gone, but it is in a separate admin folder at the moment.

The reason I moved it was that it had undergone something of a ping-pong existence lately - having been locked, unlocked and then shifted.

As a general rule of thumb we *don't* prune, archive or remove threads here unless there is a good reason for doing so.

In the case of that particular thread I couldn't see a reason to alter or remove it but I was showing Jamez respect as a moderator for not undoing his work.

The thread will stay where it is for now unless anyone wants to speak to me in PM regarding its future.

In essence though, all members (including me, jb and Jamez) should remember that if you commit it to print then you should be prepared to live with the consequences.

If anyone has concerns about posts being removed or edited (and therefore altering the nature of the discussion) then please let me know.

[iSon]

It might've made more sense to wait for Charlie to ban me, but given that he sent me a PM saying 'do it again and you'll be banned', I assumed it was inevitable.

And Ison's editing of my post was too comic for Charlie to have come up with.

I'm afraid even I was too slow - I was about about to ban you for being the naughty c@t that you were but found you were already banned.

I would unban you, but I'm enjoying the backlash at the moment.

[DAS]

For the late arrivals - i.e. me - can someone sum up in no more than 30 words where the hell Row's thread on TV Forum has gone, and why.

[Chris]

For the late arrivals - i.e. me - can someone sum up in no more than 30 words where the hell Row's thread on TV Forum has gone, and why.

I don't know why, but I guess it has been shunted to the moderator forum as when you try and click the link it says only moderators can access this topic.

[Gavin Scott]

For the late arrivals - i.e. me - can someone sum up in no more than 30 words where the hell Row's thread on TV Forum has gone, and why.

I don't know why, but I guess it has been shunted to the moderator forum as when you try and click the link it says only moderators can access this topic.

Indeed I don't think Asa appeciates threads about the forum itself, specifically not those that question the role of the moderators.

At the end of the day though, just as I will take others to task about what they have written, I also feel that moderators are "fair game" when it comes to being asked to explain their actions.

The forums are not run by democracy, I accept; but I also feel that any action taken should be justifiable to the majority of the membership and as such should be explained when requested.

There can be a certain amount of vitriol from some members. I'm certainly not suggesting that moderators should face unneccessary abuse - but I really can't abide this "I seldom respond to threads like this" answers.

They strike me as snotty and arrogant.

[DAS]

For the late arrivals - i.e. me - can someone sum up in no more than 30 words where the hell Row's thread on TV Forum has gone, and why.

I don't know why, but I guess it has been shunted to the moderator forum as when you try and click the link it says only moderators can access this topic.

Indeed I don't think Asa appeciates threads about the forum itself, specifically not those that question the role of the moderators.

At the end of the day though, just as I will take others to task about what thet have written, I also feel that moderators are "fair game" when it comes to being asked to explain their actions.

The forums are not run by democracy, I accept; but I also feel that any action taken should be justifiable to the majority of the membership and as such should be explained when requested.

There can be a certain amount of vitriol from some members. I'm certainly not suggesting that moderators should face unneccessary abuse - but I really can't abide this "I seldom respond to threads like this" answers.

They strike me as snotty and arrogant.

That is precisely my viewpoint. I even said that in the post I made - it is, ultimately, up to the mods what they do. But when people take the time to write their views, it is common decency to respond or simply acknowledge rather than locking a thread without any explanation whatsoever. The fact I took the time to write what I thought was a very fair opinion for both sides, expecting some sort of response, which appears to have been ignored strikes me as rudeness. It serves to make the situation worse.

[James H]

Post Removed

[Chris]

They may say in cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. They also forgot to mention that in cyberspace, nothing disappears.

Here's some of the replies that got canned, as extracted from the internet cache in my computer.

It's more than likely this thread will be closed, or removed, which will of course completely play right in favour of my arguement, and one which I share with many other members.

For those who do not know, c@t, who has been a prominent member since the start of TV Forum some four or five years ago, has been banned for calling a member, James H, a word which I am not able to repeat.

Admitantly the situation in this thread could have been dealt better by c@t, but more so by the moderator who took the move to ban him.

c@t has contributed vast amounts of his knowledge and intellegence from varying different areas during his time on TV Forum, and far more than James H, who infact has contributed very little. Again I am speaking on behalf of countless other members, but that is a seperate arguement.

Although I perfectly acknowledge a rather extreme use of the English language was applied, a warning, and some perspective on this situation would have been more than sufficient, rather than this desperately embarassing situation a member of the moderating team now finds themselves in.

I'm backing the "unban cat" side of the poll.

Much as I've enjoyed my arguments, sorry mature discussions, with c@t, without knowing whether or not he'd been previously warned or not I can't comment on his banning.

Perhaps he was on a yellow card?

Ah well, I'll have to switch over to Sky News's side and stick up for them in his absence!!! Or perhaps not!

Nevertheless I am slowly getting the impression that we (the "normal" members) are slowly getting under some kind of dicatorship by certain moderators. They
delete posts they don't like
ban members they don't like
close threads when there is no necessity for doing so
move threads around without any appropriate reason.

A good example for my last argument is the ITV/ITN News thread which was moved from The Newsroom to the Requests forum by one moderator and then moved back to The Newsroom by another. This is some kind of over-regulation which is extremly getting on my nerves.

No question that the posts cat made, were not okay, but was it really necessary to ban him? Isn't it possible anymore to say something without being punished for it? Even the member being offended by cat did not take his posts as serious as the moderator did.

I really would like to appeal to certain moderators to reconsider what they are doing here. 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!

A quote from a recent thread which struck a chord with me:
Steve Hackett wrote:

I really don't know why a decent guy like Asa has unpleasant numpties like [Charlie Wells] moderating for him

I completely agree with what Row has said.

Just to make some points first of all: I do not believe that being one of the "old school" allows you to get away with whatever you like. do not claim to know all the circumstances surrounding the banning. I do not subscribe to the idea of some conspiracy or deliberate foulplay going on.

I generally don't make a fuss about these things becuase I am careful not to place too much importance on this website! After all, it is a hobby website - at the end of the day, it is up to the owner to do whatever he likes. The moderators are not accountable to anyone. I think some people overlook these facts and demand things or unfairly criticise when there is absolutely no reason to. Of course, it would be entirely different if it is was a paid-for service... but it just isn't.

However, with this in mind, the banning of cat seems unnecessary, and typifies the inconsistency of moderation that I tend to feel. As has been said, cat is one of those people you can actually have a proper discussion with - a talent that fewer and fewer members here seem to have, especially during school holidays. I start to ask questions when he is banned for saying a naughty word (and yes, I know it was a personal remark), yet the simpletons who have taken over this place go unnoticed.

Wise words from DAS as usual - and from Gavin over at the other place.

its a shame that asa fails to see why so many people have an issue with charlie.

You're so right. Charlie really had no right to close the old ITV News thread. I'll probably get banned for having such a dig, but I reckon it just makes certain mods feel powerful.

A point of interest - John Lydon was not banned from 'I'm a Celebrity' for calling the British public " f.....g c...s ' on live television.
Nor was Jerry Springer the Opera, Sex and the City, The Sopranos, and Curb your Enthusiasm censored or banned for use of the word in question.

Wikipedia reveals that the word can be traced back to 1396 and was used liberally in The Canterbury Tales. You will find it much loved by Pete & Dud as Derek and Clive, used liberally in Trainspotting, and reclaimed by women in The Vagina Monologues.
Is it the word we have a problem with here or the fact that c@t insulted someone?
Perhaps it would have been better if he had used the word berk instead? ( an abbreviation of the rhyming slang berkshire hunt )

I thought times had moved on since the persecution of Lenny Bruce?

Or are we protecting our 'younger' forumites??? In which case , as in presentation generally,
maybe a strong language warning on the front of the post could have been useful!

And that's where it ended.

[cat]

It might've made more sense to wait for Charlie to ban me, but given that he sent me a PM saying 'do it again and you'll be banned', I assumed it was inevitable.

And Ison's editing of my post was too comic for Charlie to have come up with.

I'm afraid even I was too slow - I was about about to ban you for being the naughty c@t that you were but found you were already banned.

I would unban you, but I'm enjoying the backlash at the moment.

Oh, well that is most disappointing.

You must be more efficient with your banning in the future.

I do wonder why people still use the '@' sign in my name, given it's not been there for about a year.

[johnnyboy]

I do wonder why people still use the '@' sign in my name, given it's not been there for about a year.

Perhaps it is the most memorable thing about you?

[Pete]

I still think of you are cheshirec. Pronouced "chez-ee-rec"