Metropol

I remember eons ago Asa emailing me to tell me off for posting something or other on the forum, and he went on to say that TV Forum was part of his GCSE assignment for web development, and that his site was being used by him to show Universities/colleges/teachers etc., how marvellous he is at setting up a forum populated by anoraks fawning over balloons, clocks and countdowns.

Charlie Wells wrote:Unfortunately there is no conclusive proof such as a matching IP address or matching email address.

can we not get rid of him anyway on account of him being an arse?

Charlie Wells wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:

James H wrote:It appears that the site's moderators (well, apart from Ison) feel you're one of the "clique" who constantly complain and bitch about the site, Gavin.

Is this true Charlie/Asa? Am I considered nothing more than a pest after all these years?

Simple answer: No, and I have no idea where James has got that idea from.

Unfortunately there is no conclusive proof such as a matching IP address or matching email address. Though for the record you're not the only person who has suspected that the user may have had past incarnations, and there is one open RTP on the matter. As far as I can tell since this report was opened ALL moderators and admin have been online since and therefore would have seen it, just incase anyone was wondering.

You and I have chatted in the past about difficulties in IP tracing regarding a couple of troublesome users.

I previously had no authority to ban members like Sideshow and Dusty Jacket (and I would have done following some of the more vitriolic posts), but now I do. Those users (despite what you may have read here) were very well masked, and IP logs were unhelpful in discovering their true identity.

I think when the data doesn't help to make a decision, one must trust one's instinct. In the case of "End-The-TV-Licence", he is even following a pattern of threads (like the "favourite shows" one) just like last time.

I urge you to ban him Charlie.

I'm somewhat mystified over the closed thread in the Media Websites forum.

It was closed sometime between 00:33 on Saturday 7th, when the last post was made, and 15:47 Saturday, when The Marquis of Lobster reported its closure in this thread.

I've now recieved a communication, timestamped 13:27 on Sunday 8th, telling me I've been warned by the moderators for something I posted in there, but not saying what it was that caused the warning.

All it does say, is that it's from an automated system which will not accept replies. I cannot, therefore, enquire why it is I've been warned.

I'd have thought that a key piece of information in any warning message would be the reason for same; otherwise it's difficult to correct ones failings in the future.

The only possiblility I can think of for the message is my refering to the gentleman as Mr Shirtlifter, yet I've been doing that on a regular basis for best part of the last two years and I've never been warned about it before.

Very odd and very puzzling. Sailor Vee!

Just imagine the outrage if the Harvester was banned!!

I think you should do some more provoking, Nick. You can be our martyr!

Charlie Wells wrote:Unfortunately there is no conclusive proof such as a matching IP address or matching email address. Though for the record you're not the only person who has suspected that the user may have had past incarnations, and there is one open RTP on the matter. As far as I can tell since this report was opened ALL moderators and admin have been online since and therefore would have seen it, just incase anyone was wondering.

Strange that there is no matching proof, but I am absolutely convinced it is the same person as before. I am not opposed to debate over the licence fee but his idiotic unfounded ramblings and continual changing of tack with stupid one liners like "So on this forum we can not say anything bad about BBC why not?" really piss me off. He will not engage in debate and will not reply constructively to any question posed. I echo Gav, ban him, please.

For someone so moderation happy as Charlie I'm surprised it's being let to slide where it counts!

cdd wrote:For someone so moderation happy as Charlie I'm surprised it's being let to slide where it counts!

I'm not considering the state of TVF at the moment.

The place is awash with trolls, spoons and spammers.

For crying out loud, there's supposedly a 9 year old posting in the mocks forum. There's taking the piss, and there's TV Forum.

You post in a thread pointing out the error of some knucklehead's ways, and some other lost cause decides to slag me off on my website as a result.

I've no idea what's caused the latest influx of pond life, but surely things have to get better around there?!

Skytower wrote:I've no idea what's caused the latest influx of pond life, but surely things have to get better around there?!

Some of them are clearly asylum* seekers from the TV Ark forum, which always seemed to have a particularly low average IQ.

[* in both senses of the word]

Nick Harvey wrote:I've now recieved a communication, timestamped 13:27 on Sunday 8th, telling me I've been warned by the moderators for something I posted in there, but not saying what it was that caused the warning.

It's not the most descriptive PM I agree but it does point you to exactly the post within that topic with an explanation that you did abuse the rules. Being able to add a personal message about exactly what a member did wrong is an enhancement being looked into. And there's no time limit on action - if another mod feels there should be more action taken, they can.

All it does say, is that it's from an automated system which will not accept replies. I cannot, therefore, enquire why it is I've been warned.

Of course you can, just contact us in the usual way. The point being made is that its from a normal account and none of us want to have to keep logging out/in/out just to see if anyone's replied.

I'd have thought that a key piece of information in any warning message would be the reason for same; otherwise it's difficult to correct ones failings in the future.

A good point and as I say, the personal touch is being looked into.

The only possiblility I can think of for the message is my refering to the gentleman as Mr Shirtlifter, yet I've been doing that on a regular basis for best part of the last two years and I've never been warned about it before.

Really? A quick search reveals you've made no such public comment ever involving the word(s) 'Mr Shirtlifter' before.

Asa