Metropol

Kojak wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 11.38 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.

DTV wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.22 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 wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.31

DTV wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.22 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.

all new Phil wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.19

Kojak wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 11.38 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 👍

WillPS wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.31

DTV wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.22 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.

all new Phil wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.19

Kojak wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 11.38 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 wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 16.22 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.

Kojak wrote: ↑Sun 04 Jun, 2023 12.34Pres Cafe is really shit anyway.

dosxuk wrote: ↑Mon 05 Jun, 2023 09.18 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.

dosxuk wrote: ↑Mon 05 Jun, 2023 09.18Then 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 wrote: ↑Mon 05 Jun, 2023 09.44You 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.