MasoMinos said:
I can only comment on those posters who have indicated ongoing problems with moderation standards on this site. My own treatment when the sharky attempted to implicate me as another member based on data that was a bit of a stretch at best and quite laughable in all honesty. Everyone could see where he was trying to go with that one and I called him on it. When I asked him to substantiate his claim or retract it - nothing. Not a whimper. You see that as fair? And your recent actions on the threads which spawned these ones, pulling posts and banning members who you had a suspicion of being someone else. No proof. No data. Nothing. Guilty until proven innocent would be bad enough, but when you swing into action, they never get chance to prove their innocence - gone. These are not the actions of a site admin team who are comfortable with their role or their members.
That was the point of my post to which barjon and now you have responded - both seeming to have missed the point. The people you should really be asking about fairness and consistency are probably no longer around. Left either of their own accord or given a helping shove from the t2w 'team'.
I have attempted to post a much more detailed response to your comment twice this evening, but both times but my permissions were unaccountably withdrawn as I hit the submit key. This has happened a few times since I joined this site. I know you like to work with coincidences, perhaps you'd care to comment on that one?
In no particular order...
My point is that as the mods we don't feel that we have treated anyone unfairly - otherwise this whole debate wouldn't have come up, would it? And if we ask members who've already been 'treated unfairly' (in your opinion) it's hardly likely that we're going to agree on that now, is it? Otherwise they wouldn't have been banned etc in the first place.
As DaveJB has pointed out, if people are constantly difficult, disruptive, rude, aggressive etc then they will get warned. Normally, they'll get warned again, but not always (circumstances dictate from time to time). And then they get a short ban (3-7 days), which sometimes becomes a longer ban or a permanent ban, depending on the circumstances. Again, depending on circumstances this can be imposed immediately or after the initial ban has expired. Sometimes, those people then come back under another nick (which we almost always discover), and, depending on behaviour, they are permitted to stay- but not always; it depends on the circumstances (again).
As for Stockjunkie's comments regarding advertising, I am not aware of anyone who gets free advertising on the site. I'd be very keen to see it if we've missed removing any, because the guidelines are strict on that point and as far as I know are adhered to. Admiteddly, if you are sponsoring or paying for some features or creatives on the site there will be a little flexibility as you would expect if you have paid to advertise here, but by and large we try to keep the boards themselves free of advertising.
Regarding my 'recent action' banning people for suspecting them being someone else... how exactly would you know about that? It all took place before you joined. So, unless you joined and just happened to make that thread your first port of call (unlikely for anyone actually interested in trading), you've been here before - which also makes you a multi-nicker. Can you explain that for me? As for "no proof, no data" - where is it written that we have to provide proof to the membership of this? There wouldn't be much point in us being moderators if we had to ask everyone's opinion on a matter which the whole mod team agree on now, would there? Besides, the member involved in that fracas was quite clearly who I and many other members thought they were - no doubt whatsoever. If that individual actually made some effort to apologise for their actions their ban would be reconsidered, but that is most unlikely to happen.
As for your comments regarding a more detailed response - feel free. There is no way of moderating a post before it's been submitted for just one individual, so it must have been an error at your end, or a database error at this end which has since resolved itself/been resolved.
Lastly, as for "These are not the actions of a site admin team who are comfortable with their role or their members", I assure you, we are all quite comfortable in our roles and with the decisions we make. I still find it quite hard to understand how someone who has only been a member since November 21st is a) getting themselves involved in all this anyway b) is quite so vocal about it all and c) seems to knows a bit about what has gone on here before you joined - but I'm sure you have a good explanation for that.
EDIT: Stockjunkie - ref. your comments on the article. I'm sure it has been received etc but John (Rhody Trader) structures the release of articles according to a schedule. If it wasn't suitable he would normally have been in touch by now but I will direct his attention to this thread anyway.
i voted because otherwise i can't see the results - but i'll knock my vote off from the final total if it bothers you
