Re: For the Record

[nimportequoi]

Bring Miki back, although some of his posts may have been little provocative and long winded, at least when he gave advice it was good advice. Unlike the advice given by one of the current Mods.

[Russethouse]

Jerome, please your check your Pms and reply.

Tag - Who's Mike ? [:)][:)]

[PeterG]

OK Quillan, add another one to your statistics. Bring Miki back. I didn't agree with everything he said but I'll fight for his right to say it. Is this a democracy or a police state?????

[Tag]

Miki or Malc depending on knowledge. Must be getting tired. Too much marking. Maybe I'll bookmark bits of this discussion and let my students offer a solution. Being Belgians they will just shrug and say it is all too silly. Sticks and tones etc ........

[Russethouse]

Well mods have a job to do, SusanAH, in the words of a past Prime Minister 

'If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.'
Margaret Thatcher

[Tag]

I think, Gay, that the mods have to admit that, based on the evidence in the public domain, an error has been made and that the decision to ban Miki needs to be reviewed, as does the whole banning policy. I would suggest that within definable parameters, comments made publicly should not be grounds for banning, whereas the use of messages, emails etc might be. Thus the debate is not personal and remains public and the usership can decide for themselves. In addition, the banning mail sent to Miki should be withdrawn as it is offensive by any standards.

[Tag]

Liked is not where we are but fair play is.

[Nelson]

Jerome?  Check your Pm`s reads like your about to be banned

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Tag"]I think, Gay, that the mods have to admit that, If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.
Margaret Thatcher
, an error has been made and that the decision to ban Miki needs to be reviewed, as does the whole banning policy. I would suggest that within definable parameters, comments made publicly should not be grounds for banning, whereas the use of messages, emails etc might be. Thus the debate is not personal and remains public and the usership can decide for themselves. In addition, the banning mail sent to Miki should be withdrawn as it is offensive by any standards.[/quote]

That is just it though isn't it ? 'based on the evidence in the public domain' says it all. The mods have a view of an overall picture, yet because I, and my guess is other mods too, feel it be would unfair to make public the content of relevant emails when the person concerned cannot respond, we are left being unable to defend ourselves against some of the accusations leveled here.

When you post here, you agree to abide by the code of conduct, http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/465569/ShowPost.aspx    that means everybody, not one rule for you and me and another for Miki.

 

[Patf]

As one of the silent majority I'm not a Miki fan and don't like his

tactic of attacking the person when he's losing the argument. He is

often helpful though. One reason I would say not to ban him is that if

people feel bullied they should reply that they are not going to be

intimidated, or else just keep quiet, rather than make a report. 

However I don't think the mods agree with this. Another reason as I've

said on another thread is that it amounts to over-zealous censorship.

Pat.

[Tag]

Agreed Gay, but if the membership are kept in the dark or perceive that something is not quite 'Kosher' then there will always be problems. Perhaps some way must be found to allow people to make up their own minds. Always best in my view.

[Russethouse]

Tag, there are members of this forum who I have 'known' via this site almost since the site began and whose acquaintance, if not friendship I value, of course I would love to be able to explain fully what happened, what was said, how I felt, why I voted for the ban etc, however it would be entirely wrong as a matter of principal to discuss that in any detail either here, or privately with those people I am in email or Pm contact with, when the person in question cannot respond, leave alone that I used to count that person as a friend.

Patf makes good points, but not everyone feels robust enough to stand up for themselves, and really, why should they have to?

[Tresco]

I love back of the envelope sums. [:)] I did mine at 10.30pm.

In this thread, and the one titled 'A period of reflection'  I counted a total of 45  posters. I only counted each poster once. I ignored the 'lighter side and any other 'spin off threads'.

Out of 45 people who chose to comment on Miki being banned:

30 were decidedly 'Negative'. They disagreed with the ban (as they understood it based on info available)

5 were 'Positive' (including the three mods who posted). They agreed with the ban

10 expressed no comment about the current 'case'. They were commenting on the forum/moderation generally, or about something else entirely. Just for examples,  I have included Tony and Patf in this category.

None of it means anything, of course.

EDIT/ at 23.49 ps I am still waiting for a reply from eslier. I understand that he has been out all day, but I am ready and waiting.

[Owens88]

Is it because I am not taking a side ? (to paraphrase Al G).

I made a suggestion here http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/668877/ShowPost.aspx that has not been replied to. It may have been humorous rather than pompous but there was a serious idea hidden within it.

So. No responses. Is it because I ain't said 'Mike is a hero' or 'the banning e-mail from  eslier was the worst piece of crap communication I have seen since the recent banning by the Chartered Institute of Marketing '* Is it because nobody wants to look forward?

*Explanation available but not relevant here

By the way I should have written 'Miki is a here' but mistyped. To correct it now would unfoot another subsequent posting so I am leaving the mistake in place.

 

[Tresco]

Sorry Owens, I missed your post.

By the way, you were classed as neutral too (in my back of a fag packet add up) : Or rather as (Positive?/ Negative?).

I'll take a proper look at your suggestion in... 'suggestions'.

[Ron Avery]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Jerome's first posts on this forum are in this thread and only this thread.  No other posts on any other topic.  Just curious how an apparent first time poster has so much background information and knowledge of this topic.  Of course many people read without posting, no need to, if the answer you are looking for is here, but exactly what or perhaps who prompted these posts on this topic?  How does Jerome know Eslier is not a good modertator, he only joined today? 

[Debra]

Owens88 - I missed it too - despite going through all the active posts at that time.  Case of the mysteriously disappearing posts using 'active posts'?  Is this a software problem that's been logged and I've missed that too?? 

 

PS Who's Mike?

[Debra]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Jerome's first posts on this forum are in this thread and only this thread. [/quote]No - apparently Gay does too, as she has pm'd him.  Perhaps someone doesn't want to disagree with the mods under their normal name?  Wouldn't be surprising in the current climate.

[Tresco]

About Jerome. I followed the forum for a year before ever posting. Don't all laugh.[:-))]

Catalpa. Thanks for suggesting I pick up the (at present) poisoned chalice.

I think Katie Kats endorsement has put paid to that idea for ever and a day [:-))]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL ms Kat but thanks anyway. No offense intended to anyone.

 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Debra"]

Owens88 - I missed it too - despite going through all the active posts at that time.  Case of the mysteriously disappearing posts using 'active posts'?  Is this a software problem that's been logged and I've missed that too?? 

PS Who's Mike?

[/quote]

Debra

There was a post about the last poster not being up to date in the forum listing boxes  a couple of weeks back, it wa explained by James, it is to do with the new software,  something about that screen only updating every 30 minutes I think it was , so it can look as if a post has not recorded when it is actually there.  The active boxes seem to update OK on refresh though.

[Debra]

Thanks Ron, I will have missed that then - but refresh doesn't seem to be working for me.  I also got some pm's and no notifies again.  (Sorry if anyone thought I was being rude - I have now replied!) 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Owens88"]

Is it because I am not taking a side ? (to paraphrase Al G).

I made a suggestion here http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/668877/ShowPost.aspx that has not been replied to. It may have been humorous rather than pompous but there was a serious idea hidden within it.

[/quote]

It was the sort of question that Forum Admin should have answered but he can't at present. I didn't see the thread or post so now you have pointed it out I have answered it for you if you want to go back and have another look. Sorry about that.

[opas]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that Jerome's first posts on this forum are in this thread and only this thread.  No other posts on any other topic.  Just curious how an apparent first time poster has so much background information and knowledge of this topic.  Of course many people read without posting, no need to, if the answer you are looking for is here, but exactly what or perhaps who prompted these posts on this topic?  How does Jerome know Eslier is not a good modertator, he only joined today? 

[/quote]

No you are not.

When this name came up for the first time, I thought `who the heck is Jerome?`

He may have sat reading the forum for 12 months , but he didn`t jump in and say `hooray LB has gone, good ridance etc

The plot thickens.

[Owens88]

Neutral, looking both ways...

The message from Eslier was badly written. The 'process' leading to banning could be improved and less opaque.

but

Miki  had been banging the drum on this to the point of tedium.and was often beligerent (neither being bannable offences)

and

My suggestion in the other thread is that we could have different weights of 'moderation'  according to what 'room' or 'channel' we are in.

 

Miki as Kilroy ?

 

[Quillan]

[quote user="Clarkkent"]10% of 79,049 is 7,905 (to the nearest whole number). 790 is 1% of 79,049. What can we accept? Even simple arithmetic appears faulty! ......................................... Free the St Malo 1[/quote]

I knew somebody was better at maths than me and would check it out. If I am right that makes the figures look even better for the 'pros'.

If we use only the figures others have quoted in this thread somebody said there were 6,000 members so lets say 10% are active, doing the figures correctly thats 600.

Tresco counted 45 people, lets add another 10 to that thats 55. I take it that Clarkkent agrees with the rest of the calcualtion then thats 9.2% (rounding up again). So that means that over 90% of the active forum can't be bothered if Miki comes back or stays banned. So if you want Miki kept please say so in this thread and when you get 301 people I guess Archant will have to put him back because as has been said many times before its Archant that owns the forum and only they can override a ban or 'strike'. Thats what democracy is all about, even Miki could not disagree about democracy if he were able to reply. I'm sure you would get a much better result if you got all your 301 people to email Archant directly in fact I would suspect you wouldn't need even 300 just a 100 or more.