Re: For the Record

[Quillan]

[quote user="Debra"]I stand corrected, Quillan - and have edited my post accordingly.  Is this a hint that the other two complainants are also on here slagging Miki off freely?  As I said, it hardly seems fair......[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to make that minor change. I thought as there are so many people putting their own twist on things I might add that funny enough I have not seen any others. To be honest I'm a little disappointed that they don't come forward because it would go some way to stopping me from taking all the flank. But then in other ways I fully understand why they don't, it's like being set upon by rabid dogs. We have had a few emails though from people thanking us, so thanks to them for emailing but I suspect we have had no where near as many as Miki. That’s a joke and if I offended I say sorry in advance.

[Deimos]

[Quillan wrote]: “Thirdly the forum is baggage they inherited when they bought Living France and it's just not worth the grief and dumps it. I personally think that it will be possibly option two but more than likely option three.”

I would tend to agree. From a business perspective I cannot see any reason for them to keep it. At the moment it can be doing them no good whilst being a drain on resources.

Ian

[vervialle]

I think archant fill their magazine with quite a few articals sourced from the forum, it also gives them an instant survey to the kind of stuff people want to read, I think the forum earns its place without  a doubt, I wondered if the post was frightening us into not complaining incase the forum was closed. They even quote from the forum, thus encouraging more people to come forward and use it, I dont think they would do that if they wantd rid of it, but no doubt like any good business they will not want it costing a lot.

[Dick Smith]

First of all I agree with Debra that Ian's continued posts are doing him no favours.

We should keep in our focus the point that no-one has said Miki didn't wind this up - the issue is the way he was treated by moderators, the fact that all sorts of disinformation seems to have been spread, and the tone of that awful email from Eslier. Though I must say that other moderators have not exactly covered themselves with glory since.

You may well think he deserved a stiff warning - and he may or may not have taken any notice - but it is the manner in which this has been handled and the subsequent lack of confidence in the moderators that is the central issue.

Despite what others have said, Miki's 'offence' (or offensiveness) was not in the same league as the other banned member.

Might I suggest to moderators that if you wish to ban someone you do so - for either a fixed period or life. You do not ban for an indefinite period and make returning conditional on making grovelling apologies. You tell them so in a business-like manner and you inform the rest of the list. After all, there's no point in making an example of somebody if you don't tell anyone.

Most of all, get your stories straight in advance.

Come back Will...

[Baz]

Having read all the comments on this subject, I feel in this instance I do not wish to take sides.

However, I think a cardinal mistake has been made by Archant who own the site and  the Forum Administration team . I think it is wrong that the Moderators should be allowed to decide and action the exclusion of anyone from the site as they can post with or without their moderators hat on. They should only have the power to recommend to the Forum Administrator and why a ban or exclusion should be considered, it is then upto the administrator to make the final decision and contact the member concerned. This whole episode has become to personal and is harming the future existence of this forum.

Baz

[Just Katie]

DS wrote "come back Will"

because where there's a Will there's a way![:D]

 

Sorry 'bout that.

[Just Katie]

Baz,  I think that is the biggest load of sense I have read today.  It will protect the member and also the mods against accusations of personal vendettas