[Vanessa]

Are we allowed to talk about banned members? I thought it was against the rules.

[AnnieK]

Ammi, Kate, Jesus, Jake and Glenn were all mentioned in the blog and are discussing it so I don't see a problem personally. As Kate said this year on here has been harsh on many members so why not try and air everything to try and dilute bad feeling.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marc

I don't see the immediate trouble with discussing the matter. Regardless of the number of supporters the decision is left to the MODs and ultimately James. For example of this is the Razzies; that poll was overwhelming in favour but it's not happening on the forum.

So I don't see a problem discussing it; other banned members get discussed all the time. It's not going to be a problem just discussing it

you no, that's not true, when kate was banned people got told to stop or else!,
in fact kates name on here was a swear word.
im not talking about scott and his ban anymore.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

that's your opinion, clearly marc you cant have your cake and eat it.

ammi should not be doing this in public, she should take it up with the mods in private.

not come on the forum and bring up members bans, after all how many times in the past have members been jumped on for talking about banned members.

This is an open discussion about everybodies opinion on the matter and I don't think it's significantly impacting the forum. People don't have to come in or post in here; if you're not happy with it then fine. Like I've said, it's ultimately James' decision

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marc

This is an open discussion about everybodies opinion on the matter and I don't think it's significantly impacting the forum. People don't have to come in or post in here; if you're not happy with it then fine. Like I've said, it's ultimately James' decision

you are clearly breaking the rules discussing a banned member!

Originally Posted by Angel~Annie

Yeah but you look 65 so take it.....

In the words of Annie when seeing my picture:

"I would..."

Boom.

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

you no, that's not true, when kate was banned people got told to stop or else!,
in fact kates name on here was a swear word.
im not talking about scott and his ban anymore.

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

you know I love gg!
the problem is, it should not be up for discussion on the forum.
ammi is well respected on this site, she should be doing this by pm.

but this subject raises the question of fairness,

I understand that and I agree but the solution should be that we can discuss banned members like this, in a thread where there is no arguing and people are listening to each other's point of view.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

so what's the difference in what ammi is doing?
I wont be here to read your reply, im of to do the food shopping.

[Ammi]

..what I am asking for and the point of this thread...is for there to be exactly what someone mentioned, which is fairness..there was no fairness in Scott being the only person on this forum who has received a sanction for offsite stuff...it’s also the first time..(to my knowledge..) that an indefinite ban has been given...so if that indefinite time means he can come back, then nothing that hasn’t been achieved/learned in 3 months will be learned in 6 months, 9 months etc...so if it’s to be permanent...which I and everyone else would have to accept..then 3 months is also long enough in my opinion to be told that decision...what, for forum members will it achieve by being left uncertain for any longer...other than probably, people constantly asking /possible arguments/frustrations etc...so how does that make the forum ‘move on’ ...which is something that I personally believe it should...from everything....

..this is not the same as other people who have been banned and did something which was in cohesion with other member who had no sanctions at all, while action was only taken against them..their bans were also clearly defined which a sanction should also be otherwise, there is no effectiveness in it at all....


..Kate, I very much respect your post and you for making it..I know you felt personally hurt but holding on to that hurt will only ever hurt you more than it will anyone else...thank you so much for giving this thought, which is all I’m asking....oh and by the by, my dad used to have a saying...'it's easy to treat your friends well..but it's how you treat your 'enemies' that makes the difference to who you are...'..so thank you, Kate....

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

Can you not drop this? Polite request?

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

so what's the difference in what ammi is doing?
I wont be here to read your reply, im of to do the food shopping.

The difference here, is that Scotts friends (of which both Ammi and I are 2) are encouraging discussion about his situation, not trying to prevent anyone from even saying his name, like he's tibbs version of beetlejuice.

Originally Posted by Lola-Belle Humbug

Can you not drop this? Polite request?

Kate I haven't raised anything, or had a go at anyone. Sheriff brought up that point, and I explained what happened. There is nothing to drop really.

[Marc]

Ammi.. Scott brought the matter onto the forum, posting the link more than once after being warned. He deliberately tried to get the blog some attention.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

No Admin have control
and Other mods take views that are under Admins rule



Yes we are not North Korea
but a Red line was crossed other members were hurt
is nothing to do with us now

..you're right, Arista..this isn't our decision but if it's to be permanent, then it's not unreasonable after 3 months to want to be told that decision...there will be no confusion then for anyone including Scott, himself...

[Smithy]

Someone please point out in the rules where it says you're not allowed to discuss banned member?

If people who were most offended by the blog say he should be given another chance, don't really see the problem, just make sure Scott knows it's his last chance and any more stupid **** and he'll be permbanned

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Lola-Belle Humbug

Ok, hear me out. I do listen to other people's opinions and am one of the most forgiving people alive lol, I'm very soft hearted. I made up with Glenn, despite months of ranting at each other and even telling each other to eff off and other nice things

I was (IMO) very close to Scott, he's from my hometown, I felt a bond with him, he made me laugh so so much, and also I really really feel for him and his problems. I used to post on his wall a lot, just random stuff to try and boost his spirits (daft gifs etc).

No-one, except Glenn to his credit, has ever had the decency to apologise for anything said in this whole affair, but then again they are hiding behind anonymity as Ammi says and so Scott faced the flak alone.

It made my (and others affected by it) blood boil when people instantly jumped to Scott's defence and I personally saw him comment after the event that we should all die, in a rant offsite which hardly demonstrates any remorse?

However, I'll say this. IF he's allowed to return here at any point, I won't be raising an objection, I do know how much he loves this place and people love him. I do think what he did was bad enough to justify the action taken, but I also feel (in all honesty, and I said this at the time) that he was hung out to dry by the others who happily took part in the vitriol and then put their heads down and let him be the scapegoat.

I've had a crap year, I'm signed off work sick ATM and I'm just about managing to keep it all together. I don't want to go into 2014 with bad feeling between me and anyone on here. I mean ANYONE. If Scott ever came back I'd consider it a clean slate, which I actually think is MORE courtesy than his actions merit but there you go.

What a nice post!

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Marc

Ammi.. Scott brought the matter onto the forum, posting the link more than once after being warned. He deliberately tried to get the blog some attention.

..yeah, I do know that, Marc..that was why I assumed he had a 3 week ban, which I actually totally supported as anyone I know would tell you...but the indefinite ban came at the end of that 3 weeks and seems more than adequate for posting the links....

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by The Baby Jesus

Kate I haven't raised anything, or had a go at anyone. Sheriff brought up that point, and I explained what happened. There is nothing to drop really.

I don't feel you were having a go just to clarify, and I'm not having one either. I'm tired of rehashing it all that's all.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..you're right, Arista..this isn't our decision but if it's to be permanent, then it's not unreasonable after 3 months to want to be told that decision...there will be no confusion then for anyone including Scott, himself...

The problem is Other People have had Perm bans
and threads on them are banned.


So you are unreasonable

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by G.U.Yule

Someone please point out in the rules where it says you're not allowed to discuss banned member?

If people who were most offended by the blog say he should be given another chance, don't really see the problem, just make sure Scott knows it's his last chance and any more stupid **** and he'll be permbanned

..yeah, I would have no defence/sympathy for him if there was any future 'incidents'..but no one knows that more than he does...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by arista

The problem is Other People have had Perm bans
and threads on them are banned.


So you are unreasonable

..I am aware that there have been perma-bans and that makes it very clear..but an indefinite ban is a 'first' and isn't clear at all...

[MeMyselfAndI]

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by MeMyselfAndLeona

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

Stacey's permabanned, Scott's not

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by MeMyselfAndLeona

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

..Jack, every serious action has to be looked at separately, depending what it is...so far as I know, Stacey wasn't in cohesion with any other members when she did what she did...she was also never given an indefinite ban, which indicates a ban which will be reviewed...