Inhibiting free and reasonable debate on Gersnet

[maineflyer 0]

OK so the original thought behind this thread was partly tongue in cheek but the recent decision to ban members that certain admin clearly feel uncomfortable with - and again close threads to prevent others to comment on that action - is really quite concerning and reveals something I hadn't previously thought was part of the Gersnet identity. When I chose to question the need for anyone to be banned, which I happen to think should only be a matter of last resort, the snide retort that came from admin before closing the thread only further diminished the credibility of the forum and suggests to me that there are a small number of established members who are now tending to insist that the forum should reflect their own views as a priority. I don't believe that should happen and, while they may find it convenient to dismiss this criticism, perhaps they will at least take a moment to consider whether Gersnet has actually been enhanced because an easy target has been banned or whether silly cartoons is an appropriate or mature way to drove someone of their membership. I don't mind if no one agrees with me on this but I do feel the tone of the forum is changing recently and not necessarily for the better.

 

Instead of further ridiculing me, perhaps admin could puffer some reassurance by explaining why a member was banned when some of his most ardent critics have used at least as aggressive debate on many occasions.

Edited January 5, 2011 by maineflyer

[Zappa 0]

MF, Wabash was on his final final warning following a temporary ban a couple of months ago. He used up his last life. Again, it is not up for discussion.

[maineflyer 0]

MF, Wabash was on his final final warning following a temporary ban a couple of months ago. He used up his last life. Again, it is not up for discussion.

 

See that's what I mean. It should be an issue for all members to be aware of what would justify something as extreme as a banning. I've no interest in who got banned, only in a fair and open forum where actions are accountable and transparent. Too many forums elsewhere are run for the benefit of their inner circle but until recently Gersnet appeared entirely different. I've had my share of 'infractions' and deserved every one, never complained at any decisions to warn or ban, even took myself offline for a lengthy period when it became obvious I was out of tune with the forum. However, I see little to justify today's banning and I'm afraid being told something isn't up for discussion both increases the suspicion that this banning was at least partially based on personal preference as well as regrettably moving Gersnet towards the FF school of forum management. When I stumbled upon Gersnet some years ago I was struck at first by the cliquishness of some of it's core membership but then charmed by the honesty, maturity and plain fairness of Frankie and others - maybe the truth is that we're starting to miss the influence of that same experience. It's been noticable on more than one occasion recently that those who might be encouraging participative debate are perhaps the first to get embroiled in aggressive confrontation.

 

Rather than refuse discussion, these are the very issues that should be debated. If we can't discuss the way the forum is moderated or question the decisions of those who do that moderating then we are already in a place we shouldn't be. No one is challenging the need for the forum to be moderated or the right of moderators to take effective decisions - but the quid pro quo is that moderators must always be willing to justify those decisions and to respect the right of members to require such justification. No? Anyway, if the "closed" sign is the only response then I guess the intent is clear enough for all to read.

Edited January 6, 2011 by maineflyer

[pete 2,499]

MF any decision to ban anyone on this site is not taken lightly. We want to keep good members not lose them. This is a decision taken over a number of months and with the full backing of all of Admin. Do we need to be childish and put yellow cards above people who have had a warning or can we not just hope that people accept that after many private messages asking them to just discuss things in an adult way that they might just ask themselves am i crossing the line, as you say that you did. People do have different opinions but that does not make them a prick a cunt or an idiot and they certainly will not be banned for having a different opinion on this site. If you do have a different opinion though, then it should be open to discussion why you have that opinion and is it correct. A forum is to discuss and not just throw names and swear words at each other. If we accept that then the only way is down.

I believe the thread has been reopened as there were some very good discussions in it.

[maineflyer 0]

Pete,

Thanks. I agree with everything you say. I'm relieved and glad the thread has been re-opened since it is both interesting and there was clearly no reason to close it in the first place. You've also explained that the banning wasn't the precipitate action it initially appeared to be. I have tended to avoid much of that gentleman's postings as I really couldn't understand many of his points and wasn't aware there was any problem, he certainly didn't cause me any grief. I still think it's fair enough to want to be informed about what constitutes cause for banning and if the initial response hadn't been to refuse explanation I wouldn't have felt compelled to return to this thread. Thanks again.

[pete 2,499]

Pete,

Thanks. I agree with everything you say. I'm relieved and glad the thread has been re-opened since it is both interesting and there was clearly no reason to close it in the first place. You've also explained that the banning wasn't the precipitate action it initially appeared to be. I have tended to avoid much of that gentleman's postings as I really couldn't understand many of his points and wasn't aware there was any problem, he certainly didn't cause me any grief. I still think it's fair enough to want to be informed about what constitutes cause for banning and if the initial response hadn't been to refuse explanation I wouldn't have felt compelled to return to this thread. Thanks again.

 

Just for another wee bit of transparency;) it is actually common procedure that a thread that has gone astray is temporarily closed so as admin\mods can discuss what has happened and how we are going to handle it. Any posts that we feel are not fitting are removed and the thread is reopened. Obviously some that have gone totally astray will remain locked.

[Zappa 0]

MF, I'll add to what Pete's said by saying that there are no personal vendettas or grudges here on Gersnet and you yourself should know that. You and others including myself have had strong words and the odd fall out along the way, but I'm sure you know that there's never been a grudge held on my part or anyone else's (quite the opposite in fact) and I think that's in keeping with the spirit of Gersnet and any good internet forum. Most of us on the forum are here for good debate and discussion with one another about Rangers and related subjects. We like Gersnet for many reasons and those reasons are generally obvious to members of the forum.

[craig 5,195]

We know we cant ban you MF as you are the resident stocks and shares analyst/predictor

[maineflyer 0]

We know we cant ban you MF as you are the resident stocks and shares analyst/predictor

 

You'd know a lot more about it if you paid for 'special advice' like everyone else.

 

But since you're a needy case, have a gander at Triple Plate Junction (Ldn). Down 8.4% today to 6p and well worth a punt if you can stay in up to a year. Could be stellar if you've the patience. Of course it could also bomb like a stone.