Chips Longhorn ban

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

I noticed from the Admin Log that Chips has received a six month ban "for abusing other posters". 

Which post did this occur in?

According the the log of Chips' recent posts, they've posted just 9 times in March. None of these contain anything abusive. 

Curious - has the offending post been deleted? If so, was this by the admins, and is this wise? 

[Wingman]

He doesn’t need to be obviously abusive, there are other ways to demean and devalue other people and their opinions without resorting to foul language. He has a charge sheet longer than the Bayeux Tapestry and cynically tries to stay just short of the line when it’s comes to his posts, then plays the forum martyr when he is pulled up for it. He’s been given more rope than anyone on here over the years.

As a former Admin you should know what he is like considering the history of his time under your tenure also.

No posts have been deleted. The ban stands and if he cannot adjust his manner of posting then he will undoubtedly get himself another longer ban when he comes back.

[townian]

Mar 18, 2024 10:59:01 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man said:

I noticed from the Admin Log that Chips has received a six month ban "for abusing other posters". 

Which post did this occur in?

According the the log of Chips' recent posts, they've posted just 9 times in March. None of these contain anything abusive. 

Curious - has the offending post been deleted? If so, was this by the admins, and is this wise? 

You're absolutely right, nothing abusive whatsoever. I suppose a cynic might wonder if his criticism of the current admins for their double standards in enforcing bans might have been the trigger point?! Anyway, since bans aren't enforced these days he can happily carry on posting...

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

"He doesn’t need to be obviously abusive"

As a former admin, I'd argue that for a six month ban, he absolutely does need to be obviously abusive. There is nothing in any of his posts in March that is remotely abusive, obviously or not.

[htafcokay]

Bringing up things from the Mental Health board and using it to score points on the main board against someone they dislike is pretty low.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

are you referring to this post?

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/3311159/thread

If so, that's a stretch IMO. I read that three times and only now, after your comment, does an possibility of anything untoward spring to mind. Even then, it's vague, oblique and seems hardly abusive.

[htafcokay]

Mar 18, 2024 12:44:45 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man said:

are you referring to this post?

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/3311159/thread

If so, that's a stretch IMO. I read that three times and only now, after your comment, does an possibility of anything untoward spring to mind. Even then, it's vague, oblique and seems hardly abusive.

It just one in a long line of unprovoked digs towards me. I don't engage with him, he was blocked ages ago, yet he continues to randomly pop up and start on me. 

He knew exactly what he was doing in the post that you've linked, and then encouraging the other poster to start with further insults. 

Who else has had their mental state openly discussed on the main board?

The Mental Health board is meant to be somewhere people can talk openly, not be judged and not have it held against them. That individual has now crossed the line and I can no longer share anything on that board as who knows what else he'll bring up to score a few points. 

[Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier]

It’s pretty clear, in my opinion, that it’s the current admins Chips is mainly trying to undermine, and I think they’re correct in their assessment. He’s done it for a long time. Repeat, my opinion.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

Mar 18, 2024 12:48:51 GMT 1 htafcokay said:

Mar 18, 2024 12:44:45 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man said:

are you referring to this post?

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/3311159/thread

If so, that's a stretch IMO. I read that three times and only now, after your comment, does an possibility of anything untoward spring to mind. Even then, it's vague, oblique and seems hardly abusive.

It just one in a long line of unprovoked digs towards me. I don't engage with him, he was blocked ages ago, yet he continues to randomly pop up and start on me. 

He knew exactly what he was doing in the post that you've linked, and then encouraging the other poster to start with further insults. 

Who else has had their mental state openly discussed on the main board?

The Mental Health board is meant to be somewhere people can talk openly, not be judged and not have it held against them. That individual has now crossed the line and I can no longer share anything on that board as who knows what else he'll bring up to score a few points. 

fair enough. I didn't make the link when I first read it, and even now I'm not sure specifically to what he was referring, but if this is what has happened that is out of line.

[Wingman]

I really want to make things clear here, Keith, Overton and I had no grudge against Ted. When we came in everyone was treated with a clean slate but he consistently is flying just under the radar with how he treats others.

His post about htafcokay was unfair, and I personally found it patronising considering he was using the support mechanism offered on the MH board as a stick to attack me with. I don’t know Ted personally and would and have offered the same support to many on that board. His post for me was just poor and another attempt at low level abuse and bullying.

As for our decisions made, we debate these between the trio and don’t always agree, but the majority rule goes and we back each others choices when we can stand it up to challenge. Every Admin team in the history of the forum and those in the future will get challenged, we do try to be open and transparent. We’ve made the odd error - naturally as we are only human - but I’d say we get the vast majority of decisions right.

[mosher]

Mar 18, 2024 12:48:51 GMT 1 htafcokay said:

Mar 18, 2024 12:44:45 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man said:

are you referring to this post?

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/3311159/thread

If so, that's a stretch IMO. I read that three times and only now, after your comment, does an possibility of anything untoward spring to mind. Even then, it's vague, oblique and seems hardly abusive.

It just one in a long line of unprovoked digs towards me. I don't engage with him, he was blocked ages ago, yet he continues to randomly pop up and start on me. 

He knew exactly what he was doing in the post that you've linked, and then encouraging the other poster to start with further insults. 

Who else has had their mental state openly discussed on the main board?

The Mental Health board is meant to be somewhere people can talk openly, not be judged and not have it held against them. That individual has now crossed the line and I can no longer share anything on that board as who knows what else he'll bring up to score a few points. 

Hope that's not true mate, but if someone's going to weaponise your posts I don't blame you 

[Wingman]

Mar 18, 2024 15:15:47 GMT 1 mosher said:

Mar 18, 2024 12:48:51 GMT 1 htafcokay said:

It just one in a long line of unprovoked digs towards me. I don't engage with him, he was blocked ages ago, yet he continues to randomly pop up and start on me. 

He knew exactly what he was doing in the post that you've linked, and then encouraging the other poster to start with further insults. 

Who else has had their mental state openly discussed on the main board?

The Mental Health board is meant to be somewhere people can talk openly, not be judged and not have it held against them. That individual has now crossed the line and I can no longer share anything on that board as who knows what else he'll bring up to score a few points. 

Hope that's not true mate, but if someone's going to weaponise your posts I don't blame you 

Weaponising posts about MH. That is a very good way of putting it. Unacceptable face to face and behind a keyboard.

I rest the Admin case on this one.

[DeepSpace]

I tend to stay out of admin issues & personal stuff on here; I never report people & usually just drop out, eventually anyway, of anything that's getting too personal. But on this occasion, I think Chips was well out of order. He does have a bit of form here...I have seen a few politics threads in the past where he'd appear to be more interested in winding up the poster than addressing the issue, & I'm sure his accumulation of yellow cards probably has much to do with that.

But as far as this was concerned, it went below what I think was acceptable. He pretty obviously did transfer information out of a ring-fenced group to use it to have a go at another poster. Now I know the poster affected personally, he's a decent guy, someone I like a lot. I don't always agree with what he writes or even how he writes it, but that's his shout & he lives or dies by the same rules as the rest of us. But as a man who I know works with vulnerable people, Chips should know better than to take information that someone has put out in good faith, as part of a mutual support network & use it to have a pop. So, for one, I absolutely think admin did the right thing.

If it's technically possible, I'd also restrict his access to the MH board at least until there's a clear understanding of the purpose it serves & a guarantee that this won't happen again.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

Like I say, fair enough. Wasn't immediately obvious to me but the wider context since provided helped.

While we're at it, what happened to Tinrope? He tells me he was banned permanently but I couldn't see any mention of this on the log.

[Wingman]

Tinrope was on here under another guise formerly; in that guise they attempted to undermine the Admin team at every turn and as a result attempt to destabilise the forum. They initially deleted their account, then after a breather they returned under the Tinrope name. Their behaviour started again and so we took the decision to ban them.

It is a forum, but if we have people coming on with no interest other than to try create problems and encourage support to protest against us, then we reserve the right to act. This is also why often I come on and explain things, the forum deserves to understand why we make certain decisions, because we certainly aren’t dictators but have to make difficult choices from time to time.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

Mar 19, 2024 12:19:30 GMT 1 Wingman said:

Tinrope was on here under another guise formerly; in that guise they attempted to undermine the Admin team at every turn and as a result attempt to destabilise the forum. They initially deleted their account, then after a breather they returned under the Tinrope name. Their behaviour started again and so we took the decision to ban them.

It is a forum, but if we have people coming on with no interest other than to try create problems and encourage support to protest against us, then we reserve the right to act. This is also why often I come on and explain things, the forum deserves to understand why we make certain decisions, because we certainly aren’t dictators but have to make difficult choices from time to time.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. 

[Wingman]

Gag_N_Bone_Man, not a problem chief. It’s better to be open where possible.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

Mar 19, 2024 12:19:30 GMT 1 Wingman said:

Tinrope was on here under another guise formerly; in that guise they attempted to undermine the Admin team at every turn and as a result attempt to destabilise the forum. They initially deleted their account, then after a breather they returned under the Tinrope name. Their behaviour started again and so we took the decision to ban them.

It is a forum, but if we have people coming on with no interest other than to try create problems and encourage support to protest against us, then we reserve the right to act. This is also why often I come on and explain things, the forum deserves to understand why we make certain decisions, because we certainly aren’t dictators but have to make difficult choices from time to time.

just been thinking about this. 

Tinrope was Belinko, right. Belinko deleted their own account, as was their right. They later re-joined under a new name. You have then issued a permanent ban.

On what grounds? Was Belinko one step from a ban on the Belinko account? Did Tinrope go through the usual steps of warnings and shorter term bans? 

Regarding the rules on Psuedonyms, the relevant portion is here:

Although posting with multiple accounts is possible, posters registering pseudonyms often do so to evade suspensions, or confuse fellow posters. Therefore, if pseudonym accounts are discovered, they will be deleted and the transgressor awarded a yellow card, unless this is to evade a ban, in which case a straight red card will be issued.

(Note: When the registering of a new account to evade the impact of a suspension is suspected the admin team may contact the suspected poster to give them an opportunity to verify their identity. There is no obligation on posters to do this but if they opt not to, the admin team reserve the right to issue the appropriate sanction. However, if we are in no doubt, this step will not be taken)

So, what specific rule did they break that led to a lifetime ban? Finally, and this is perhaps the most important question in my view, why was this decision not communicated in the same was as other admin actions?

[Wingman]

As both you and I have stated, Belinko deleted their account only after challenging everything we did as an Admin team. We’d say it was a sunny day, they would say it’s raining. Very rarely did they venture into other topics on the board. They deleted their account, simple.

They came back, same issues in terms of behaviours and we decided to remove them. As above, their behaviour was destabilising and we have the right to eject folks that are here to cause nothing but trouble. If they had come back on with a different attitude and actually acted like a constructive member of the forum, there would be no issues, guaranteed. We’re here to grow the forum and make it accessible to everyone who wants to contribute.

With the greatest of respect, as a former Admin yourself, you know the challenges faced and will have made decisions that, if not fully known why made, would have been challenged.

So you’re either trying to cause a problem for us or you’re standing up for a mate. I hope it’s the latter, which is more palatable and I’ve given the reasons for.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man]

I'm simply asking a few questions. As a former admin myself, I put in place the action log to ensure that decisions made were visible and we were fully accountable. this was precisely because we knew some decisions would be challenged.

I'm neither sticking up for a mate (never met Belinko/Tinrope) nor am I trying to cause a problem. I'm merely curious as to a) what specific rule Tinrope/Belinko broke (your answer is still quite vague about this) and b) why this wasn't logged in the usual way.

If you had answered both, this conversation would be over.

So, for clarity please confirm:

1. What rule was broken, and how?
2. What was the admin vote on the penalty?
3. Why wasn't it logged?

I know better than anyone the scrutiny that admins come under when making decisions. That's why every decision we made when I was on the admin team was logged, and why I recused myself from the voting in cases where the subject of the vote was someone with whom I had any history (like Donkersley and Otium, for example). I always went to great pains to be sure that everything in these cases was done by the book because the decisions themselves were always likely to be put under the microscope. In this case it went under the radar by omitting it from the log. That concerns me, and I think as someone who remains a user I am entitled to be concerned, and to voice these concerns. I am doing so in the right way, in the right place. I've asked open questions and given you the opportunity to respond, rather than (as some did in my rtenure) simply accusing you of X, Y and Z or demanding change.

[incognito]

Mar 20, 2024 11:27:19 GMT 1 Wingman said:

As both you and I have stated, Belinko deleted their account only after challenging everything we did as an Admin team. We’d say it was a sunny day, they would say it’s raining. Very rarely did they venture into other topics on the board. They deleted their account, simple.

They came back, same issues in terms of behaviours and we decided to remove them. As above, their behaviour was destabilising and we have the right to eject folks that are here to cause nothing but trouble. If they had come back on with a different attitude and actually acted like a constructive member of the forum, there would be no issues, guaranteed. We’re here to grow the forum and make it accessible to everyone who wants to contribute.

With the greatest of respect, as a former Admin yourself, you know the challenges faced and will have made decisions that, if not fully known why made, would have been challenged.

So you’re either trying to cause a problem for us or you’re standing up for a mate. I hope it’s the latter, which is more palatable and I’ve given the reasons for.

Steady on!

I have no allegiances to anyone on this site, nor any desire to "cause a problem" for you, but, after a quick scroll through the tinrope back catalogue and Admin Action Log, I remain similarly in the dark...

[Wingman]

Mar 20, 2024 13:24:04 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man said:

I'm simply asking a few questions. As a former admin myself, I put in place the action log to ensure that decisions made were visible and we were fully accountable. this was precisely because we knew some decisions would be challenged.

I'm neither sticking up for a mate (never met Belinko/Tinrope) nor am I trying to cause a problem. I'm merely curious as to a) what specific rule Tinrope/Belinko broke (your answer is still quite vague about this) and b) why this wasn't logged in the usual way.

If you had answered both, this conversation would be over.

So, for clarity please confirm:

1. What rule was broken, and how?
2. What was the admin vote on the penalty?
3. Why wasn't it logged?

I know better than anyone the scrutiny that admins come under when making decisions. That's why every decision we made when I was on the admin team was logged, and why I recused myself from the voting in cases where the subject of the vote was someone with whom I had any history (like Donkersley and Otium, for example). I always went to great pains to be sure that everything in these cases was done by the book because the decisions themselves were always likely to be put under the microscope. In this case it went under the radar by omitting it from the log. That concerns me, and I think as someone who remains a user I am entitled to be concerned, and to voice these concerns. I am doing so in the right way, in the right place. I've asked open questions and given you the opportunity to respond, rather than (as some did in my rtenure) simply accusing you of X, Y and Z or demanding change.

OK, to try bring this matter to a close I will clarify further, hopefully enough.

1. Some abuse was directed at one particular Admin, and as I have explained previously, the individual in question was agressively challenging everything the Admin team did, seemingly out of angst because they didn't agree with courses of action taken previously. Let me make it clear that we had no prior exchanges with Belinko, and therefore found their aggression and attitude towards us surprising. Seemingly they decided they had had enough and deleted their account. After this event, the Admin team reflected and discussed what had caused this anger, and felt that this type of aggression towards the team alongside abolutely no constructive posting elsewhere was not acceptable, especially when we had had no prior involvement with them. Once they reappeared as Tinrope we let them be, whilst observing their posts, but it soon became clear their aggression had not subsided and was evidenced by some unnecessary abuse issued towards one Admin. We agreed as a team to remove them from the forum.

I am minded to update the forum rules to reflect the above, because as far as I am concerned we will not be sitting ducks and take pelters for running this forum in best way possible. We are well within our rights to take appropriate action such as the above. It is not a route we intend to go down often at all, and I'm ready to stand for the actions we have taken to date - for example binning off lifetime bans some time ago and issuing bans for increasing lengths for accumulation of cards.

As I have said we do reserve the right to remove individuals from the forum if we feel they are going to cause issues. This is in the Admin teams remit and won't be going away.

2. As above, we agreed as a team that the individual should be removed as they had not changed their aggressive attitude towards the Admin team, between usernames.

3. This is a pure oversight, in fairness. It should have been logged in the normal manner. Nothing sinister or underhand.

As per the forum rules, questions of Admins should be put into a PM and not have a thread dedicated to it, but out of due respect to yourself and everyone else reading and observing, I've replied each time we have been questioned. From here on, direct queries to all three of us and we can go from there. You will of course understand why queries should be PM'd otherwise we would be overrun with questions, pile-on's and the like.

This thread will now be locked as the matter has been explained fully and fairly. I cannot be any more transparent on this, so can add nothing more.