What Do YOU Want Bond & Beyond to Be?

Hilly wrote:

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

No, he definitely wasn't protected, but it seems to me some here are, not naming any specific names. That indeed smacks of cronyism, but I won't name names, unlike some members here.

j7's ban was lifted TWICE, he was given chances by M despite the mods' objections and we respected his decision. The only banning that mods are allowed to place on are duplicates accounts or temporary suspensions.

Python wrote:

j7's ban was lifted TWICE, he was given chances by M despite the mods' objections and we respected his decision. The only banning that mods are allowed to place on are duplicates accounts or temporary suspensions.

Well then it seems he was given more chances than some other members I've heard of.

The Butler wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Well, j7wild for one.

Protected or unfairly banned?

I don't know all the circumstances, though I doubt he was protected. Perhaps he'd run out of chances? It gives a bad image to newcomers to air one's dirty linen in public.

A lot of time and resources were wasted on j7 - he was initially suspended in May 2012, and came back several times in the last year (mostly out of pity), only to blow all of his chances. He's currently banned till 2017.

I'm not sure how it looks from the outside (since a lot of a lot of the most embarrassing threads are only viewable to mods and a select few), but j7wild created a lot of ill will and mockery. I can't say he'll be missed.

The Butler wrote:

Hilly wrote:

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

No, he definitely wasn't protected, but it seems to me some here are, not naming any specific names. That indeed smacks of cronyism, but I won't name names, unlike some members here.

Let me guess. You're talking about Erica Ambler?

I agree that he was given too many chances, as I believe a ban should be a ban. IIRC, only two others have been banned. One only spent his time ripping/insulting members without contributing to any discussion. The other SILHOUETTE MAN, was given a month's suspension for being uncooperative but went onto create multiple accounts, which bumps his banning to a lifetime ban. The last one was unfortunate, as I think he made some worthy contributions.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Hilly wrote:

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

No, he definitely wasn't protected, but it seems to me some here are, not naming any specific names. That indeed smacks of cronyism, but I won't name names, unlike some members here.

Let me guess. You're talking about Erica Ambler?

As I've said, no names, but you're in the right ball park.

The Butler wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Hilly wrote:

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

No, he definitely wasn't protected, but it seems to me some here are, not naming any specific names. That indeed smacks of cronyism, but I won't name names, unlike some members here.

Let me guess. You're talking about Erica Ambler?

As I've said, no names, but you're in the right ball park.

As I suspected, Brian.

It would be helpful if you did name names than be vague. Everyone is entitled to criticize the moderation of this forum, otherwise it's not helping.

I see mention being made of the political threads...but if members did not like them, couldn't they just go read something else? I barely, if ever, participated in these discussions, but did not feel the need to wade into anyone else who did. Same for any other thread that might not have been my cup of tea.

Butler, glad you're speaking up, wish more members would :cheers:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I see mention being made of the political threads...but if members did not like them, couldn't they just go read something else? I barely, if ever, participated in these discussions, but did not feel the need to wade into anyone else who did. Same for any other thread that might not have been my cup of tea.

Exactly. This isn't a baby sitting service. It shouldn't be the mods jobs to protect people from going into threads they don't like, or to protect them from engaging with people with differing views than them. The mods jobs should be limited to a) removing SPAM b) merging duplicate threads c) banning duplicates and d) enforcing rules about personal abuse. (Which should frankly, consist of warnings moreso than bans).

Also don't see the point in keeping the whole forum protected to guests. That was merely a function of spreading the word about this place during the MI6 implosion without the powers there being able to spy on strategy. Those days are long gone so it seems entirely redundant.

But I come back to my previous point: there are dozens of new Bond discussion forums that have been started and failed because they just sought to replicate MI6, CBn. Seems facile to over-moderate what is generally a smart and articulate member base.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Hilly wrote:

If j7 was protected, what hope the rest of us.

No, he definitely wasn't protected, but it seems to me some here are, not naming any specific names. That indeed smacks of cronyism, but I won't name names, unlike some members here.

Let me guess. You're talking about Erica Ambler?

Of course. Ambler's always the go-to guy to blame around here. The guy has been in the cross hairs since Mi6.

The Butler wrote:

Python wrote:

j7's ban was lifted TWICE, he was given chances by M despite the mods' objections and we respected his decision. The only banning that mods are allowed to place on are duplicates accounts or temporary suspensions.

Well then it seems he was given more chances than some other members I've heard of.

The username account of SILHOUETTE MAN has been reopened. Punishment has been served, even if it was just in the form of a few weeks of anonymity. The username account is reopen only on the provision that no more suspected duplicate accounts are used and that no more instances of insulting other members occur. This situation was handled in a perfectly correct fashion by our mods, thus this is in no way a slight on them, this is merely the ending of a suspension and a member being given a second chance which I trust will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been granted. Others here have been granted second chances, so I don't expect an inbox of complaints about this. SILHOUETTE MAN hopefully knows who to steer clear of, so let's just move on.

GRAVITY'S SILHOUETTE: Your mod status was removed on the basis that you were no longer posting here nor seemed to have any intention of doing so. Free speech has been restored to the forums, so if you'd like to reassume your position then that's no problem, it's up to you. You're a highly valued member here.

PERILAGU KHAN: I hope you can feel free to reassume posting here as you were before. I value your presence here greatly, which is why you're a mod here. Differences of opinion will no longer be grounds for people running off to me and making me choose sides. Instead, I expect people to resolve their differences like adults on the boards, or else just be the bigger man and agree to disagree.

The only "closed off" section of the boards will be the Bottoms Up club, the hiding of which is merely a safeguard to protect us from potential repercussions from Forumotion. You have the complete freedom of choice to use/view this section at your own discretion, and can be granted access via a simple request to myself. Nobody is banned from this area, you've just been given a choice to view or not to view it.

The forums will be reopened for public viewing shortly.

Let's draw a line under all recent disagreements here and move on in the spirit of freedom and progress that most people here seem to want.

Thanks,

M

Vesper wrote:

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I see mention being made of the political threads...but if members did not like them, couldn't they just go read something else? I barely, if ever, participated in these discussions, but did not feel the need to wade into anyone else who did. Same for any other thread that might not have been my cup of tea.

Exactly. This isn't a baby sitting service. It shouldn't be the mods jobs to protect people from going into threads they don't like, or to protect them from engaging with people with differing views than them. T

Absolutely, people need to take responsibility for what they post AND what they choose to read and respond to!

M wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Python wrote:

j7's ban was lifted TWICE, he was given chances by M despite the mods' objections and we respected his decision. The only banning that mods are allowed to place on are duplicates accounts or temporary suspensions.

Well then it seems he was given more chances than some other members I've heard of.

The username account of SILHOUETTE MAN has been reopened. Punishment has been served, even if it was just in the form of a few weeks of anonymity. The username account is reopen only on the provision that no more suspected duplicate accounts are used and that no more instances of insulting other members occur. This situation was handled in a perfectly correct fashion by our mods, thus this is in no way a slight on them, this is merely the ending of a suspension and a member being given a second chance which I trust will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been granted. Others here have been granted second chances, so I don't expect an inbox of complaints about this. SILHOUETTE MAN hopefully knows who to steer clear of, so let's just move on.

GRAVITY'S SILHOUETTE: Your mod status was removed on the basis that you were no longer posting here nor seemed to have any intention of doing so. Free speech has been restored to the forums, so if you'd like to reassume your position then that's no problem, it's up to you. You're a highly valued member here.

PERILAGU KHAN: I hope you can feel free to reassume posting here as you were before. I value your presence here greatly, which is why you're a mod here. Differences of opinion will no longer be grounds for people running off to me and making me choose sides. Instead, I expect people to resolve their differences like adults on the boards, or else just be the bigger man and agree to disagree.

The only "closed off" section of the boards will be the Bottoms Up club, the hiding of which is merely a safeguard to protect us from potential repercussions from Forumotion. You have the complete freedom of choice to use/view this section at your own discretion, and can be granted access via a simple request to myself. Nobody is banned from this area, you've just been given a choice to view or not to view it.

The forums will be reopened for public viewing shortly.

Let's draw a line under all recent disagreements here and move on in the spirit of freedom and progress that most people here seem to want.

Thanks,

M

Sounds good to me.

As an aside - In terms of ban level a three strike system is quite usual but perhaps it could operate in a systematic way that removes priveledges in stages, a first offence denies the offender pm's and bottoms up, a second offence restricts their ability to respond in certain sections (perhaps forcing them only to the more specific and less contentious sections) and a final total ban......though is all cases a period of cooling off and contemplation is not unreasonable - everyone gets hot under the collar once in a while, these are only words and opinions after all.

Exactly. And people need to know when to just back off. Only the forums lose when people stubbornly drag out arguments beyond repetition and into name-calling.

Nice one, M :)

M wrote:

The Butler wrote:

Python wrote:

j7's ban was lifted TWICE, he was given chances by M despite the mods' objections and we respected his decision. The only banning that mods are allowed to place on are duplicates accounts or temporary suspensions.

Well then it seems he was given more chances than some other members I've heard of.

The username account of SILHOUETTE MAN has been reopened. Punishment has been served, even if it was just in the form of a few weeks of anonymity. The username account is reopen only on the provision that no more suspected duplicate accounts are used and that no more instances of insulting other members occur. This situation was handled in a perfectly correct fashion by our mods, thus this is in no way a slight on them, this is merely the ending of a suspension and a member being given a second chance which I trust will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been granted. Others here have been granted second chances, so I don't expect an inbox of complaints about this. SILHOUETTE MAN hopefully knows who to steer clear of, so let's just move on.

GRAVITY'S SILHOUETTE: Your mod status was removed on the basis that you were no longer posting here nor seemed to have any intention of doing so. Free speech has been restored to the forums, so if you'd like to reassume your position then that's no problem, it's up to you. You're a highly valued member here.

PERILAGU KHAN: I hope you can feel free to reassume posting here as you were before. I value your presence here greatly, which is why you're a mod here. Differences of opinion will no longer be grounds for people running off to me and making me choose sides. Instead, I expect people to resolve their differences like adults on the boards, or else just be the bigger man and agree to disagree.

The only "closed off" section of the boards will be the Bottoms Up club, the hiding of which is merely a safeguard to protect us from potential repercussions from Forumotion. You have the complete freedom of choice to use/view this section at your own discretion, and can be granted access via a simple request to myself. Nobody is banned from this area, you've just been given a choice to view or not to view it.

The forums will be reopened for public viewing shortly.

Let's draw a line under all recent disagreements here and move on in the spirit of freedom and progress that most people here seem to want.

Thanks,

M

Thank you very much for the second chance, M - I like this forum and want to remain a member here, so I will be on my best behaviour from now on. I am happy to agree to your very reasonable demands of me. First of all, may I offer my sincere apology to Erica Ambler for my behaviour towards him. I was out of order that day at the end of March. I have learned my lesson and I offer you the olive branch of peace and understanding. I'll send Ambler a PM later on, too, but I wanted my post back on here to be a very sincere apology to Erica Ambler and any other member that I may have offended. Thank you again for ending the ban. I still feel I have much to contribute to this forum and I'll therefore help it out in any way that I can. I hope you all will welcome me back here after my month away.

Sincerely,

SILHOUETTE MAN.

No worries. Hopefully, apologies will be accepted and we can all move on.

M wrote:

No worries. Hopefully, apologies will be accepted and we can all move on.

Yes, thank you. I'm all for that, personally. Water under the bridge and all that.

M wrote:

GRAVITY'S SILHOUETTE: Your mod status was removed on the basis that you were no longer posting here nor seemed to have any intention of doing so. Free speech has been restored to the forums, so if you'd like to reassume your position then that's no problem, it's up to you. You're a highly valued member here.

M, I don't think Gravity left because he lost his badge. He chose to part ways because the complaints were putting you in an awkward position, He then returned several days ago to be horrified by me being reappointed and how my first move was to close the American politics thread, which GS clearly holds dear to his heart.

You can't have it both ways, as GS effectively put it in his last post. It's either me and my ideas for what Bond & Beyond should be, or Gravity and his. Our two philosophies are not compatible.

Largo's Shark wrote:

You can't have it both ways, as GS effectively put it in his last post. It's either me and my ideas for what Bond & Beyond should be, or Gravity and his. Our two philosophies are not compatible.

FFS You are such a drama queen. Are you trying to engineer some power play overthrow or something. Yes he can have it both ways. There is no either-or here. M has spoken and he makes perfect sense as far as I'm concerned. Geez.

FieldsMan wrote:

Nice one, M :)

Ditto!

tiffanywint wrote:

FFS You are such a drama queen.

No less melodramatic than Gravity's last Address to the Nation.

I know you don't want to rock the boat, but someone's got to speak out and tell it like it is.

Admin's an admin. He's not the pope. He's not infallible. We can question him, and we should be encouraged to.

Feel free to :roll: all you want.

Largo's Shark wrote:

M, I don't think Gravity left because he lost his badge. He chose to part ways because the complaints were putting you in an awkward position, He then returned several days ago to be horrified by me being reappointed and how my first move was to close the American politics thread, which GS clearly holds dear to his heart.

Was closure necessary?

As a middle-ground between your philosophies, maybe let him start a new one?

American politics might not be my cup of tea, same for British politics, or any politics...but if the forum and its boards wants to encompass discussion on anything, we should be careful where the locks are applied.

tiffanywint wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

You can't have it both ways, as GS effectively put it in his last post. It's either me and my ideas for what Bond & Beyond should be, or Gravity and his. Our two philosophies are not compatible.

FFS You are such a drama queen. Are you trying to engineer some power play overthrow or something. Yes he can have it both ways. There is no either-or here. M has spoken and he makes perfect sense as far as I'm concerned. Geez.

No, we are all just in denial, Tiff.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

M, I don't think Gravity left because he lost his badge. He chose to part ways because the complaints were putting you in an awkward position, He then returned several days ago to be horrified by me being reappointed and how my first move was to close the American politics thread, which GS clearly holds dear to his heart.

Was closure necessary?

As a middle-ground between your philosophies, maybe let him start a new one?

I'd agree to it that only if it was more carefully moderated, and it wasn't just a bile spewing contest like it has been for last year or so. If it was home to more reasoned conversation that involved more than just 4 usual posters, it could work. A regular poll and subject for discussion would more fruitful than just ranting about the latest headlines. Something proactive rather than reactive.