# What's happened to some of our more illustrious posters?



## Scrit (27 Sep 2007)

Am I alone in wondering why Mr Grimsdale is yet again showing the "BANNED" notification on his postings? I realise that just asking this question may result in my suspension but I felt it was high time to ask why? Especially as he is one of our most experienced and knowledgeable posters. 

Scrit


----------



## MooreToolsPlease (27 Sep 2007)

I have been wondering the very same thing....


----------



## Jake (27 Sep 2007)

******* ridiculous - ban me too.

The moderation on this forum has for a while been becoming a cabal which is failing to recognise its responsibility to recognise its own biases and rise above them in their position as moderators rather than posters. There has been a lot of pathetic and childish behaviour which is going to pineapple this forum up, from a bunch of people who seem to feel themselves maligned by strong opinions which are not the same as their own. The internet is all about free expression and speech, not making a certain bunch of people who all think the same feel good about themselves because they aren't challenged in their beliefs in any way.

Really, really sad day, but one which reflects the way this place has been heading.


----------



## Good Surname or what ? (27 Sep 2007)

I saw nothing from Jacob to deserve a ban. I understand that this forum ultimately belongs to Charley and without the moderators it couldn't exist.

But equally without us, the contributors - and that includes Jacob, it's has no reason to exist.

I worry that some strong personality clashes are ruining this for all of us.

PS - if Scrit get's banned for starting this thread then I know it's time to go elsewhere.


----------



## RogerS (27 Sep 2007)

Hear hear. I was surprised at the belligerence shown towards Jacob in some of the posts.


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Sep 2007)

I'm also rather baffled...... :? :? :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## JFC (27 Sep 2007)

I got a warning for asking why Tony's post had been removed that contained abusive remarks towards Jacob :roll: 
Then i got told no such remark was made , then i got a reason why the post was removed for the remark that wasn't made :shock: 
And now i'm talking about moderator actions again so i'm bound to be banned :shock: Oh well might aswell go out in style 
Shove yer forum up yer buttocks pal !!!!! :lol:


----------



## Sawdust (27 Sep 2007)

Perhaps whoever banned him should say why??

Mike


----------



## davy_owen_88 (28 Sep 2007)

As I said the last time the discussion about his banning came up, if this rubbish continues you'll find that certain members won't bother coming back. Then you'll have to ask yourself, who's going to come to a forum where questions remain unanswered because everyone who knew the answer has been banned or has left in protest?

I know I could stop posting here tomorrow and no-one would care, but this forum wouldn't be the same without certain members. To name a few: Senior and Jacob who have been banned, JFC who has received a warning and Scrit, along with a large number of others who are clearly not amused at the actions of certain moderators.

I appeal to Charley to sort this out. In the last thread it was mentioned that he was trying to get the balance back on track, but it clearly isn't happening. Perhaps you need to shake some of your mods and tell them to grow up and keep their personal grudges out of the forum before you see a large exodus of the very posters that make this forum what it is.


----------



## wizer (28 Sep 2007)

whats the betting this thread is deleted by the time i get to work? :roll:


----------



## davy_owen_88 (28 Sep 2007)

WiZeR":1c2a694j said:


> whats the betting this thread is deleted by the time i get to work? :roll:



What time do you get to work? :lol:


----------



## wizer (28 Sep 2007)

well I am early today so....


I was also basically told to shut my mouth via PM. I can only echo what jas been said above, I think that the moderation on this forum is becoming a bit strong. Yes, I absolutely appreciate the job these guys and gals do. They do it for free and we all know moderation is needed on internet forums. But when a member is banned for what appears to be nothing offensive or derogatory then someone's gone too far (and it wasn't Jacob). 

I used to like coming to this forum because it _wasn't_ full of bickering, cliques and overmodding, like most other internet forums.


----------



## Johnboy (28 Sep 2007)

Have to agree with this. Some of the mods and Tony in particular have obviously had a humour bypass. I am not going to visit for a month or so as I presume these remarks will lead to me being being banned.

Pity that a great forum is being ruined by stupid moderation by one person.

John


----------



## PowerTool (28 Sep 2007)

Yes,I also agree with all the above.

Andrew


----------



## ike (28 Sep 2007)

I nearly, nearly posted about this a couple of days ago but thought better. I too think this forum is starting to go down the pan due to nanny state moderation. I blame one or two of the moderaters, the worst being Tony, who is just rude, pompous and arrogant to many here. 

THERE, I've said what I feel! - so ban me as well. It won't make any difference as I pretty much switched off from here compared to in the past.

Ike


----------



## spadge (28 Sep 2007)

We are all adults and there is nothing wrong with a bit of debate and if someone is strong, forthright (and even totally inflexible) in their view what's wrong with that?
As a user of the Visordown motrocycle site I am amazed at the degree of moderation on this site (would a thread called "My most memorable fart" be allowed on here?) 
Not suggesting we have a free for all but if the moderators don't lighten up more and more contributors will drift away.


----------



## houtslager (28 Sep 2007)

I was one of the first in the old forum , all those years ago, and then we had a decent Sunday evening chat and decent mods.

Lately, I have been to busy too post, but I did keep my eye on the ball quite often. Yet, the old spirit of the first forum seems to me to be some what deminished {sp} I am sad to say it, but I will continue this action as I am totally non PC, and say it as I see it which often gets me into hot water in the real world. 

So, please will the moderators get together and talk it out - the actions of banning - * and make the rules CLEAR to ALL here * , otherwise I see the demise of this forum which after 5 years and all the effort of Charley in maintaining it would be a great shame.


----------



## Keith Smith (28 Sep 2007)

Just to add my support for everyones views. 

Things are getting ridiculous on the moderation front, and it is ruining the forum


----------



## Anonymous (28 Sep 2007)

As a moderator, I would like to make a single statement on this topic

It is interesting to see so many members requesting that they be banned, and so many openly critising me before they actually are aware of the facts of Mr_Grimsdale's ban.

I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be banned from the forum for comments made in this thread, although you may personally regret them once the facts of the matter are revealed. 


I am sure Charley will post here soon and explain why *he* banned Jacob.


----------



## lurker (28 Sep 2007)

Thanks for that Tony.

At least we now have a slight inking of the other side to the story. It needs to be something pretty bad to lose such a important member as Jacob.

I think that without the input of the likes of Jacob, Scrit JCF Keith Smith etc who are really doing this woodwork thing to survive, unlike those of us who are just playing and buying shiney toys, then the forum is just going to become a waste of time.

Whilst many people here have turned out work I can only dream of it must be remembered that they are only playing and could never break even let alone make a living. The views of folks who have to earn a living from woodwork have a noticably different outlook and for that to be lost will ruin the forum.


----------



## Woody Alan (28 Sep 2007)

houtslager wrote


> I was one of the first in the old forum , all those years ago, and then we had a decent Sunday evening chat and decent mods.
> 
> Lately, I have been to busy too post, but I did keep my eye on the ball quite often. Yet, the old spirit of the first forum seems to me to be some what deminished {sp} I am sad to say it, but I will continue this action as I am totally non PC, and say it as I see it which often gets me into hot water in the real world.


Whilst I am sure you are correct, there is a danger of living in the past with rose tinted glasses, things change and go up and down. I haven't been here that long but I have seen many new members who have become part of the community and forming new friendships all the time. As you say you haven't involved yourself too much lately, so interact more and you may find you can restore what you find missing  I trust this will be taken in good spirit etc. 
I feel unable to comment on the specifics of the thread because I can add no value but I am sorry that Jacob has been banned again, hopefully these things can be resolved by negotiation.
Alan


----------



## Gill (28 Sep 2007)

Although my mod duties are confined to the peace and tranquility of the Scrolling Board, I do have an insight into the thoughts of the rest of the mod team and what they are doing behind the scenes. In many ways, this gives me a wonderful opportunity to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.

As far as I know, Mr Grimsdale was not banned because of anything he posted in the open forum which led to an argument with another moderator. Indeed, I cannot recall a moderator ever abusing his privileged position against a member by taking reprisals for a disagreement over woodworking techniques. Whenever such a dispute has arisen, it has usually involved breaches of forum rules too. In such cases, it has usually been another moderator who has dealt with the dispute and disciplinary action has usually only been taken after private correspondence has been exchanged. Hmmm... there's a lot of 'usually's in that paragraph  . Nevertheless, although circumstances have sometimes dictated a divergence from that procedure, it has been the normal way business has been conducted.

Lately, the mod team team has recognised its unpopularity and has been deliberately applying a lighter touch. Threads such as this one would have been unthinkable a couple of months ago. If members feel this forum no longer meets their needs or that its management is making them uncomfortable, it's their prerogative to look for other forums. Heck, I'd be looking at other forums too if I felt that way  ! However, I hope the wiser members will reflect on how disputatious threads are increasingly being allowed to run their course. The mod team recognises that most members of this forum are mature adults who can conduct their own affairs and resent being told otherwise by some official. Where there has been the potential for members to regulate their own heated debates, the mods have lately been doing their best not to intervene. Personally, I think the forum's a better place for it.

Although this thread seems to have developed into an attack on the mod team, it also demonstrates that members care enough about the forum to ask uncomfortable questions. I'm sure many of those questions will be answered in due course; although many members will either be satisfied with the answers that are given or at least accept that an unpleasant decision had to be taken, some won't . Frankly, there's an aspect of this affair which leaves a nasty taste in my mouth but I've known Charley and the other mods for a long time and at times like this it's easy to overlook the sterling work they do on behalf of this forum. Often, the general membership isn't even aware of the hard work that's going on behind the scenes.

It would help enormously if everyone would try to be a little less judgmental until Charley explains the situation insofar as he is able to do so without compromising aspects of private correspondence. In the meantime, I hope I've been able to explain that the mod team recognises a lighter touch on this forum is needed... and is learning how to apply one :lol: ! As with all learning processes, there's going to be mistakes but they are trying to cater for the needs of the members that have been expressed here and in similar threads, moving away from regulation towards facilitation. Until lately, the mod team seems to have felt the membership was incapable of regulating itself decorously and that regulation had to be imposed. However, forums change and techniques which might have been appropriate in the past may become obsolete. The mod team seems to feel it would be in the best interests of the forum to move towards greater self-regulation. However, that will only work if the members demonstrate their willingness to co-operate.

Gill (Now, where's my tin helmet... haven't used it for ages...)


----------



## ByronBlack (28 Sep 2007)

Just a few thoughts on the subject - the pro's aren't the only ones who provide input and answers to us more inexperienced members, their input is valuable yes, but it's not the be all and end all of this forum. For example, Bugbear, Alf, MarcW Woodbloke and mayn others are all excellent providers of solutions and conversation.

Also, it's the hobbyists and amateurs that fill the general discussions with like minded input and usually it's the amateurs that fill the projects forum which stimulates a lot of idea's and discussion. This forum's success is not solely down to the input of one specific demographic of members but a combination of both.

It's all a mix, and despite issues lately, this still remains the best forum of it's type for this country. I even prefer it to the other national forums such as sawmill creek, woodnet etc..

Lets get a little perspective. We are all in this forum together and have equal importance, I would not put Jacob up on a pedastal no matter how useful some of his points sometimes are nor would I any single member of this forum, it's the mix of people that make it great, hence the many mini-bashes that went on this year.

I've frequented many forums over the years and moderated and owned a few myself, and I can say without a doubt this is one of the best run.


----------



## lurker (28 Sep 2007)

ByronBlack":2tyf27vz said:


> This forum's success is not solely down to the input of one specific demographic of members but a combination of both.



Byron, you put that much better than me =D> =D> but thats what I was trying to say.

I love the "look at this hidiously expensive plane I bought" threads, but I also like the "if you have the skill you can do just as well with a Anant (spp?)" angle too.


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2007)

Gill":1ttb8fjq said:


> (Now, where's my tin helmet... haven't used it for ages...)



Leave it off! , Gill, you haven't got time to start going back in the bunker :lol: 

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Slim (28 Sep 2007)

Here here Byron.

It sounds like the reason for Jacob being banned was PM based. So to pre-judge the Mods before the facts are known is quite unfair. I would suspect that only Charley has the power to ban members as it is usually an administrator's job.

I think the members who posted personal attacks on the mods particularly on Tony should apologise. It must have been very difficult and hurtful for Tony to switch on his computer this morning and find his name dragged through the dirt. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he left. (Please don't Tony)

Please remember that moderation is a difficult job. Anyone in a position of power and responsibility will have to make unpopular decisions, whether it be deleting posts or giving warnings. I hope that the membership would realise this and give the mods a break.

As Byron says, to put Jacob on a pedestal above other members is just plain ridiculous. We are all equal here and as such should all be treated with the same respect. From what I read of Jacob's posts, this was something he was incapable of doing.

My 2p's worth.


----------



## NickWelford (28 Sep 2007)

Gill, thankyou for your post, which was very well thought out. I hate to see anyone banned but recognise that it may be necessary on occasion. To comment without knowing all the facts is not appropriate.


----------



## Adam (28 Sep 2007)

Slimjim81":1u04o901 said:


> I would suspect that only Charley has the power to ban members as it is usually an administrator's job.



You are correct. It was not a moderator that banned him nor as far as I know instigated by a moderator either.

But feel free to continue your attacks and singling out of individuals without the full facts - what do I care, I've just sent my resignation in as moderator, which although it was for completely different reasons was definately spurred on after reading this thread.

Whilst you continue your sabre rattling and personal attacks, just stop, and remember, why theprevious forum that many frequented died? Anyone remember? Well I do. Once the moderators reduced in numbers, the majority of threads turned into personal spats, arguments of irrelevant minute of detail, spam, commercial advertising, off topic threads, people who weren't prepared to accept other methods and techniques we equally valid etc etc. 

No doubt many of you will have had a PM from me, tidying up your posts (particularly URLs), deleting repeats etc, but more likely, discussing why its important to concentrate on the topic, help new members, think about their question from their point of view (often answering out-of-context to the question such as use a shaper as an answer for a noobie), leaving threads which you are not actually contributing too simply becuase you think its a waste of time etc etc. So actually sometime moderating is a case of helping individuals to see where they sit in the forum, and how their answers can go a long way to helping (or throwing a topic), depending on the original poster of the question. 

Adam


----------



## Anonymous (28 Sep 2007)

Hi Adam



Adam":3d7heefm said:


> I've just sent my resignation in as moderator, which although it was for completely different reasons was definately spurred on after reading this thread.



Thank you for all of the work that you have put in to help make this forum successful. I'm sorry to see you resign, but wish you and your family all the very best for the future.

Neil


----------



## Slim (28 Sep 2007)

I'm sorry to hear that Adam, but to be honest, I don't blame you. The mods can't seem to do right for doing wrong!


----------



## Alf (28 Sep 2007)

Instead of everyone deciding which side to take before the facts, perhaps in the interests of the forum it might be a good idea to temporarily lock this thread until we have the Official Position? _Then_ we can take sides...

And yes, I remember exactly what happened to the other forum; I consider what you list were just the symptoms. The cause was sufficiently similar to what we seem to have now to make me extremely unhappy and concerned. (I'll wish you the best and thanks after I see if you get your resignation to stick with Charley... :wink: )

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Slim (28 Sep 2007)

Alf":3pl0sl39 said:


> perhaps in the interests of the forum it might be a good idea to temporarily lock this thread until we have the Official Position?



Alf, sensible suggestion, but it would probably just be construed as 'nanny state moderating' as someone put it. :roll:


----------



## Charley (28 Sep 2007)

First I would like to publicly apologise to the moderators and the members for not replying to this thread sooner, it seems to have kicked off without anyone knowing the facts. It was *my* decision to ban Jacob and I'll explain why in a second. As the moderators are more active on the forums then me they seem to get all the stick when all they are trying to do is keep everyone happy so I'd appreciate if you can show them some respect. 

For those of you who aren't aware, Jacob was recently reinstated on the forms after a months ban due to another issue. It came to my attention yesterday that Jacob sent out spam PM's which I find is unacceptable and is why I banned him. 

If you're not happy with him being banned then please don't take it out on the moderators, it was my decision - so moan at me  

Our moderating methods have been criticised recently. Some of you don't realise that the forums have been running for years now and our moderation policy has worked fine. However I do agree we need to change it and improve in some areas. In the past couple of weeks I've been preparing for some changes which will allow the moderators to take a step back. Theses changes should be active early next week...

I'm busy today so won't be able to check in on the forum much so if you have any questions please email me...


----------



## ike (28 Sep 2007)

Simon wrote:



> I think the members who posted personal attacks on the mods particularly on Tony should apologise.



Assuming you include me, then no, I mean't what I said.

Ike


----------



## Sawdust (28 Sep 2007)

Charley":1hjy95b4 said:


> For those of you who aren't aware, Jacob was recently reinstated on the forms after a months ban due to another issue. It came to my attention yesterday that Jacob sent out spam PM's which I find is unacceptable and is why I banned him.



I believe I was one of the recipients of the 'alleged' spam PM. The one I'm thinking of refers to another group. If is is this one, then how would you feel about me publishing it on the open forum, with Jacob's permsision of course. 

That way people can asses for themselves whether they think Jacob's ban is reasonable?

If the one I have is not the one in question then I won't comment further on this.

Regards
Mike


----------



## Alf (28 Sep 2007)

Can someone point out to me which rule Jacob broke, please? I can't find it. The nearest I can find is in the generic pphBB FAQ but that would firstly require the PMs to be _emails_, then to be considered either as abusive or spam, and subsequently reported as such by a _recipient_ to the administrator. 

I recieved Jacob's PM and from it gather that he only sent it because he'd been threatened with being banned for some other infringement. Could we know what that other infringement was supposed to be, please? And the moderator involved?

Alf


----------



## Sawdust (28 Sep 2007)

Alf":1qmq5qph said:


> Can someone point out to me which rule Jacob broke, please? I can't find it. The nearest I can find is in the generic pphBB FAQ but that would firstly require the PMs to be _emails_, then to be considered either as abusive or spam, and subsequently reported as such by a _recipient_ to the administrator.
> 
> I recieved Jacob's PM and from it gather that he only sent it because he'd been threatened with being banned for some other infringement. Could we know what that other infringement was supposed to be, please? And the moderator involved?
> 
> Alf



Alf,

It seems that the PM you got is the same one as I got and that it has been classed as spam. It would also appear that it is being used as the reason for Jacob's ban.

There may of course be another message that I don't know about and it might be truly serious, but if the message that you and I received was the one that got him banned then someone has really lost the plot!

Mike


----------



## Jake (28 Sep 2007)

Charley":3d8y151k said:


> Our moderating methods have been criticised recently. Some of you don't realise that the forums have been running for years now and our moderation policy has worked fine.



The style changed over those years and has become much more dictatorial recently, with some moderators (in my view) not being dispassionate about their moderating role. As a consequence, my perception is there has not been a clear separation between (at least certain) moderator's personal likes and dislikes of the views and personalities of certain members, and their actions as both moderators and posters.


----------



## ByronBlack (28 Sep 2007)

Jacobs PM never mentioned anything about being threatened of being banned. I also think it's a bit of a cheek with him setting up a group using exactly the same name as this forum, if he or anyone is unhappy on the forum - why not speak to the people directly instead of turning it into public slagging match (without knowing all the facts) and setting up rival groups etc.. I just don't see the logic.

If people want to run off because they feel the forum is going down the pan, well that'll just speed things up, and then what happens to the next forum when the same thing happens? - that'll go belly up as well and so on and so on. 

I'm sure despite anyones grievences with individual members, we have all to a member benefited greatly from this forum, and I feel a little loyalty isn't too much to ask.

But then i'll probably just be labelled as 'one of them' and shot down in flames. So be it.


----------



## wizer (28 Sep 2007)

I do agree Byron. Ultimately I am so grateful to the members of this forum who's help, information and patience over the years has encouraged me to do many WW related things. I still find this an inspirational place and spend far too much time here (even atm when i'm supposed to be painting   ). 

However, even after Charley's explanation, I still find Jacob's ban harsh. I'm not putting Jacob on any pedestal, I just think it could have been dealt with in a much more grown up way.

Did Jacob set up that Yahoo group? If he did i'm sure he isn't planning some sort of WW forum domination. Looks like he's just using it as a place to chat to his sympathisers.


----------



## ByronBlack (28 Sep 2007)

WiZeR":2z7dwbtr said:


> I do agree Byron. Ultimately I am so grateful to the members of this forum who's help, information and patience over the years has encouraged me to do many WW related things. I still find this an inspirational place and spend far too much time here (even atm when i'm supposed to be painting   ).
> 
> However, even after Charley's explanation, I still find Jacob's ban harsh. I'm not putting Jacob on any pedestal, I just think it could have been dealt with in a much more grown up way.
> 
> Did Jacob set up that Yahoo group? If he did i'm sure he isn't planning some sort of WW forum domination. Looks like he's just using it as a place to chat to his sympathisers.



Tom - I'm not saying his trying to takeover UKW - that simply won't happen, but i'm sure charley and the mods thought about their decision before making it, I see no problem with him using it as a way to chat with his sympathisers, but for some members to start abusing certain mods in this way is out of order in my opinion. End of the day this is Charley's site, and I respect whatever way he wants to run it, no one said this was a democracy.


----------



## Sawdust (28 Sep 2007)

ByronBlack":1j860yrk said:


> WiZeR":1j860yrk said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree Byron. Ultimately I am so grateful to the members of this forum who's help, information and patience over the years has encouraged me to do many WW related things. I still find this an inspirational place and spend far too much time here (even atm when i'm supposed to be painting   ).
> ...



Byron, did you used to take apples for your teachers :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (28 Sep 2007)

Sawdust":fjpgtvm9 said:


> ByronBlack":fjpgtvm9 said:
> 
> 
> > WiZeR":fjpgtvm9 said:
> ...



:sign3:


----------



## llangatwgnedd (28 Sep 2007)

Hope the manacles are taken off the Grim.

I do enjoy his knowledgeable postings.

But history tells me and a few others on here, that forming a splinter forum does not work.


----------



## Jake (29 Sep 2007)

Alf":2nbqgnqp said:


> I recieved Jacob's PM and from it gather that he only sent it because he'd been threatened with being banned for some other infringement. Could we know what that other infringement was supposed to be, please? And the moderator involved?
> 
> Alf



Tony and Jacob got into a spat, views will no doubt vary, but you can see most of it in the thread - apart from Tony's last post in the exchange which was unnecessarily aggressive and personal (in my view). I then posted saying that Tony should just accept that he had one view, and Grim had another, and asking for another moderator to step in. Shortly after, Tony deleted his post and mine, saying via PM that he had "reacted" to "provocation" but accepting (I think) that his response had been inappropriate.

I don't know what was happening at the same time between Grim and Tony via PMs, if anything was. What would have been clear to Jacob, just from the thread, was that Tony was getting pretty heated and personal. And I suspect they have history, not just as poster to poster, but as poster to mod. I am really not surprised at all that Grim reached the conclusion that he would shortly be banned again for no reason, and that's just from the way Tony was acting in that thread - it is a shame that Grim then gave someone a justification to do that by acting on that expectation the way he did.

It isn't the first time I've seen that same or similar dynamics in action, ending up with Grim on a ban, and the real antagonists congratulating themselves on expelling what they see as the thorn in their side.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Sep 2007)

Rhubarb, Rhubarb, Rhubarb, give it a rest, who gives a horses hoof.


----------



## Jake (29 Sep 2007)

Yeah, I'm alright Jack too.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Sep 2007)

Jake":28606nrp said:


> Yeah, I'm alright Jack too.



I see that you don't give a fig about Tony, just an observation, I just can't see why people get so upset, after all it's not the end of Mr Grimsdale.


----------



## RogerS (29 Sep 2007)

motownmartin":2xuydoqe said:


> Rhubarb, Rhubarb, Rhubarb, give it a rest, who gives a horses hoof.



Even if you don't 'give a horses hoof', then why read the thread and why respond to Jake's well-reasoned post in such an emotive way? I don't see that it adds any value to the thread. 

I agree with much of what Jake has said but then


Jake":2xuydoqe said:


> ......, and the real antagonists congratulating themselves on expelling what they see as the thorn in their side.


 which kind of brings us all back to emotion again.

Trying to keep my emotions firmly bottled, re-reading the thread I see three separate issues.

1) The question of 'overdoing' the moderation of the forum. Charlie's explained that the mods have recognised this and are taking steps to remedy the situation. It's up to us...the rest of the forum..to show that this lighter hand will work.

2) Personal antagonism between two members spilling over (possibly from PMs but who can say and it is pointless speculating) into the more open forum arena. The perception among some forum members is that this became clouded by (1) above. Jake has put forward one explanation. In hindsight I can see that this explanation makes sense. 

The downside is that a lot of teddies seem to have been thrown out of the pram with at least one other splinter group being started. I can understand the emotions. I have been guilty of similar emotional responses in the past. 

3) Lastly Mr G's ban. Ultimately, it's Charlies' ultimate decision as it's his forum. Or is it? I would argue that the success or otherwise of a forum is the sum of its constituent parts. That includes the mods, all of us and Charlie. Re-reading the threads there are many members (and I put myself in that category) who value the input of the likes of Mr G, Senior, Scrit, JFC and many others (some of whom have not posted in a long time because of (1) above).

In an ideal world Mr G and Senior and others would return.

But in the meantime, hasn't everything been said? In spades? Maybe we should lock the thread now and move on?


----------



## motownmartin (29 Sep 2007)

Roger Sinden":17l78c1m said:


> motownmartin":17l78c1m said:
> 
> 
> > Rhubarb, Rhubarb, Rhubarb, give it a rest, who gives a horses hoof.
> ...


I read most threads and I am entitled to an opinion.

My first message was not a response to Jakes post, I did not quote anybody, my second message was a response to Jakes sarcastic reply suggesting that I am selfish, I am far from selfish and would help anybody that wants my help.

The trouble with threads like these is that not many of the people that comment have never met the people they comment about, they are just remarking on something without the full facts.

Lets talk about woodwork or in this section other topics, lets not talk about other people, it's not nice, if I have a problem with someone I would prefer to sort it one to one.

If anyone does have a problem with what I said feel free to PM me.


----------



## RogerS (29 Sep 2007)

Fair point, Martin..it just goes to show how posts can get misconstrued and I'm guilty as charged  Sorry.

Totally agree with you.. let's talk woodwork.


----------



## motownmartin (29 Sep 2007)

Roger, you didn't have to apollogise but thanks for doing so


----------



## Alf (29 Sep 2007)

I apologise for prolonging this - I was waiting to give a full 24hrs in which to receive some kind of reply to my questions - I don't intend to go any further with the matter after this. Feel free to go elsewhere and ignore it.

Personally I give a "horse's hoof" (is this a euphemism for something else? New to me) as I have quite a lot invested in this forum and don't much want to see what I'm seeing. It would have been polite to have a response from at least one moderator to my queries, even if it was only to say "we're not talking about it". Unfortunately I _am_ going to talk about it.

Jake, your summing up is what I understood to be the case as well. It's quite likely Jacob would have got himself banned for something at some stage anyway, and the current actions on breakaway groups has pretty much killed any chance of a reconciliation and fresh slate that I'd hoped to encourage, but if we're going to play by the rules then the moderators should do so to. It's only fair. As early as Tuesday I had an unsolicited PM from Tony that strongly suggested to me he was predisposed to find fault with Jacob. Personality clashes are a fact of life; steppng well away from that clash and letting another mod act if necessary _should_ be a fact of moderating. I'm not convinced Tony is entirely to blame for the fact that he didn't step away. However, I believe at the very least Tony should apologise for an error in judgement.

What worries me most is the Amazing Invisible Moderators. Yes, guys, you may well be talking it through and this and that on your private board but really you need to be seen to be backing up your moderating fellow _in public_. All we've heard from is Gill, who herself says she's not really the fully-fledged thing, and Adam who says he's resigning. Frankly, at the moment it looks like you're hanging Tony out to dry as much as anyone, just as happened to Neil six weeks ago. There simply should not be, or _appear to be_, one, single, solitary active moderator feeling that they're having to step in all the time and left hanging out to be the target - most of you will remember how I know that.

Do I enjoy spouting all this off in public? No. But you can only repeat yourself so many times in private. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Sep 2007)

Well said, Alf.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul (another one who gives a "horse's hoof" and is feeling very unhappy about all this stuff)


----------



## Jake (29 Sep 2007)

motownmartin":1agy2pp9 said:


> Jake":1agy2pp9 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I'm alright Jack too.
> ...



I have nothing against Tony, just that I didn't think that thread was his finest moment. He's an adult, and I'm sure he knows that himself. Otherwise, well, he's still here, still moderating, etc, so I don't see the need to stand up for him - what's he lost out of this apart from a bit of debate about the rights and wrongs, which is hardly going to hurt him?



> I just can't see why people get so upset, after all it's not the end of Mr Grimsdale.



Yes it is fortunate that mod/admin powers stop short of capital punishment.


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Sep 2007)

Just a small point which I think is in danger of being missed; Tony did not ban Jacob, depsite their spat, that was not the result of the ban as far as I can tell from Charley's response, so I think it's a little unfair for the direction of the thread to head that way.

I'm sure it's not too late for all parties to work it out, they just need to work out their differences or come to an understanding.


----------



## Philly (29 Sep 2007)

Al
Difficult to give simple black and white answers here. A lot of folks seem to have their own reasons for acting the way they do - not all of it obvious to the fair reader.
I have invested far too many hours in this forum and made far too many friends here to just walk away. We have an anti-social element who have infiltrated the forum and use every opportunity to raise bad feeling.
I, for one, cannot understand why you would spend a fair amount of your time purposely winding people up here. Seriously, how sad have you got to be? We have had members with multiple accounts, posting replies to their own threads under different names to purposely "get things going". WHY??
The whole spirit of UK Workshop is of sharing - openly, honestly and with no "keeping tabs". I know that a large amount of members have received and given advice, materials, tools and more freely to other members with no need for recompense. The spirit of generosity. And the forum is also open to all types of people - "professionals, hobbiests, DIY'ers, beginners, experts and industry icons" There is no "my opinion is more valid because I am a (enter label here)", it is a free and open exchange of info and experiences. 
All this you know - you are a valued and loved member of this community. And I know you are (and have in the past) been frustrated by the way aspects of the forum are managed. This you need to discuss with the owner, Charley. I won't comment on the situation with Jacob here, but would add that the Mods who freely give their time to make this forum a positive place to be have no hidden agenda - only a passion to maintain the healthy atmosphere we have enjoyed over the years.

As an aside, if there are members who would be interested in giving of their spare time to moderate this forum please PM me or Charley to discuss this.

Phil


----------



## Adam (29 Sep 2007)

ByronBlack":3r6zrrp6 said:


> Just a small point which I think is in danger of being missed; Tony did not ban Jacob, depsite their spat, that was not the result of the ban as far as I can tell from Charley's response,



Correct.



> I, for one, cannot understand why you would spend a fair amount of your time purposely winding people up here. Seriously, how sad have you got to be? We have had members with multiple accounts, posting replies to their own threads under different names to purposely "get things going". WHY??



Perhaps this gives people a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Its been troll city in here with people using multiple accounts to create havoc in threads. 

Adam


----------



## Scrit (29 Sep 2007)

I started this thread because I was concerned about losing one of our more colourful, and despite snide comments by some, one of our more experienced and knowledgeable members. I think I can safely say that I and a number of other professional woodworkers on UKWS have become somewhat disenchanted by some of the happenings over recent months. Comments by some individuals seem to exhibit an attitude that it is OK to have us pros to answer questions but that otherwise we should keep our opinions to ourselves - especially if we dare to contradict what is being put out by those seeking to use the forum to further their sales pitch or where someone is obviously (at least to me) peddling methods of work which are downright dangerous and irresponsible (hence my Grade A silly person comments from time to time). To my mind there has been rather a lot of this of late.

The big problem with the Internet is that "all comments are of similar worth", allegedly, and it can be extremely frustrating to give advice based on sound theory and practical experience only to see someone else steam in full of hot air and fury to denigrate one's expertise - the same expertise, very often, which one calls on to earn a living. In fact at times some of the comments directed at me and my fellow tradesmen are downright insulting (if only of my trade rather than of me personally) and not something that people in the so-called professionals would tolerate. This doesn't mean that the tradesmen amongst us won't stop posting, but at times it does cause me at least to be less than keen to participate.

Just like Jacob, I too can be a garrilous individual. This come in part from being in the trades where a much more robust sense of humour is required; work on a building site or a shop fit for a week or two and you'll soon get the drift. This sometimes translates into my scribblings and can make my approach to others seem a bit brusque. I don't feel that Jacob is any different and whilst I may not have agreed with him at times, I nonetheless respected his opinions and found his points of view entertaining, informative and often educational - surely part of the _raison d'etre_ of this forum. I will for one miss his valuable input here.

I understand that the Mods sometimes walk a very difficult path and that it can be difficult to do the 'job' in a way which seems even handed. Let's also not forget that the Mods are giving their time and efforts _gratis_, which I have no doubt can make theirs seem a thankless task at times. I do, though, feel that some of the moderation has been a bit heavy handed at times and I look forward to seeing what Charley has in store for us.

A forum is the sum of _all_ its' members (and moderators) input and I feel that UKWS is indisputably one of the best woodworking forums anywhere. Like Alf, I think I can fairly say that I also have a fair bit invested in this forum and I look forward to it's continuation long into the future. I just hope that the disputes we have seen in recent times abate.

Scrit


----------



## Mike.C (29 Sep 2007)

Well said Philly.

I agree with Philly, and I have said it time and time again that the generosity of members on this forum is unbelievable, and I hope he does not mind me saying it but Philly is one of these members. He like many others give their time freely to help both on and off the forum

Do not let the trouble makers spoil this great forum.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## motownmartin (29 Sep 2007)

Alf":ukpsaus3 said:


> Personally I give a "horse's hoof" (is this a euphemism for something else? New to me)
> 
> 
> Cheers, Alf



I think it's just one of my own euphemisms, it doesn't make sense but then none of my euphemisms do, there all gobbledegook (no I don't read Harry Potter)


----------



## woodbloke (29 Sep 2007)

Philly wrote -


> We have an anti-social element who have infiltrated the forum and use every opportunity to raise bad feeling.



Adam wrote -


> Perhaps this gives people a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Its been troll city in here with people using multiple accounts to create havoc in threads



I think in common with many forum members I've been following this thread with some concern and would add a brief comment on the quotes above. I tend to agree with Philly that there appears to an disagreeable element on the forum which may or may not be linked to Adam's quote. If so, how are these multiple accounts created and secondly, ought there to be a forum rule that prevents this from happening?
I would also agree with Byron's comments insofar that the ownership of the site is down ultimately to Charley and it's up to him to have the final say as to who stays or goes.
I've crossed blades with Mr Grim on a number of occasions and whist he undoubtedly 'fired from the hip' more than once, his input was valid and worthwhile, if not sometimes a little skewed, but I do respect Charley's decision.
There are a lot of complex issues under discussion here (both in the open forum and behind the scenes I suspect) and I for one *sincerely* hope that they can be quickly and amicably resolved and we can all get back to the business of woodwork, at whatever level (professional or amateur) at which we participate - Rob


----------



## RobertMP (29 Sep 2007)

I would suggest letting this thread run and possibly having other threads gathering members opinions on specific points of how the forums are run.

We did this recently on a photography forum that I moderate on and it provided a lot of useful feedback. Pull the threads once they have served their purpose as continuous self analysis is not a good thing.

I don't like seeing individual moderators named and questioned but talking about the moderation in general can only help steer in the right direction.

When I joined last year I actually spent more time reading (researching purchases and learning) than I do now. Some of the moderating I saw then was astonishing with bans and warnings a regular occurrence over really petty matters. Things have improved since then but from what I've read lately there is a way to go. 

I have to say the forum software here does not help matters. The glaring omission is a 'report this message' button next to every post. That would provide members of all levels an easy way to alert a moderator early on if a thread was heading off track or needed watching - thereby enabling a gentler hand on the tiller.

I'd echo that a forum depends on its members and there are a lot of very helpful and knowledgeable people here that are a great asset. I don't see the current situation need threaten the forums future - more an opportunity to get things back on course.


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Sep 2007)

Another small addition to the site that I think would help in reducing the number of spats and quibbles would be an 'ignore' function that some forums have. This would make it easier for those who have a personal problem with a member to avoid getting riled or targeted.


----------



## MrJay (29 Sep 2007)

Oh no! They banned Jacob.

(ps. please stop banning Jacob, it's not funny anymore)


----------



## Jake (29 Sep 2007)

ByronBlack":1pzklwp1 said:


> Just a small point which I think is in danger of being missed; Tony did not ban Jacob, depsite their spat, that was not the result of the ban as far as I can tell from Charley's response, so I think it's a little unfair for the direction of the thread to head that way.



He didn't ban him, but his actions in that thread (as a poster, and then using his moderator's powers) clearly (in my view) lead to the 'offence' that resulted in the ban.


----------



## Jake (29 Sep 2007)

Adam":1mqys8pi said:


> Perhaps this gives people a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Its been troll city in here with people using multiple accounts to create havoc in threads.



I don't condone that at all. This thread is about Grim, though - is he accused of (a) trolling or (b) having multiple identities? 

Neither of those are the reason which has been given for the ban.


----------



## JFC (29 Sep 2007)

I quite agree Jake , Tony had a moment of madness and as far as i saw laid into Jacob , i actually called jacob on the phone to confirm i had seen what Tony had said as he removed the post when i went back to look . I got a warning and told to read the rules or i will be banned . When i asked Tony if he had a warning for the attack on Jacob he said it didnt happen and i've had pms from him saying he can remove posts if he likes as he is a poster aswell . Fair point there Tony but dont warn me over mentioning moderator actions if your posting as a forum member and not a moderator .
Anyway this is all getting a bit to like a class room for me and i aint into that !
Nothing against Tony BTW I just think he went over the top and added fuel to a good forum member getting banned . Pm sent Tony .


----------



## Anonymous (29 Sep 2007)

Hi Scrit



Scrit":7dt7vz7b said:


> The big problem with the Internet is that "all comments are of similar worth", allegedly, and it can be extremely frustrating to give advice based on sound theory and practical experience only to see someone else steam in full of hot air and fury to denigrate one's expertise - the same expertise, very often, which one calls on to earn a living.



I agree with you wholeheartedly. Do you think it would add gravitas to your postings if you, and your fellow professionals, were given the title of _*Professional Woodworker*_?

Cheers,
Neil


----------



## MIGNAL (29 Sep 2007)

The obvious problem with that is how do you confirm that someone is professional? I'm professional 50% (roughly) of the time. It would probably create more problems than it would solve.


----------



## ByronBlack (29 Sep 2007)

Also, who's to say the professional are more able or more knowledgable than an amateur in a particular field? I don't think we should go down the route of seperating those who do it for a job and those who don't. I don't think it matters what ones does for their job, it's their knowledge, skill and craftmaship that matters.


----------



## JFC (29 Sep 2007)

I don't think that will help as no one knows it all do they . I've learnt loads from this forum and try to give it back . Some of the guys on here have a better workshop than me and i make a living from it . I've also learnt alot from them . Just because you earn a living from it doesnt make you a know it all .


----------



## Paul Chapman (29 Sep 2007)

Carter":1cw86t3l said:


> Do you think it would add gravitas to your postings if you, and your fellow professionals, were given the title of _*Professional Woodworker*_?



If anyone wants it to be known that they are a professional woodworker (full-time, part-time, once-upon-a-time, or retired) they only have to add it to their profile  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## spadge (29 Sep 2007)

Scrit":2rbgdbck said:


> The big problem with the Internet is that "all comments are of similar worth", allegedly, and it can be extremely frustrating to give advice based on sound theory and practical experience only to see someone else steam in full of hot air and fury to denigrate one's expertise - the same expertise, very often, which one calls on to earn a living. In fact at times some of the comments directed at me and my fellow tradesmen are downright insulting (if only of my trade rather than of me personally) and not something that people in the so-called professionals would tolerate.
> 
> Scrit



Bit off topic but if you are refering to my saying your comments on the bandsaw thread were "unkind and unfair" then I apologise if I caused you any offence.
I certainly was not "steaming in" (nor was I furious!) it was a considered response based on my belief that the "lowest common denominator" attitude to safety (and most things really) is unhealthy. Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I could but I was questioning why that cut was unsafe for that individual with that bandsaw. 
The view that because a technique that would be clearly unsafe for an untrained novice is by definition therefore unsafe for someone with skill and experience is clearly absurd.
Neither do I buy into the notion that because the internet is all pervasive we need to somehow sensure what we put on there because someone without the necessary skill and experience may try to emulate it. To do so credits the vast majority of people with a lot less sense than they have. And for the few that have no sense well they have a better than even chance of injuring themselves no matter what is on the internet.

Cheers

Grahame


----------



## DomValente (29 Sep 2007)

Well I've just worked a straight 24 hours in an attempt to get a restaurant opened to deadline and really feel like "shooting from the hip"
As Scrit said professionals tend to be a little more abrasive and we probably have more experience.
But when *I *read this forum *I* consider everyone an equal until* I *decide that particular members are either stirrers or have no idea.
It's simple, as in life there are people you don't like even though you see them every day, just ignore them, don't read their replies and you won't be antagonised.
There are members who don't like me or my humour( I know they've told me so)
But I will not lower myself to petty attacks against them, it would be too easy.
Let's get back to an open, friendly forum and make it one that shouldn't need moderation.

Dom


----------



## Karl (29 Sep 2007)

Dom - I couldn't agree more.

To my mind, Mr G was so funny I used to read his posts just for a laugh. But if others don't appreciate his dry sense of humour then I can understand. 

My best friend is the most dry witted person I have ever met. But it has got him into so much trouble, even with complete strangers.

It is often said that e-mail (and, logically, forums of this nature) are very impersonal. The Emoticons may offer some sense of feeling, but it is incredibly easy for people to misconstrue postings.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Adam (29 Sep 2007)

Jake":1lkk7m4e said:


> Adam":1lkk7m4e said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this gives people a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Its been troll city in here with people using multiple accounts to create havoc in threads.
> ...



Sorry, you are correct, my comments were a general note, rather than identified at any specific member. I was merely noting something than most of you don't realise goes on behind the scenes.

Adam


----------



## Scrit (29 Sep 2007)

spadge":3s1hrcpp said:


> Bit off topic but if you are refering to my saying your comments on the bandsaw thread were "unkind and unfair" then I apologise if I caused you any offence.


Hopefully I and/or my skin are hopefully thicker than that, Grahame. It was not a specific comment, nor was it based solely on my own experience, as I'm sure some of the other trades contributors would agree. It was a general comment, so there was no need to apologise.

As a case in point the technique in question wasn't "_clearly unsafe for an untrained novice_", it was downright dangerous for _any_ bandsaw user using _any_ bandsaw as the hands were clearly placed an indeterminate but short distance from a blade. That isn't a nanny state approach, it's just plain common sense (if there is such a thing) or more likely experience and training, and I was, incidentally, not the only professional woodworker to make such a comment. Jacob did as well

Regards

Scrit


----------



## davy_owen_88 (29 Sep 2007)

One thing that does bother me, and sorry Charley for questioning your actions here, but I was under the impression that private messages were indeed private. I was also under the impression that Jacob only sent a small number of messages (6 I believe he said) to specific people - not really spamming is it? 

I think Jake has given a pretty good reason why Jacob would feel the need to start his own group after the attitude he was shown by Tony. Jacob wasn't/isn't trying to over-turn UKW. He just wanted a place to talk to woodworkers after being cast out of this one.


----------



## Adam (29 Sep 2007)

davy_owen_88":6y8wcth4 said:


> One thing that does bother me, and sorry Charley for questioning your actions here, but I was under the impression that private messages were indeed private.



Correct. Unless someone copies and pastes the message into a new PM. Moderators / Admin as far as I now have no access to PM's.

Adam


----------



## JFC (29 Sep 2007)

Jacob didnt start another group or forum he simply found another place and sent a link incase people wanted to chat with him again . I for one do want to talk to him again beacuse he has alot of interesting things to say about wood work and joinery . 
Myself i have started up another place where we can talk and have a laugh while Admin and the Mods sort it out .
Not a splinter group just a place for now .......


----------



## MIGNAL (29 Sep 2007)

Karley wrote:


> To my mind, Mr G was so funny I used to read his posts just for a laugh. But if others don't appreciate his dry sense of humour then I can understand.



I always found his posts highly entertaining. Not many of his type left unfortunately, we just get pleasant watered down blanks, like me :?


----------



## JFC (29 Sep 2007)

> We are not little kids and we can communicate amongst ourselves, you might be surprised to know.
> I think you should lay off. A quiet public apology would also be in order.
> This group was in existence a long time before Charley hosted it and could move on again if people wanted it to.
> Oddly enough it was a Yahoo group when I first joined. I argued against the various moves and left altogether when it went to MSN groups.



Quoted from someone i take advice from .


----------



## Philly (29 Sep 2007)

So how is the new forum, jason?
Philly


----------



## brianhabby (29 Sep 2007)

DomValente":3lee6wxj said:


> Well I've just worked a straight 24 hours in an attempt to get a restaurant opened to deadline and really feel like "shooting from the hip"
> As Scrit said professionals tend to be a little more abrasive and we probably have more experience.
> But when *I *read this forum *I* consider everyone an equal until* I *decide that particular members are either stirrers or have no idea.
> It's simple, as in life there are people you don't like even though you see them every day, just ignore them, don't read their replies and you won't be antagonised.
> ...



here here


----------



## JFC (29 Sep 2007)

Its actually a good laugh philly , A friend of mine is hosting it from his auction site . You of course are welcome to view it . Last time i looked they where talking about extreme carpentry in bra and panties :lol: It really kicked off when someone said 4 " heels not 6 " !


----------



## spadge (29 Sep 2007)

Scrit":39nomrcy said:


> That isn't a nanny state approach, it's just plain common sense (if there is such a thing) or more likely experience and training, and I was, incidentally, not the only professional woodworker to make such a comment. Jacob did as well
> 
> Regards
> 
> Scrit



What Jacob actually said was :-

"Well he knows what he's doing and has obviously done it before. 
But the biggest hazard with a band saw IMHO is with pieces which are not firmly seated on the table e.g. round logs - they can spin and jam, or you might forget that the blade is coming out under it and catch your fingers. 
Unstable pieces like this example can tilt and suddenly jam the blade which may break out from the workpiece, even though it looks safely contained within. 
No doubt Scrit will fill in the details! 
cheers 
Jacob"

Jacob acknowledged that this guy knew what he was doing and had done it before which was my point entirely.
Anyway we are not going to agree on this but what is disappointing and brings us back to topic is that Jacob cannot comment himself.

Whilst this is Charley's site it would not exist without it's members there are obviously a number who feel uncomfortable not only about the fact that Jacob has been banned but also about what many feel to be over vealous moderation. Whilst the later appears to have been addressed, and I am sure everyone is prepared to give things time to see whether that's the case but there has been no real explanation, despite requests, as to what rules Jacob broke and why he was banned.

Until such an explanation is given this issue will just trundle on.


----------



## DarrenW (30 Sep 2007)

With no Senior and Mr G whos going to stop the slope getting steeper!!

HELP! :shock: 

Darren


----------



## Vormulac (2 Oct 2007)

I thought we were talking about Mr_G - where has Senior gone? (I have read the thread, did I miss something?)


----------



## Sawdust (2 Oct 2007)

Vormulac":19d1hljq said:


> I thought we were talking about Mr_G - where has Senior gone? (I have read the thread, did I miss something?)



I believe Senior was banned a while ago.

Mike


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

As was his alter ego.


----------



## Vormulac (2 Oct 2007)

Which was...?


----------



## mr (2 Oct 2007)

Clue here 
https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18907&highlight=


----------



## wizer (2 Oct 2007)

Better Clue Here:

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... 717#206717


----------



## Vormulac (2 Oct 2007)

Ah - thanks very much chaps.


----------



## Jaco (2 Oct 2007)

Greetings! & Salutations!

Well, having not been here for some time (called work!!!! Yes, i am retired but do some contract work) I have now read through this lot and come to the conclusion that i would need to watch my P's & Q's, my diction, spelling, attitude and langauge and at the end of the day just put my head down and try to see whats going on in my workshop! I believe that the spiders are staging a take-over bid.

To put it very plain and simple, i am actually disgusted at what i have read.
We are here to do woodwork, promote woodwork, help each other, have lots of *fun *and then we end up writing a load of "kak" (means dung in english) Please note that the word missing should be s-h-i-t.

Come on guys & gals, lets move on. Life is just too short. I have just had another friend pass on at age 62!

Ok, now ban me for my attitude & language.
SWMBO would love me to be banned from the garage/workshop area.

Cheers
Phil 
(with a can of Windhoek Lager in the hand)
8)


----------



## spadge (2 Oct 2007)

Charley":2zi5tipf said:


> First I would like to publicly apologise to the moderators and the members for not replying to this thread sooner, it seems to have kicked off without anyone knowing the facts. It was *my* decision to ban Jacob and I'll explain why in a second. As the moderators are more active on the forums then me they seem to get all the stick when all they are trying to do is keep everyone happy so I'd appreciate if you can show them some respect.
> 
> For those of you who aren't aware, Jacob was recently reinstated on the forms after a months ban due to another issue. It came to my attention yesterday that Jacob sent out spam PM's which I find is unacceptable and is why I banned him.
> 
> If you're not happy with him being banned then please don't take it out on the moderators, it was my decision - so moan at me



Charley,

You say that if people are not happy with Jacobs ban they should moan at you. It's clear from this thread, other threads and the fact that some regular contibutors have set up their own forum that a a significant number of people are not happy with Jacob being banned. So a lot of people have moaned but you have not publicly responded to any of them.

What annoys me (and I presume others) is the percieved unfairness of Jacobs ban. There is nothing in the rules that prevents spam PM's but you say you find it unacceptable. So without you saying anything to the contrary it appears he was banned for rubbing you up the wrong way. Is that the case?

Grahame

Grahame


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 Oct 2007)

Interesting. I had no idea Jacob is no more so to speak, and somebody else banned too. I just answer the odd woodworking question every now and then, and all these disputes, soul-searching discussions, and bannings sort of drift under my radar. And I admit this is probably the first time I've dropped into the General Chat forum for weeks or even months, which no doubt contributes to keeping me in the dark.

Perhaps I could stay in more and unget (sic) a life, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Oct 2007)

Sgian Dubh":3oob3rd5 said:


> keeping me in the dark.



I sometimes think that's the best place to be........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Philly (2 Oct 2007)

Sgian Dubh":1zkfrcl8 said:


> Perhaps I could stay in more and unget (sic) a life, ha, ha. Slainte.



LOL :lol: 
Brilliant - thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Philly


----------



## Jake (3 Oct 2007)

Says someone with 5000 posts?


----------



## seaco (15 Oct 2007)

My own take on this is that people will make up there own minds regarding the Mods and Charley, I myself don't get to involved with the politics of it all I come here for the excellent advice, projects and what people are doing I look at this forum as an old friend!

I realise that the forum has to be policed and from what I've heard it has been handled rather heavy handed in some instances I feel a bit down that some really good posters have been lost which to me is a shame..

This is directed to CHARLEY if you don't want this forum to slowly die then somethings got to change, I know what your doing in your eyes is right (and you own the site so that's your purgative) but as you can see alot of forum members are disagreeing in the strongest manner possible!

Now can we please move on and start enjoying the forum again?... :wink:


----------



## matt (15 Oct 2007)

Charley, why not offer some of the more vocal amongst posters in this thread an opportunity to moderate? It would perhaps bring some much needed balance to the moderation.

The way I look at it... I don't have a "moderator" accompanying me about all day, protecting me from the words or actions of other people. To do so introduces poor relationship dynamics which never work between adults - even when the actions of the "adult (moderator)" is trying to protect. 

By contrast... Moderators should protect the forum NOT the members. This is the line that I feel gets crossed or confused. This protection can be validated by noting the need to protect the commercial viability (advertising) of the forum by encouraging members to settle personal disputes privately.

Read all the threads on this subject and the common message (when you read between the lines) is don't ban this person on my behalf...


----------



## Jaco (16 Oct 2007)

Just some 2 cents worth of thought ..............

Look at the SDA site and see what happens if you dont have Mods around doing some form of policing.


----------

