So whats happening then ?

[Good Surname or what ?]

A question that has, so far, been neatly side-stepped (unless I've missed something)....

How did a pm sent to only a handful of people (me included) get into the hands of Charley and the mod team?

Adam implies it was cut and pasted by a recipient and forwarded. I wouldn't expect the mods to disclose more than this. But, if this is the case, I'm surprised the culprit hasn't put their hand up and explained their reasons.

Of course, it's always possible that Jacob actually sent it to a mod himself ](*,)

 

[Jake]

Forums are not and should not be a democracy. The rules exist in what ever fashion they exist in, state whatever they state etc and should be enforced to the letter without conversation.

I don't agree with that at all.

But if I did, I would still want the rules to be applied across the board to every member alike (whether moderator or not), and not to be applied in a way which overlooks rule breaches (and their knock on effects) because they were by a moderator who then used his moderator powers to self-censor in order to cover his tracks.

 

[mr]

A question that has, so far, been neatly side-stepped (unless I've missed something)....

How did a pm sent to only a handful of people (me included) get into the hands of Charley and the mod team?

Adam implies it was cut and pasted by a recipient and forwarded. I wouldn't expect the mods to disclose more than this. But, if this is the case, I'm surprised the culprit hasn't put their hand up and explained their reasons.

Of course, it's always possible that Jacob actually sent it to a mod himself ](*,)

It was forwarded to the mods by one of the recipients. That recipient has already made himself known to Jacob, none of this is any secret. Jacob has written it up fulsomely over on the new forum. The how and why of the PM getting to the admin team is however irrelevant.

Jake yes the rules should be applied to all, man and beast equally.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

It is unfortunate that some valuable voices have been lost from the mix, but I don't think there's much more to be gained from navel gazing.

One thought does occur - does the BBS S/W allow a poster's contributions to be X-rated, so a reader has to opt in to view their offerings (like a default global 'ignore') - could be a useful alternative to banning a forthright member, by allowing the reader to decide how thick skinned they are.

And now let's think wood thoughts

Cheers
Steve

 

[davy_owen_88]

I most certainly do not want to drag this out any longer, but to be honest, the reactions from certain members here was very predictable, totally pointless, and slightly irritating.

Why is it, that whenever a thread pops up that isn't singing with praise, the same few come out of the woodwork to start polishing the apples ready for teacher? Why don't they just ignore the thread instead of coming on, and talking like they have some clue or concern about what the thread is even about?

Forums are not and should not be a democracy. The rules exist in what ever fashion they exist in, state whatever they state etc and should be enforced to the letter without conversation.

Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum. That simple point is the reason why Jacobs ban was unfair, and why a number of members who either knew Jacob, or respected, and valued his input, are so annoyed. Now if you don't care, then fine, but stay out of it and let the people who it was directed at (mods/admin) answer the question.

 

[mr]

Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never suggested that sending links in private messages is against the rules. Particularly not in the post you quote here. Which seems to suggest that Jacob wasn't banned for sending links in PMs, on the other hand there is a post from Charley stating why Jacob was banned. Suggest you read more closely in future.

 

[davy_owen_88]

Have you read the forum rules? I have and it doesn't state anywhere that a member can not send Private Messages to other members with a link to a different website/forum.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never suggested that sending links in private messages is against the rules. Particularly not in the post you quote here. Which seems to suggest that Jacob wasn't banned for sending links in PMs, on the other hand there is a post from Charley stating why Jacob was banned. Suggest you read more closely in future.

I'm not confusing you with anyone, nor did I imply that you said it was a forum rule. My point is, that your response didn't answer the original question, it didn't help the matter, and your 'rules should be applied to all, man and beast equally' is irrelevant because Jacob didn't break any rules, and that is what this thread is about.

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.

 

[mr]

All I can say is that I suggest you read the thread more closely. I have nothing more to say on the subject as further reply is evidently a waste of time.

 

[Gaz_XB9R]

(8.1) Linking to your or other woodworking websites is allowed as long as it will benefit or prove useful to other members. Linking to a post on another group or forum is also fine.

Enough said.

Reinstatement required.