Topic: Climate change rally, 8th December 2007

[Jean]

I'm all for you muting Alan.  His mailings have been most insulting and intolerant.

I have know Alan as a fellow activist through the Save Coate campaign where we shared a common goal.  I thought that, perhaps, he was just going through a stressful bad patch in his life.  However, this abuse has gone on for far too long.  He cannot be forgiven for this.

[ZPW]

There are two bits of Mr Haywards post that cause me offence; one is the violent threat theother is the assertion of hypocrisy.
Simon is the person that walks the walk that goes with the talk as it were...

In all the barbing and bitchy posts between me and..? you know the blazer man that wanders around at election time.... never were there nasty threats such as this...

Mute him?
Lose him.

[Dougal]

Mute him?
Lose him.

It is one option that is being considered by the Admin team who, we would like TS's members to know, are acutely aware that the posting made by the member with the screen name 'Alan Hayward' probably constitutes an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

Malicious Communications Act 1988
1988 CHAPTER 27

An Act to make provision for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety.

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety

(1) Any person who sends to another person—

(a) a letter or other article which conveys—

(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;

(ii) a threat

As such, we have suspended 'Alan Haywards' ability to post on the forum until we have contacted, or heard from, the member he threatened.

The admin team feel that:

The forum membership should decide quickly what action, (or not) it feels is appropriate to take against Alan Hayward so an appropriate forum policy can be established.

The admin must, both legally and morally, support the threatened member if they wish to make a formal complaint to the appropriate agencies.

With a heavy heart, Dougal

 

[Mart]

Half the fun of this, and any, forum is arguing, persuasively, forcibly even ferociously. This can be done michievously, with ambiguity, sarcasm and the odd expletive, enough to choose from I would have thought for any argument.

Alan's post is was artless and thuggish.

Full apology on the forum, then subject to that apologies acceptance by the threatened individual, a 3 month suspension.

[Dougal]

 

Full apology on the forum, then subject to that apologies acceptance by the threatened individual, a 3 month suspension.

The admin team have now discussed this thoroughly and have decided to ban Alan Hayward immediately. 

Our discussions were thorough, fair and the decision to ban this member was not arrived at quickly or lightly.

Although we have decided to ban him with immediate effect, we agree that Marts opinion echoes the need to provide an opportunity for Alan Hayward to redeem himself and think that our solution still allows for this to happen.


Our reasoning was thus: 


It is clearly stated in the Talkswindon Terms Of Use that personal threats are not considered acceptable on the forum.

No unlawful or objectionable content: unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable.

Putting the Talkswindon terms of use aside for a moment, we also recognise that making a personal threat on the forum also constitutes an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, Chapter 27


The Admin team concluded that:

As there had already been another instance of Alan Hayward being abusive/offensive towards another member: by sending an offensive personal message to another member for which he was less than polite or apologetic, the admin team think it is unlikely that an apology will be forthcoming for this incident either.

We have decided to ban Alan Hayward from Talkswindon until such time as he unreservedly apologises to the member he threatened, and to the forum membership as a whole.

Alan Haywards Talkswindon account has not been deleted, nor have any of his posts been removed.

If he chooses to apologise, and the apology is subsequently accepted by all parties concerned, the admin team will gladly reconsider its decision to ban him.  Until then, use of the free services offered to him by Talkswindon.org will remain suspended.

This is the only incident in 31 months of operation that has caused the discussion, and implementation of a membership ban.  Although we are disappointed to issue a ban, we think the rarity of such incidents is an indication of how well the remainder of the forum members moderate themselves.

Dougal

[peach]

Pious anyone?

[Tobes]

1 a: marked by or showing reverence for deity and devotion to divine worship b: marked by conspicuous religiosity <a hypocrite—a thing all pious words and uncharitable deeds — Charles Reade>
2: sacred or devotional as distinct from the profane or secular : religious <a pious opinion>
3: showing loyal reverence for a person or thing : dutiful
4 a: marked by sham or hypocrisy b: marked by self-conscious virtue : virtuous
5: deserving commendation : worthy <a pious effort>

DO explain your particular slant Peach...

[peach]

b: marked by self-conscious virtue : virtuous

[James]

Why would anyone threaten physical violence to another ON RECORD?
What a muppet.

Half the fun of this, and any, forum is arguing, persuasively, forcibly even ferociously. This can be done michievously, with ambiguity, sarcasm and the odd expletive, enough to choose from I would have thought for any argument.

Alan's post is was artless and thuggish.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Mark Twain

Exposed his own failings for all to see.


James

[Tobes]

Looks like common sense responsibility to me... maintaning a forum which contains challenging posts and debate is one thing... but nothing can excuse that level of aggression.

A charge of 'pious' from someone who hasn't actually suggested another course of action looks rather ironic. We were all invited to comment - and many of us have. Weigh in if you have something to offer as a solution (though I'm expecting a tumbleweed to blow past before that happens....)

Until you can show me another poster here who's physically threatened a forum member and escaped censure, your words appear devoid of thought or point. Glib is the word I'd use.

This forum is a robust playground and as unmoderated as is possible. We've all signed up here agreeing to certain basic principals of behaviour precicely to protect the freedom to express opinion. That excludes fists or threats to use them.

Pious in a perjoritive sense? Under the circumstances, not at all.

[Mart]

Who ate all the pious?

[Geoff Reid]

 
 
Pious ?

Neighbour had one. Dreadful car.

[ford]

I cannot tell whether the virtue expressed by Dougal  was self conscious or not.
Does it matter? Surely what matters  is that Alan Hayward's seemingly violent behavior isn't unchecked.
I am pleased with the decision; this forum has a bounty of barbed exchanges, it's forms part of the good irreverent read, violence threatened is quite another thing.

[Dougal]

 

I cannot tell whether the virtue expressed by Dougal was self conscious or not.

No.

A majority consensus of opinion was reached within the admin team, a course of action decided upon and an explanation of that action was supplied to the forum.

It fell to me to deliver the explanation. If the delivery of it is judged as pious then so be it.

I didn't feel pious or self righteous when I was typing it, and I don't now.   

[kecl]

I know not why Alan decided to use threats of violence on here, it would seem that he may have lost the plot some where, although I must admit,to  have been on the end of Alans vitriol in the past, on another forum.
Quite frankly being the sort of person I am, idiot! ( ) if these threats were sent my way, I would with some strange excitement, challenge him to carry them out, but that's just me . after all, from my experience threats are just that, threats and very seldom carried out.
But that is not the point here, quite frankly from my view of the thread, the threats are uncalled for and to be honest rather childish.
This is a great forum for thrashing out personal views, and  to forward the views made by the many people that do not post on here, but pass on with great passion their thoughts and ideas on the threads that regularly come up.
I think that banning Alan from posting for a limited time, on the hope of an apology, is sadly the only way to go. Debate even at it's most passionate and disparaging is well worth reading, but it doesn't have to result in threats of violence does it? Surely we can all express our varying views without the fear of someone wanting to maliciously wound us??

[peach]

Looks like common sense responsibility to me... maintaning a forum which contains challenging posts and debate is one thing... but nothing can excuse that level of aggression.

A charge of 'pious' from someone who hasn't actually suggested another course of action looks rather ironic. We were all invited to comment - and many of us have. Weigh in if you have something to offer as a solution (though I'm expecting a tumbleweed to blow past before that happens....)

Until you can show me another poster here who's physically threatened a forum member and escaped censure, your words appear devoid of thought or point. Glib is the word I'd use.

This forum is a robust playground and as unmoderated as is possible. We've all signed up here agreeing to certain basic principals of behaviour precicely to protect the freedom to express opinion. That excludes fists or threats to use them.

Pious in a perjoritive sense? Under the circumstances, not at all.

blah, blah, fucken blah I'm afraid.  The 'admin' team are taking themselves and this 'robust playground' way too seriously.  If you want to ban someone for being a tit, or for any other reason then go for it.  It doesn't require a council chamber style discussion.

[James]

If you want to ban someone for being a tit...

Aren't the rules there to prevent that?

Besides the door hasn't been locked, its only been shut. It's up to our banned "tit" now.
Let him get on with it, or not.
His choice.


James

[Jarvis]

 

blah, blah, fucken blah I'm afraid.  The 'admin' team are taking themselves and this 'robust playground' way too seriously.  If you want to ban someone for being a tit, or for any other reason then go for it.  It doesn't require a council chamber style discussion.

Yes it does, precisely because it removes the possibility of exactly the sort of arbitrary decision to ban you're favouring.  I've been on forums where just criticising a moderator would end up in ban, I for one am glad this place works the way it does.

If you tried to make it work the way you want it to 'fucken' work it just wouldn't. Start a forum and we'll see how long it lasts doing it your way 

[Ermintrude]

If you want to ban someone for being a tit,

... then you would have fallen foul of that criteria months ago old fruit.

(Sorry - not very 'moderate' of me - but even moderators have their limits  )

[Jean]

I should like to thank the TS team for taking such a reasoned and democratic approach at arriving at their decision.

I've been moderating various e-groups for about 10 years.  During this time I've had to unsubscribe 3 contributors who used the e-groups to have a pop at someone.  No sooner had I re-subscribed all three, they all abused the system again.