The Dr banned? - Page 2

Maisie · 16 May 2002, 10:28 (Ref:287908)

You may have noticed that on several occasions lately I've publicly asked people to moderate their behaviour. I do this if I feel that one person has overstepped the mark and that the lesson could be beneficial to others. However, if the behavious is more serious, and not (as it usually is) someone overstepping the mark in the heat of the moment and out of character, then we prefer to do it in private. No-one likes to be "told off" where everyone can see it - we prefer to keep people's dignity and privacy wherever possible and to keep debates about one person's behaviour out of the public forums. The last thing we want is for someone to be warned publicly, and every other member of the forum screaming the place down with either "No, you're wrong" or, worse still, "Yeah, Ive always hated xxxxxx, get rid of him/her now!"

f1manoz · 16 May 2002, 10:29 (Ref:287910)

No we're not. Everyone read the rules when they entered and it's between the moderators. All we should know is that the Doc was banned. Simple as that.

If he fails to responds to requests to kerb whatever he was doing wrong, then the punishment fits the crime.

ljakse · 16 May 2002, 11:10 (Ref:287941)

I just feel the need to express my regrets to see this happened.

Tristan · 16 May 2002, 19:10 (Ref:288276)

I dunno. I just get the impression sometimes that there is very much a "them" and "us" mentality begging to brew. I'm sure that the Doc was being out of line and this ban is probably justified. But then I didn't see any evidence of it. He was always very civil towards me, even though I completely disagreed with almost everything that came out of his (metaphorical) mouth. We should be able to judge things for ourselves. But then this forum is not a democratic society and it doesn't pretend to be.

ljakse: LOVE the sig!!

R · 16 May 2002, 21:33 (Ref:288382)

Most of the ground on this issue have been covered by other moderators, but let me say this.

We pulled several posts from the "Proposed letter to Bernie" thread the other night - not only posts by Dr. Austin, but also posts by other users, including moderators, because a discussion which was irrelevant to the subject was started on the thread (subject being to offer suggestions regarding the contents of the letter and adding signatures to it). I stated that the thread would be closed once the deadline of submitting signatures at 5 pm Eastern Daylight Time that day had passed, therefore a discussion regarding the ins and outs of Ferrari's actions on Sunday in that particular thread was pointless, as the closing of the thread would stop that discussion anyway. I therefore encouraged users to post in any of the plenty of other threads where the exact same points could be - and were - raised. That's all there is to that. I brought this up now because someone suggested that Dr. Austin was banned for hijacking threads. Well. He wasn't.

As stated by other moderators, the reasons why Dr. Austin was banned is to be found in our "Pulled Posts" forum, which is only viewable to staff members, and in the PMs which some of us have received. The posts which remain in our public forums do not contain any banning offenses. In the end, what it boils down to, is that you just have to take our word for it. As Tim put it, we will not wash our dirty laundry in public, especially as that would not be fair to the banned party who is not around to defend himself.

djb · 16 May 2002, 22:35 (Ref:288436)

A very quick mention to ALL the moderators who put their free time into keeping this place civil. l, too am fond of this place, and appreciate the time that you all spend and have complete confidence in the various statements that you all take a situation like this with much consideration and deliberation.

Valve Bounce · 16 May 2002, 23:22 (Ref:288460)

I feel necessary to add my views on this subject. I think when another poster was banned recently, requests for information on his banning were also denied because admin felt that this poster still had the rights to his privacy on this matter. I support this wholeheartedly.
I have, recently posted stuff in absolute anger after the Austrian debacle, and thankfully one of the moderators pulled the post, although several others were left in the forum, to my subsequent embarrasment. Those posts of mine, and that sort of behaviour was totally what I stand against in this forum, and I take this opportunity to apologise to one and all here unreservedly.
I also support the manner that admin try to deal with the individual privately. This leaves the offending person with the dignity to atone or apologise for his stupidity in private. Yeah!! I've done that too.

There is only one particular type of banning which I urge the moderators to publicise, and that is the banning of intruders who come into the forum to make trouble and post obscene threads and insults to everyone else. Dooly Tilly was one, although there were several others, and I hope that under these circumstances, the admin will advise everyone why this type of intruder is kicked out.
And now regarding my friend Austin, may I offer the view that historically, Austin has been treated very leniently by moderators, and that is all I am going to say on this matter. Some of us know Austin better than others.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

badoer fan · 17 May 2002, 08:50 (Ref:288674)

I agree that privacy is important, and that the mods are not going to tell us because it will provoke more debate. The thing is, not telling people is just going to cause more distrust and bad feeling around here.

Airhead · 17 May 2002, 10:14 (Ref:288733)

That is only true if you are predisposed to distrust and bad feeling. This is a place for enthusiasts to enjoy their interests with like minded individuals from where-ever. This is not life and death, but a mere diversion, treat it as such and everything is much more enjoyable.

The Beer Baron · 17 May 2002, 11:44 (Ref:288808)

Why was a poster named Budmakesmewiser allowed to attack a forum member (who went on to become a mod) here, he was never reprimanded until he trolled the F1 board.

And another member Dr. Austin is 'Chopped' without any warning or leniency ?

woodyracing · 17 May 2002, 12:01 (Ref:288823)

As it has been said before, the decision to ban someone is not taken lightly, and is the last resort if people will not comply with the rules.

There is plenty of warning and discussion between the moderators and the person in question before they are banned (unless they are obviously a "troll" out to spam or cause trouble etc)

The Beer Baron · 17 May 2002, 14:42 (Ref:288956)

If the topic of Dr Austin was discussed at lengths between you mods, why didn't one of you have the guts to write to him, to warn him of his beheviour or 'sin-bin' him for a while?

You guys pulled the plug, or rather a select few demanded he be banned?

Wrex · 17 May 2002, 15:00 (Ref:288965)

*yawn* Of course we did. And if you put more coat hangers around your bedroom you'll stop the voices keeping you up at night.

I have to laugh at this "conspiracy theory" with the implication the doc was plotted against. Give me a break.

Note to other mods : Where are these 'plugs' we can pull?

The Beer Baron · 17 May 2002, 15:50 (Ref:289001)

Thats not what Dr Austin says,

no one ever wrote to him about his beheviour!

EERO · 17 May 2002, 16:35 (Ref:289026)

He was chided, admonished, begged and eventually warned.

**Craig** · 17 May 2002, 16:41 (Ref:289028)

Quote:

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
Thats not what Dr Austin says,

Well he would say that, wouldn't he ?

Folks, I think we need to draw a line here. The rules are set in stone and published on-line for everyone to adhere to; as they agreed to when they registered. Dr Austin broke those rules and the decision was taken to remove his posting privaleges forthwith in conjuction with the process detailed in the FAQ.

We value all of our members privacy - even members who have lost their posting rights) and will do everything we can to protect that privacy, even if this leaves some people believing we are the ones not adhereing to the stated process.

However the situation is this - Dr Austin has been banned - and this will not change no matter how this might be viewed by those who do not have access to read his deleted messages and/or email communication with staff members. I am sorry if this is hard to swallow for some of you, but this is a fact - this is not going to change.

Jay · 17 May 2002, 16:51 (Ref:289034)

I think discussion is winding down, but I'll just add that there was not one voice of dissension among the staff when we were debating the member's future at Ten-Tenths. The decision was unanimous -- something rare in these types of discussions!. If you have any questions about who the staff are, where we are, or how to reach us, there's a little link at the top of each page called 'Staff Link'.

The Beer Baron · 17 May 2002, 19:00 (Ref:289090)

While you were busy with the ban button, why did someone include Dr. Austin in the petition, a petition which he did not want to sign?

Idiots!

Valve Bounce · 17 May 2002, 22:45 (Ref:289168)

Quote:

Originally posted by The Beer Baron
While you were busy with the ban button, why did someone include Dr. Austin in the petition, a petition which he did not want to sign?

Idiots!

Now I wonder who that might be?

Maybe his predecessor, Brammer, might have had something to do with that? Who knows?

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

P.S. I just want to re-iterate my total support to the mods on this specific case.

Jay · 17 May 2002, 23:02 (Ref:289174)

For the record, the former member 'Dr. Austin' was never included in the petition. Merely making a post in the 'letter to Bernie' thread was not enough to be included in the petition. Unless you provided your verifiable name and location, Liz did not include your info in the petition.

The Beer Baron · 18 May 2002, 02:19 (Ref:289236)

I whole-heartedly apologize,

Austin made a mistake and sent me the wrong info, he realises he wasnt included in that petition. I acted too quickly

To all mods I apologize, running the forum is hard enough.

TimD · 18 May 2002, 07:46 (Ref:289333)

Apology accepted from this moderator with glad heart.

Y'know, I wish the Doc had felt able to devote more of his time here to Porsche and modelmaking threads. I'm really going to miss those.

EERO · 18 May 2002, 21:49 (Ref:289737)

Apology accepted from this one as well, Thamk you , Baron.

Redneck · 21 May 2002, 17:27 (Ref:291681)

The banning and censoring of people here has long been a sticky subject. I do not agree with the administrators hiding behind the scenes and making these decisions. Several have indicated here that this is "there" site. Yes it is. But without the rest of us, there would be no site and thus we should be better informed. I personally have been involved with a serious disagreement with one of the admins and they took advantage of hiding in the admin area and trying to discredit me and having me banned. It would have been a one-sided presentation to others had I not found a way into the discussion. As a result of my getting involved in the admin area, the result was the exact opposite of what was originally intended. I received an apology, which did have a positive impact on my impression of this individual.

badoer fan · 21 May 2002, 17:32 (Ref:291685)

*applause*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BAR-Box-Banned	Marbot	Formula One	41	22 Jun 2005 04:00