General Chat... IS BACK!
@RobPN wrote:
@Champnet wrote:
@RobPN wrote:
Deleted - posted in error before complete.
Leading by example, impressive….
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at @Champnet
It's called humour, remember that ? Just implying you'd had a change of mind about a potentially contentious post.
(Still humour, never got the hang of emojis)
Err ... I missed the humour, but it was actually deleted for the reason given @Champnet 
No second thought about anything contentious, and if you actually got to see it as JonoH obviously did, you'll see that the same content will be in the full reply.
@JonoH - finally, my reply which I accidentally posted before completion yesterday ...
Thanks for your reply @JonoH , but IMO it's full of holes and contradictions, and some points seem to have been completely missed.
@JonoH wrote:
... I'm also not going to police peoples usernames, feel free to call yourself pro-EU anti-EU anti-vax anti-science whatever you want, ...
Not quite true, I recall peoples usernames being changed in the past because they didn't, shall we say, 'fit-in' ...
... and sadly, because grown up, civilised, reasoned debate wasn't possible on some subject's we've had to stop them being discussed here. ...
Those are precisely the subjects which the various re-incarnated trolls are hell-bent on raising. They may start off all sweetness and light, but without fail in the past they've twisted things round to become political, often offensively categorising other members who oppose them.
As a PlusNet customer for an uninterrupted 19 years, I'm baffled as to how you can defend your support of a so-called newcomer 'non-Plusnet customer' (repeatedly) joining the forum, always choosing a provactive politically orientated username (and usually avatar) which reflects their latest bandwagon agenda, and clearly with absolutely no requirement for technical support or interest in becoming a customer, but solely with the intention of disrupting General Chat, having also stated publicly on numerous occasions that they want to get General Chat closed. Where's the logic in that?
The next step will be to start permanently banning users who aren't able to speak to one another in a civil fashion,
That's very reassuring; so if genuine members are judged to be at fault they'll be permanently banned? What of the trolls? Ah yes, they'll be free to rejoin with a new username.
who round on other users as part of their clique.
So because a number of people are in agreement on something (e.g. recognising and responding to a repeat troll for what it is), you've labelled them as a clique?
@JonoH wrote:
@7up wrote:
You also said you'd removed two users and yet we didn't see any extra annonymous posts anywhere and you couldn't even tell us the usernames - yes, from our POV it looks very suspicious.
It's more than 2, in fact its more than 2 in the last 2 weeks, and I could tell you names, I'm just not sure if I should, or how it's relevant. some will likely be pleased they're gone and think that hounding users out is a victory, it's not. It's what will get GC closed.
Apart from MinnieWoke (and HelloDuck, an unfortunate incident already discussed in another GC thread) it seems there are no 'Anonymised' posts that anyone can remember recently to back that up, and personally I don't recall anyone being hounded in GC recently who has disappeared. Perhaps you're referring to someone who joined but never posted and decided to ask via PM for their account to be deleted, although oddly such a person could never have been attacked.
The moderation team have my 100% support and backing. I'm sure they make mistakes, and that is why we have the ability for you to refer to me after, however it's important to remember that just because a noisy minority don't like a person or their positions, if they're being civil and within the rules we will side with them, ...
Even, it seems, if they have an 'In your face' username (and at times, avatar) proclaiming their political beliefs, which they continue to slyly poke others with. 
... especially if the other group are all perceived to be pilling on the user.
Ah, you mean that if a single troll with very little support is opposed by a majority for what should be obvious reasons, you'll take the side of the troll? That sounds logical and fair - NOT!
@RobPN It would be super easy for us to put it back in the state it was previously. It's actually harder for us to provide you with a blank slate, especially one that lets you keep your post count and likes.
Understood, thanks, point taken.
Also, why does it matter if someone who left decides to return with a new name?
Because they've previously caused trouble, which has taken up all that moderator time which you mentioned elsewhere? 
Why start off with cryptic in-crowd pleasing posts? Why attempt to poison others against this person?
I think you've missed the point there; there was no attempt (or need) to poison anybody against that person (the person has already managed that quite successfully in the past), simply pointing out that a returning troll had been spotted, and my reference to 'time-stamping' was to show how early the troll had been recognised for future reference as opposed to how long it would be before the mods recognised it, if ever.
it's precisely what I'm talking about trying to stop. Firstly they may be genuinely new and secondly just report posts that break rules, otherwise you might find that the ban you seek doesn't go where you'd like it.
Ah yes, those bans.
Edit: couple of typos
@7up wrote:
@RobPN wrote:
Regarding wiping all previous threads, well, that'll be akin to re-writing history like some countries do (I think it's called Historical negationism ).
Forgive me, i could be wrong but i don't recall being an advocate or wiping them. I simply mentioned the possibility of it being reinstated with or without the historical stuff.
Apologies if I missed the spot @7up , but my reply was intended to agree with the fact I thought you were against wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch, as was being suggested by JonoH as a possibility. 
Between this and the other General Chat thread it's evident to me that some people really would sign their own death warrant.
Me, 
Come on guys, do we have to do this? The thread that was locked was locked correctly, we've taken down the GC board for now, that does not mean spam other boards with off-topic chat.
