Fancy banning rongtw .....

[#1]

... or they have agreed how to divvy up the work. One focussed on chit chat whilst the other two cover everything else?

[#2]

Perhaps but that is foolhardy as it essentially allows one mod to be judge, jury and executioner - plusnet are usually the supporters of open and transparent which kinda goes against that.

[#3]

One focussing on and writing comments therein does not preclude collective discussion or review. One should not infer the absence of authorship with the absence of reading, review or comment.

[#4]

---

@JonoH wrote:

---

@7up wrote:

---

Let me get this right, you're reconsidering the very future of general chat due to some forum members that aren't even customers?

I'm considering the future of General Chat because of actions taken by members of this Community, some are customers, some are not. We've banned some, and our strategy at the moment is to continue to moderate the boards and simply deal with those who break the rules.

---

(My bold)

@JonoH

OK, hypothetical question;

Say a discussion (argument) is developing between two forum members (and which some of the admin/mods may consider as becoming disruptive), one of the members is a customer (possibly long-term), the other a non-customer, would any weight be given in favour of the customer over the non-customer?

If not, why not, and do you think that would be fair?

[#5]

---

@RobPN wrote:

---

@JonoH

OK, hypothetical question;

Say a discussion (argument) is developing between two forum members (and which some of the admin/mods may consider as becoming disruptive), one of the members is a customer (possibly long-term), the other a non-customer, would any weight be given in favour of the customer over the non-customer?

 None at all, both get a warning. Different community members may be at different stages (have had different number of warnings, for maybe different things)  so the action you see taken may look like they favour one side, but they do not.

If not, why not,

This is a public board, we've taken the decision to allow non customers here and so they should be treated the same as customers.

and do you think that would be fair?

---

The only way it can be fair, is if everyone is subject to the same rules, with the same sanctions. To do what you're suggesting would be unfair.

[#6]

And as people keep pointing out, that decision to allow non customers is causing trouble. You also speak of the amount of time the moderators are putting in yet you have opened the floodgates for that yourselves.

One member recently with minimal posts was recently declaring that general chat should be shut down. AFAIK they are not a subscriber, joined and cause nothing but trouble and then become adamant that general chat is closed. The worst part is that you're not only allowing this but supporting it.

You either want a healthy and FRIENDLY community or you don't. Allowing trolls in from the wild will not work positively.

You also have not commented on the idea of more moderators to spread the load.

[#7]

---

@JonoH wrote:

---

... would any weight be given in favour of the customer over the non-customer

 None at all, both get a warning. Different community members may be at different stages (have had different number of warnings, for maybe different things)  so the action you see taken may look like they favour one side, but they do not.

---

@JonoH

OK, so different members may have accrued different numbers of warnings, I get that, but I don't agree that in the situation I described that it would be fair.   What about a customer who has a forum account 'associated' with his customer username and places a certain value on that link, who is then up against a (some) non-customer(s) who couldn't give two hoots how many warnings they get simply because if banned they can then go and open another forum account?  (Or they may already have other accounts they can use)

---

@JonoH wrote:

---

If not, why not,

This is a public board, we've taken the decision to allow non customers here and so they should be treated the same as customers.

---

I imagine it must be difficult to police regarding multiple forum IDs and repeatedly re-joining after falling out of favour with previous IDs.

---

@JonoH wrote:

and do you think that would be fair?

---

The only way it can be fair, is if everyone is subject to the same rules, with the same sanctions. To do what you're suggesting would be unfair.

---

 As stated, that could clearly lead to a 'de-merit points' bias over time against a customer member.

In view of that position, perhaps some consideration could be given to a system of removing any such negative points (such as warnings and bans) placed against customer members which have been awarded due to conflict with a non-customer who is then banned (or leaves)?

Perhaps the suggestion made by (I think) @Anonymous elsewhere that members non or customer status should be displayed near their username could be adopted, which might then give a clearer view of who is only here to cause trouble?

Edit:  I'd suggest categories  could be 'PlusNet Customer'  'Ex-PlusNet Customer' and 'Non-PlusNet Customer'.

Edited slightly for clarity.

---

---

---

[#8]

@JonoH 

rongtw is a customer of plusnet and he told me that his ban also prevents him from accessing the support forums, so now you have blocked his access to support for the services he is paying for.

If he broke the rules then you should have banned him from the general chat only, he has not broken any rules in the other forums.

Yes his wife made a second account as they needed access to forums for support, and you banned him for it.

Shocking

[#9]

---

@7up wrote:

And as people keep pointing out, that decision to allow non customers is causing trouble.

Some of our customers also cause trouble.

One member recently with minimal posts declaring that general chat should be shut down. AFAIK they are not a subscriber, joined and cause nothing but trouble and then become adamant that general chat is closed. The worst part is that you're not only allowing this but supporting it.

That's unfair, I don't want to close chat. We're exploring loads of options and giving it multiple chances but it's possible we will be forced to.

You either want a healthy and FRIENDLY community or you don't. Allowing trolls in from the wild will not work positively.

When dealing with trolls, I'd suggest the Community doesn't feed them, report them to the mod team and  they will take it from there. Resorting to name calling and breaking the forum rules will result in you both being sanctioned.

You also have not commented on the idea of more moderators to spread the load.

---

No I didn't. I trust the moderation team to tell me if they feel that they need more support.

@RobPN wrote:

I imagine it must be difficult to police regarding multiple forum IDs and repeatedly re-joining after falling out of favour with previous IDs.

We've actually got a whole host of tools to help us with this, and that's why we've been able to confidently call out users for having multiple accounts. 

perhaps some consideration could be given to a system of removing any such negative points (such as warnings and bans) placed against customer members which have been awarded due to conflict with a non-customer who is then banned (or leaves)?

If you got warning's it's because you broke the rules, I really don't see the justification of it counting for less if someone broke them first. To me it feels like playground mentality and users should take responsibility for their own behaviour.

Perhaps the suggestion made by (I think) @Infinity elsewhere that members non or customer status should be displayed near their username could be adopted, which might then give a clearer view of who is only here to cause trouble?

We don't have the ability to distinguish between customers and non customers so we're not able to.

@St3 wrote

rongtw is a customer of plusnet and he told me that his ban also prevents him from accessing the support forums, so now you have blocked his access to support for the services he is paying for.

I'd suggest you perhaps aren't in possession of all the facts. I'd also like to direct you to the Forum Rules that state

All members should note that the use of these forums is entirely at Plusnet’s discretion and should be viewed as such.

There's no intrinsic right to access to these boards and repeated violations of the forum rules needs to be addressed.

If he broke the rules then you should have banned him from the general chat only, he has not broken any rules in the other forums.

Non forum members can view the support boards they just can't post. 

Yes his wife made a second account as they needed access to forums for support, and you banned him for it.

Shocking

I'd again politely suggest out that I don't think you're in possession of all the facts.

[#10]

I know there will be those who disagree with this but could an ignore button be looked at again?  I certainly would have used it and perhaps those who felt obliged to continually answer some posts, that to me were within the rules but cleverly designed to solicit a response, would have too, thereby reducing the mods work load and the outcome we are presently discussing.

I have read all the responses to previous requests such as it stops the flow of the thread and if you don't like the poster ignore them but that is easier said than done. I generally don't look at who has said what only where the thread is going and the general opinion of most posters and besides if it only interrupts the flow of the thread for the user of the button then that is their choice isn't it? tho' I must say it never has done on other boards I've used it on.

[#11]

@JonoH I would again politely suggest im aware of all the facts as ive spoken to my friend rongtw im also aware that he replied to your e-mail 2 days ago and you have not replied back yet.

I'm also aware that the troll joined the forum to abuse rongtw and when rongtw took the bait he got banned and the troll left the forums.

I'm also aware that a number of people made reports about the person trolling rongtw.

Also @JonoH Why was rongtw not giving a warning before you perm banned him ?

I wonder if there is more to this banning, maybe that plusnet don't like the fact rongtw would reply to posts about plusnet not fixing faults.... did plusnet get sick of rongtw highlighting problems they couldn't fix or answer too. ?

Rongtw would often try to help new customers and sometimes he would say the things we were all thinking highlighting issues within plusnet......... makes me wonder if plusnet were just looking for a way to get rid of him.

And one last thing im aware of is that some really old reg's are choosing to stay away from the general chat now after the way rongtw has been unfairly treated.

[#12]

---

@St3 wrote:

... the troll joined the forum to abuse ... and the troll left the forums.

Im also aware that a number of people made reports about the person trolling rongtw.

---

The troll attacked several members of the forum.  I won't include myself amongst its 'victims' because I'd like think I can give as good as I'm given, although retaliating to such trolls is clearly viewed as being disruptive.

@Mayfly made a reasonable assessment in the post before yours;

---

@Mayfly wrote:

... and perhaps those who felt obliged to continually answer some posts, that to me were within the rules but cleverly designed to solicit a response, ... 

---

A bit like a red rag to a bull, so I guess I'm one of those people. 

[#13]

---

@St3 wrote:

@JonoH I would again politely suggest im aware of all the facts as ive spoken to my friend rongtw im also aware that he replied to your e-mail 2 days ago and you have not replied back yet.

I suggest you go look up the definition of the word fact!!

All you have is one side of the story, as @rongtw sees it...

[#14]

@DaveyH I have rongtw e-mail that plusnet sent him

[#15]

Moderators Note.

This thread is now locked as @JonoH has given as much information surrounding the circumstances of rongtw's ban as he can and further discussions are going nowhere.