Jump to content
The Education Forum

VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS


Recommended Posts

A member of this forum alerted me to the fact that one of our current members was essentially the opinions of a banned member - in this case Brian Doyle.

What this issue has raised - and it is why I closed the thread till I could find an answer to it - is that if allowed to continue a banned member ( in this case Brian Doyle ) has now found a voice on our forum through another member. Whether witting, or unwitting, the current member has allowed himself to become the surrogate through which this banned member is now able to continue posting.

This is not something the members of the admin team can allow to continue. In the next few hours the rules are going to be edited to reflect this change in what is acceptable on our forum. From this point on - even though the rules are yet to be edited - it will be an offence for any current member to voice the opinions and theories of any banned member.

Any current member found to be doing that will immediately be place on “two posts a day” - which as everyone knows is actually a euphemism for being denied posting rights. The term of the punishment will be determined by admin. There will be no fixed term, the term therefore could be a short or long period as determined the members of the admin team.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank You Mr. Gordon,

You are making this site into a more professional place as versus a place for cat fights and virulence that I first experienced here.  Banned members should be banned totally.  Although I am very positive toward the person, who I think is a good person, you are acting against the use of surrogates for banned member's ideas should not be allowed. 

Once again thanks for that clarification.  In the long run it is the right decision and will be beneficial to this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To James Gordon,

Ah... I am clearly the culprit here.  I didn't realize I was breaking forum rules, and didn't mean to do so.  Please accept my apologies.  It is certainly the right of the people who run this forum to determine the posting rules, and I'll make every effort not to violate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the indiscretion of one member does not lead to a rule painted with a very wide brush.

Last year Tom Scully and I did some discreet cross-posting and accomplished something important (IMO). We left it at that.

The mantra, or guiding principal.... "Would you want everyone to do as you do?" Is in play here. That principal should not be hard-and fast, especially where mature and intelligent adults are voluntarily congregated for a common purpose.

 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Until late today you were not breaking any rules. What happened is that you raised an issue the forum had not anticipated or had rules to cover.

Were you to repeat in a new post now then you would be in conflict with the rules. But I know you to be someone who would not do that.

Regards

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

A member of this forum alerted me to the fact that one of our current members was essentially the opinions of a banned member - in this case Brian Doyle.

What this issue has raised - and it is why I closed the thread till I could find an answer to it - is that if allowed to continue a banned member ( in this case Brian Doyle ) has now found a voice on our forum through another member. Whether witting, or unwitting, the current member has allowed himself to become the surrogate through which this banned member is now able to continue posting.

This is not something the members of the admin team can allow to continue. In the next few hours the rules are going to be edited to reflect this change in what is acceptable on our forum. From this point on - even though the rules are yet to be edited - it will be an offence for any current member to voice the opinions and theories of any banned member.

Any current member found to be doing that will immediately be place on “two posts a day” - which as everyone knows is actually a euphemism for being denied posting rights. The term of the punishment will be determined by admin. There will be no fixed term, the term therefore could be a short or long period as determined the members of the admin team.

James.

Doyle is a HUGE manipulator. He tried all days to induce me to post messages by him here. I did not 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Where earlier today your cross-posting with Tom Scully would not have breached any rules. Were you to post later today or at a point thereafter - then you would be in breach.

Be assured you would be dealt with. The members of the admin team are not going to create a rule that punishes one member and not another.

Such ambiguity in the rules allows breaching in the rules and for members to argue that what they did was not in breach.

What you did with Tom Scully was entirely o.k before today. But as of my posting this thread - if repeated - it will lead to you being disciplined.

James.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

Paz,

From what I know of you Paz, I do not see you as the kind of person who would agree to do such a thing.

There is a difference between you and Brian Doyle, you have integrity.

James.

Thank you very much for your moving words, James. Really appreciated 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This rule makes little sense to me. You have banned a person for their conduct. How can a third party be banned for expressing ANY views, as long as their conduct is acceptable. The experts on here call out misinformation and we all make value judgments on posts. Are you really worried about a master manipulator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

How can a third party be banned for expressing ANY views, as long as their conduct is acceptable[?]

Because the forum member in question (Jim H.) was posting verbatim quotes written by a person who was (evidently) banned from this forum.

Such activity should be considered unacceptable, IMO. I agree with James Gordon's new rule.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Because the forum member in question (Jim H.) was posting verbatim quotes written by a person who was (evidently) banned from this forum.

Such activity should be considered unacceptable, IMO. I agree with James Gordon's new rule.

freedom of speech is an important value to be spread, not just an amendment to be tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

Jim,

Until late today you were not breaking any rules. What happened is that you raised an issue the forum had not anticipated or had rules to cover.

Were you to repeat in a new post now then you would be in conflict with the rules. But I know you to be someone who would not do that.

Regards

James.

Thank you James....

Despite the detractors, to me this is the public forum most dedicated to the truth about JFK's assassination.  I'd hate to be banned from it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...