Anyone know if *Iam64* is ok?

I can’t think what EV could possibly have said to deserve being banned. Never hurtful or insulting, simply stated her point of view. A deeply caring person, my conclusion is, someone was gunning for her. ? Shameful treatment of a well respected poster
Not uncommon on GN as a few of us have realised, when a poster has been trigger happy with the report button.

muse Sorry to hear your particular innocent question caused you grief. I hope you have managed to move on and not dwell on your upsetting experience.

It always ends this way, doesn't it?

Nice thread about people we miss and it ends up with complaints about trigger-happy reporters and power-hungry moderators.

People get banned for lots of reasons; spreading untruths about the vaccines, for instance.

I'm pleased to find this thread, I do post, but mostly read others welcome contributions.

I notice missing posters, especially when they've not said that they are taking a break for whatever reason.
EllanVannin always felt like a neighbour/friend, having a chat, someone I could relate to.
I remember when she was 80 last year, (about the same time as my sister). Also her family problems "rang a bell" with me, as I also have a DGD with problems, & of a similar age.
I do hope EV is well & OK, ("It's the not knowing").

Keep posting, you "regulars"!!

This thread has cleared up a few ‘missing persons’ queries for me thankyou all.
I totally agree that a lifetime ban is a very dangerous thing to impose on anyone without at least one warning.

This is all very sad.

If people whose opinions annoy others get banned, we will be left with a very homogenous (and even boring) site. I can understand HQ banning someone who might cause problems for them by posting extremist posts, or others that break the law, but differences of opinion are just that. In fact, differences of opinion are what makes a discussion site thrive - if we all just posted banalities and agreed with one another there would be no GN.

I sometimes get the impression that to HQ we are a bit of an inconvenience. The facilities (eg ability to edit) we keep asking for are ignored, and it appears that there is no routine moderation, so the only views to get acted on are of those who complain when someone disagrees with them.

How can I put this tactfully? At best this is a 'self-selecting' demographic? They are certainly people who want to shut down the very discussion that keeps GN going - it's most odd that their views are give precedence over the rest of us.

Presumably one's risk of getting banned increases with the number of contributions one makes to the community? Madness. There was talk a while back of someone posting to say that they were a lurker who always reported things that annoyed them, like a secret policeman. That is wrong on a number of levels.

Just because we are, on the whole, a bit older than MN posters doesn't mean that we need to be shielded from disagreement, or to be threatened with the naughty step like toddlers. Isn't that now frowned upon, anyway?

People get banned for lots of reasons; spreading untruths about the vaccines, for instance.

I don't know that EV did that.
If you are insinuating that she did, then someone must have reported her as threads are not routinely moderated.

As far as I know EV did no such thing Callistemom she did express her reluctance for the second vaccination due to her medical reaction with the first, as is her right. There have been others refusing the vaccination totally, don’t think they got banned.
It makes me sad, frustrated and wary.

Good post Doodledog

(at the risk of posting banalities and agreeing with you!!)

Callistemon

Good post Doodledog

(at the risk of posting banalities and agreeing with you!!)

?

I'm sorry that this is going to derail the discussion but I think its important.

People don't get banned for having unpopular opinions. They get banned for continually posting things that are untrue, or dangerous, or contrary to the GN rules about how you speak to other posters.

You only have to look at the threads on religion, say, or politics, to see that radically different views are put forward every day.

I don't think anyone would say I'm always in agreement with other posters and I put my opinion forcefully. But I've rarely been deleted and never threated with a ban. (am I tempting fate now ?)

I also rarely report because I'm a tough old bird, and I usually tell people when I do. I certainly didn't report EV

I didn't think she had, JaxJacky.

Surely this is a site where, if people want to, they can share their experiences.

We're not sheep and can make our own judgements.

I’m sure EV wouldn’t spread untruths about the vaccine. Wary due to health issue is what she posted.

My thoughts too Calli.

People don't get banned for having unpopular opinions. They get banned for continually posting things that are untrue, or dangerous, or contrary to the GN rules about how you speak to other posters.

I agree that strong views are regularly expressed on politics threads, and are not moderated. I think that the secrecy surrounding moderation and 'disappearance' of members is a big part of the problem though.

Why can't people be told on the thread if their post has contravened the rules, and why? A link to GN guidelines on a deleted post is useless, as we can't see what was deleted, and the guidelines are vague.

Similarly, when someone is expelled from the group, why can't we even refer to them or ask for an explanation as to if or why it has happened? We are all anonymous on here, after all. I understand that HQ can't spend hours on here defending their decisions, but a bit more openness would save a lot of speculation and accusations of unfairness.

EV wasn't a vaccine denier. She was very ill after her first dose and was wary of having the the second dose. She was neither unkind nor rude, just forthright. She didn't pretend to be someone, she wasn't,as some on here do.

I just don't think there is secrecy around deletions. I've seen comments from GNHQ saying something along the lines of "tone it down please" so deletion isn't the first option. But if a post contravenes the rules, GNHQ can't allow it to stay up, surely?

Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.

Some people don't realise that what they are posting falls into one of those categories. Lots of comment recently about a legal case that is still sub judice, and people complaining about not being allowed to discuss it. No, that's right, you're not allowed to discuss it! We're not chatting over the garden fence, we're publishing things on a public discussion forum.

Yes, I understand all that, and it's absolutely fair enough.

There is nothing to stop GN from saying 'this post was removed as it referred to a sub judice lawsuit', or 'this post was removed as it was potentially libellous' or whatever.

Also, as there is always speculation about the disappearance of people (as on this thread) and whether or not they were 'on a warning', it is clear that there is secrecy about how they site is moderated.

You are going to get slight variations between moderators because they are human. You cant just have a free for all on an internet site, you would be overrun by trolls for a start.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that there should be a free for all, though.

I understand that mods are human, and as such will interpret rules differently. If the rules were clearer, however, not only would that be less likely, but it would make it easier for members to adhere to them.

I just think that it is a shame that people simply vanish, and we don't know why. Of course people are entitled to their privacy, and if they stop posting for personal reasons that is their right, but if they are 'banned' for life I don't understand why we can't be told. As I say, it's not naming and shaming someone 'in real life' - as we are anonymous. It would quell speculation, and show how consistent moderation has been.

Anyway, I get the impression that I am missing something, which is perfectly possible, as I often feel 'in the dark' on threads about site dynamics. It does feel as though some posters know more than others about what goes on behind the scenes, and that is one reason why I would prefer more openness, but I've said my piece so will shut up now.

Iam64, I hope to see you back on here soon, and that you are doing something nice instead of posting ?

Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.

I had a post deleted not for any of the above reasons but because I used a common nickname for a well-known politician. Apparently, it was because my post wasn’t in the spirit of GN or something, even though I regularly see other politician’s uncomplimentary nicknames on GN. ?‍♀️

I dont think that would stop the speculation though. And I dont think you can really say well Galaxy was banned because she was racist if I am not here to say hold on no I wasnt. It would be unfair and probably unkind. I am not having a go doodledog I am just saying its quite a complex thing.

SueDonim

^Extract from the guidelines: That said, we will remove posts we believe to be obscene, racist, homophobic, contain personal attacks or break the law once they are brought to our attention.^

I had a post deleted not for any of the above reasons but because I used a common nickname for a well-known politician. Apparently, it was because my post wasn’t in the spirit of GN or something, even though I regularly see other politician’s uncomplimentary nicknames on GN. ?‍♀️

It depends who is on duty and whether or not posts are reported by other posters SueDonim.
The moderators can't read all the threads, it's just not possible.

I've said my piece so will shut up now.
No don't do that Doodledog
Your points are valid.

Yes, SueDonim, that's the phrase I couldn't remember - 'in the spirit of GN'. It is meaningless, and is does not suggest misinformation or hate speech - it has connotations of telling a child to 'play nicely'.

Galaxy, I have been aa moderator on a discussion board (not as big as this one, though) and I know it's complex and at times it's impossible to do the right thing by everyone. Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the lack of transparency on here causes as many problems as it solves.

A post to say that 'Galaxy's post of X date has been removed as it contravened our guidelines about Y' would cover deletions. 'As she has had repeated warnings about this she will no longer be able to post' would cover bannings, particularly if they are rare, and if warnings had been issued publicly so that everyone could see that they were applied consistently.

It's complex, but not impossible to at least be seen to be fair. I appreciate that this is a business, but it only works because there is a sense of community, and communities don't thrive on secrecy and opaque rules.

Ha yes, ‘play nicely’ is exactly it, Doodledog. I am pretty certain of who reported my post.

"Turning into a bit of a bunfight"

Jolly hockey sticks at dawn!

SueDonim

Ha yes, ‘play nicely’ is exactly it, Doodledog. I am pretty certain of who reported my post.

See, with respect, this is much more damaging that "what happened to dear old Bunty?

Who do you think it was Sue? Don't be coy.