The changing face of Gransnet?

Was I? You could remind me of the thread you are referring to. I could look back at them.

Callistemon, you seem to think that I have great recall of everything that goes on here. I really don't. This is just relaxation for me. Most of the time, it is procrastination time. It isn't real life (for me - other may feel differently).

I don't know what MawB did or didn't do so I can't pass comment on her being banned.

How odd Gagajo as you were in the threads where the alleged posts were made. But perhaps you don't rtwt.

I like your train of thought Grannyactivist but will question only one element- you mention-

but I do think it’s important that as customers we are informed about the procedure and assured that it is not arbitrary

We aren't customers.

We're content.

We are merely a source of income. Its not like any other company/customer relationship. Our value is in our appeal to GN advertising clients no more no less. So they have no need to treat us fairly or humanely or to consider our well being or health in any way.

I wish it were not so but its purely a business relationship sadly.

If the lady in question is such a lovely person I am sure she has many friends outside of Gransnet and lots of members that have her private contact details.

Oh I see brigadune. Thanks

What I don't understand is if these friendships are so real, why aren't they in contact in real life?

I have made 2 friends from GN and we are in regular contact IRL.

One of them disappeared from this site months ago, after being a very regular poster, and as you say, trisher, no one noticed or cared.

GagaJo

How do you know they have been reported ad nauseam brigadune?

Their posts were deleted by GN.

Oh I think there is a sort of "club" on GN. This thread has become a classic example of it. Others have been banned
and their exclusion largely ignored with just the occasional "Where's-so and so?" threads. Such support was never seen for them. I wonder why?
And before anyone jumps to conclusions I haven't e-mailed GNHQ. I don't care enough to bother.

I wonder whether HQ feels that if they backtrack on this one, they will have no 'teeth' in the future, and that should they feel the need to ban anyone in future there will be an uprising of support from the ranks?

It's tricky, as the bottom line is that we, as posters, can take it or leave it, really. Yes, we can go elsewhere, but as has been said, there are friendships and allegiances here that have been forged over many years, and descending on a new site will loosen those, as well as disrupting the dynamics there.

Does anyone remember a site owned by a high street store in the noughties? It was a bit like this in that it covered a range of topics, and had long-standing posters, cliques and enmities, friends and foes - all the usual things that go with 'societies' whether online or off.

Anyway, there were spats and fallings out, and something must have happened behind the scenes (financial, I assume - a change of business model or similar), and they recruited an administrator and brought in moderators from the posters, and it was disastrous. The moderators were ill-chosen, untrained, and had conflicts of loyalties galore. There were arbitrary posting rules, including a highly inaccurate and histrionic interpretation of libel law, which were used to suspend, ban and otherwise anger the regular posters. The administrator was way out of his depth and became a figure of fun.

In the end, there was an exodus to other groups, some formed for the purpose and others pre-existing, and the original site moved on with a new demographic who had never known the way it was in the past, so accepted the set-up, and were presumably happy with it. I'm guessing that the advertisers were happier with the new crowd, who seemed to prefer to discuss make-up and other advertised products than to argue with one another, so on the surface at least, all was well.

However. A lot of friendships ended up broken over the moderator behaviour, and I assume that a good few people lost contact with old friends because they were away, or having a break from posting when things blew up. Who knows what became of some of the people left behind, when they seemed to have spent most of their time online and suddenly the site was no more (or not as they knew it, at least).

These things don't happen without casualties, and the site owners/managers don't care at all about the individuals who use the forum (any more than shop owners/managers don't care about the lives of individual customers). So long as the numbers add up, that's all that matters to them, (which is understandable, not a criticism), but I think that when posters see 'their' site as a community it can be difficult to recognise this, and feelings can run very high.

If you have ploughed through all that, congratulations! My point, really, is that it sometimes pays to be careful what you wish for.

How do you know they have been reported ad nauseam brigadune?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Maybe other posters are being protected from comments like "flounced".
"Show your face if you dare"
"As a new poster" and so on...
Because when people band together and say these things it does come across as unpleasant and exclusionary.

I agree Grannyactivist we are not advocating that no ban takes place after several warnings but a life time ban is draconian and the threat of a lifetime ban is as bad.

I have just received the same response as Bathsheba posted at 11.54.
So it seems we are being protected from a person we all like and respect, perhaps Hattie is a fierce little greyhound.
FFS it is ridiculous.

Not speaking about anyone in particular, but in general like calls to like and so there will often be divided opinion on an individual poster, therefore it’s not surprising to me that alternative views have been expressed to GNHQ.

We can have no way of knowing what the protocol is for GNHQ to deal with situations unless they tell us. Is there in fact an agreed procedure for dealing with posters when complaints are made? Or are decisions made on an ad hoc basis? I suggest that GNHQ publish the procedural steps that are taken when these situations arise.

For example:
Deletion of post with explanation
Deletion of thread with explanation
If poster persists then a detailed 1st warning with explanation of what rules were transgressed
Second warning, as above
Temporary suspension e.g. two weeks
If poster persists then longer suspension e.g. 3 months

The above is merely an example of how this could be addressed and not a recommendation, but I do think it’s important that as customers we are informed about the procedure and assured that it is not arbitrary, but following, in every case, consistent rules and guidelines.

The Gransnet guidelines/rules are not unclear or unreasonable. If a member persists in breaking the rules & ignoring warnings then they surely they have to accept the consequences of their actions. This should be regardless of how long they have been on the site or how well respected or otherwise they are. GN is a public forum not a private club.

I don't know what MawB did or didn't do so I can't pass comment on her being banned.

What I WOULD say is that when the bullying behaviour takes place on GN, I always get nice messages in my Inbox, in agreement from members who are too nervous about posting those replies for all to read. A few braver members have posted comments of a similar point of view in this thread, that are conveniently being ignored.

Obviously GNHQ have access to private messages so have a wider picture than any of us to as to what the real situation is. I know some of you have commented on getting nasty messages in your Inboxes. GNHQ also have access to that, so will know who is making them. They have the whole picture. We don't.

I do appreciate that you are concerned about your friend. Why not start an online chat in another form of social media to support her?

So who has been emailing in support of this ban I wonder? hmm. Show yourself if you dare

Perhaps this unwise post is an example of the 'ganging up' and 'bullying' that is thought to be at the basis of this ban?

I haven't had a reply yet. They are obviously wading through them.

I had the same reply as Bathsheba

I still say you can dislike someone and not like their posts without wishing them to be banned.

I have just read in the paper that the ring leaders of the county lines drug gangs have been sent to prison for six years.
Even such odious people are not facing a lifelong ban.

If GNHQ are really going to protect the site from behaviours that prevent others from feeling safe or able to post freely then perhaps I should report everyone who disagrees with my opinion. Those who hold a different political point of view, I don’t like what they’re saying so I will report them because they upset me. Those who say unpleasant things about the country I live in, I should report them because they annoy me.
Perhaps I should go back through this thread and report everyone who has voiced a different opinion to mine because they have made me angry.

I had no idea this was how the site worked. I think I have only ever reported advertising posts. I obviously didn’t realise I was supposed to object every time someone irritated me.

If the guidelines and rules are not transparently clear to all, there is resentment when it appears that they are being applied unfairly, CornishPatsy

Peasblossom Would you extend your distrust to Royal Mail? Messages are sent via the postman which people wouldn't say face-to-face. The telephone too - cranks can make abusive phone calls. Does that mean that ALL letters and phone calls should be disabled?

How about all the supportive messages and cards sent by postman, by telephone, and by emails both the usual kind and the ones via Gransnet? All the details of face-to-face meetings finalised by PM? You can't blame the medium for the message.

So who has been emailing in support of this ban I wonder? hmm. Show yourself if you dare.

Someone did comment that the banned poster was marmite. And got jumped on. Why would anyone wish to lay themselves open to the, all too likely to be vehement, displeasure of her supporters?

If a person is not following the guidelines or rules there has to be consequences otherwise it will become a free for all where anything goes.

If warnings are given and ignored what do others think should be done?

Could someone tell me who “flounced”?

Personally I’m not convinced about the pm facility. Messages are sent that wouldn’t be put up in public. I don’t mean friendly ones.