Please GNHQ ... would you consider letting *EllanVannin* come back to this site?

I think as someone said earlier EllanVannin has views which are not necessarily considered correct any more. Not everyone understood that life was very different when we were young and made no allowances. For some people on GN things are very black and white, no grey areas allowed. I think the lifetime ban is draconian unless there are things I don't know.

I too add my voice to have EllanVannin re-instated. Thank you.

There are most definitely cliques, one of which was responsible for bans last year, when they ganged up on a poster who offended them. Some rush into support certain posters who make an enormous fuss if anyone upsets them, others attempt to derail threads they disapprove of.
Again, I wonder if this happens on threads I avoid (although I am learning some of the board politics after what is now a couple of years of posting [slowontheuptake] ). In fairness though, threads like this one are in support of 'certain posters', and everyone seems to approve, so it's all relative. Derailing by chatting about nothing when the chatters have had their say is rude (if that's what you mean), but can be ignored easily enough if people don't want to be prevented from having their say.

That generic “you have broken guidelines” tells us NOTHING it’s flimsy and open to interpretant what offends you, may not offend me etc etc if it’s very bad, call the poster out by saying what is bad. Even a child never learns from punishment unless they and the rest of the class know what they are being punished for.
This is the crux of the matter for me. I do understand that sometimes things happen that are personal and could arguably be made worse if made public, or that if a rule is 'Don't Mention The War!' it is going to be difficult to explain how someone has broken it without mentioning the war; but some idea of how rules have been broken would be useful for everyone.

Why not have a list of rules that we all have to sign up to when we join? I know they can't be all-encompassing, but they would be a lot more useful if they were more specific than 'in the spirit of Gransnet' .

Also, a feeling that someone can just be 'disappeared' is unpleasant. We often hear that people are on final warnings, but they never say why. Is that because they have been told not to refer to the warning, or out of embarrassment? Who knows.

FWIW, like sodapop I can guess at why EV was banned - some of her views were old-fashioned and clumsily expressed. But as I remember it, they didn't go unchallenged. Surely seeing a public challenge to a view is more useful (all round) than a private banning?

The definition of clique is an exclusive group who deliberately exclude others. A bit difficult to do on an open forum.
I agree some posters seem to ‘know’ some more than others. I agree with previous posters who say that this comes from finding common ground over time.
I recognise names and feel an affinity with some, by the same token I get a feel for those I probably wouldn’t hit it off with. Doesn’t matter, I’m happy to interact with all and hope others do so with me.
I don’t agree that to carry on chatting aimlessly is rude nor is it used to derail. I personally have done so on this thread to try to keep it calm so that it wasn’t deleted if it became heated and also to keep bumping it so that EV is not forgotten.
I would also agree with sentiments expressed so well by BlueBelle that we are adults with a wealth of experience, most of us have dealt with many difficult situations and coped well. We are not children snd any offensive views can be challenged. Anyone constantly expressing such views would be challenged and hopefully influenced for the better. If not they would soon be ignored by others and eventually disappear.
Personal insults are in poor taste but again can be challenged by others.
I personally feel that posts should stand so that we can judge for ourselves who or what offends us.
Sorry for such a long post but would just like to add that I am happy to join any movement to reinstate any poster who has been banned as a matter of principle.

I don’t agree that to carry on chatting aimlessly is rude nor is it used to derail. I personally have done so on this thread to try to keep it calm so that it wasn’t deleted if it became heated
as several others do, myself included, to diffuse heated situations. Though I do believe there are those who enjoy confrontations.
I think it was once pointed out to me that my old GN name had been confused with EllanVannin. I couldn't see any real resemblance, but just to say I changed it a while back.

Josianne I have sent you a PM.

There are basic standards (I assume), such as:

No racism
No sexism
No homophobia

Probably no swearing, although I've seen it.

It's common sense. This is a public forum. I guess the issue is that we are an older cohort, so there are some who hold out dated beliefs.

But Gagajo you won’t change any outdated beliefs by hiding the post and sending the poster into space perhaps if the outdated ideals were challenged kindly and intelligently that poster might see the whole situation differently
As I ve said before I didn’t see any of the ‘offensive‘ posts but by banishing someone, no one gains They don’t get the opportunity to see another side to their opinion and everyone else is left hanging not knowing if they are right/wrong, punished /hard done by, happy/sad or even alive
It’s a lose/lose situation and needs an overhaul as soon as possible

Well put BlueBelle, that’s my opinion too.

I will add my vote to her reinstatement. If only on the basis that others have been able to some back.

LauraNorderr

Well put BlueBelle, that’s my opinion too.

And mine.

Josianne

^I don’t agree that to carry on chatting aimlessly is rude nor is it used to derail. I personally have done so on this thread to try to keep it calm so that it wasn’t deleted if it became heated^
as several others do, myself included, to diffuse heated situations. Though I do believe there are those who enjoy confrontations.
I think it was once pointed out to me that my old GN name had been confused with EllanVannin. I couldn't see any real resemblance, but just to say I changed it a while back.

I do remember someone asking EllanVannin if she had links to the Isle of Man as Ellan Vannin is the Manx name for that island.

I do think the idea that because you are older you can't have progressive views is something that needs stamping on. Age is no excuse for unacceptable views. Sometimes you might be a little bit behind the times but racism, homoophobia and sexism aren't a product of age, and no one should be permitted to say things just because they are old.

Well put BlueBelle, that’s my opinion too.

And mine.

I agree, trisher, but I think that sometimes it is more a matter of vocabulary or choice of expression than actual views that can cause offence. Older people may have been brought up with terminology that is different from today's, and if they have not been exposed to more current terms they can be inadvertently offensive without having offensive views.

I know it's not an excuse, but it's maybe understandable, and I can't see the advantage in banning someone for using terms that they don't realise are 'wrong'.

Calistemon, there is a lovely song about the island with the words 'My own dear Ellan Vannin with its green hills by the sea.' The Glasgow Phoenix Choir had a gramophone long playing record that included the song.

trisher

I do think the idea that because you are older you can't have progressive views is something that needs stamping on. Age is no excuse for unacceptable views. Sometimes you might be a little bit behind the times but racism, homoophobia and sexism aren't a product of age, and no one should be permitted to say things just because they are old.

Hear, hear.

This comment of course will be shouted down because those accusing GNHQ of being narrow minded are steadfast in their righteous views themselves.

I don''t recall the poster in quesstion. I don't think appealing against something will make any difference, life goes on after all. rules are rules whatever the 'club'

Gransnet has to stay solvent. If the readership dwindles due to unpopular opinions the profits from advertising are less. I daresay the owners of the website (?Mumsnet) are aware of a correlation between older women and material that is unpopular with older women.

It is odd that the management has not seen fit to be more explicit as to the content and the lexicon it will disallow.

Gransnet has to be financially viable. I expect the moderators are aware of a correlation between older women who are computer literate, and material that that would be unpopular with that demographic section.

It is unlikely that anything actually illegal has been posted to Gransnet.

It is a little odd that the moderator has not been explicit as to content and lexicon.

Sorry about the duplicate

rules are rules whatever the 'club'

Well, yes, that's very true, I suppose. But what if those "rules" aren't being enforced fairly? What if, for example; someone is banned for a very obvious and repetitive breach of those rules but then is allowed back? And what if a banned poster doesn't actually know which of the "rules" they breached and so doesn't know where or how they transgressed? And if one banned poster is allowed back, why can't others be? If we're going to have "rules", they either apply to everyone or no one. Which is it?

trisher

I do think the idea that because you are older you can't have progressive views is something that needs stamping on. Age is no excuse for unacceptable views. Sometimes you might be a little bit behind the times but racism, homoophobia and sexism aren't a product of age, and no one should be permitted to say things just because they are old.

I quite agree.
Some of my Dad's comments are a product of his upbringing. He'll say he knows it's wrong, but he can't help some of the thoughts that come into his mind though most of the time he knows better than to say them out loud. If he does speak out of turn we certainly put him straight.

Chewbacca, I think and feel a temporary suspension is adequate as a deterrent.

Before putting the deterrent into action it would be rude and unkind to omit an explanation and advice. One hopes this was done in the case of EV and all posters who havecontravened the rules.

If a poster is actually posting illegal material then that poster should be both excluded and receive an explanation and warning.

I would agree with you Caleo but EllanVannin, like another poster, didn't get temporary suspension, just an immediate ban. One is back. EllanVannin isn't. Why one and not the other?