Dear administrator,
I understand why you banned Cyberman. I also understand you want to change the content of the fora on CUK and the behaviour of those of us on here.
However, I would like to see him back, once everything has cooled down.
Firstly, would you mind setting down the new rules? Otherwise we are going to see more bannings. For example, despite what you said yesterday, there is already a party thread in General. Unless you make it clear what you want, we cannot easily conform. That is not good for the forum nor fair on us as users.
Second, what Cyberman said is no worse than many of us have said, and far less bad than the football threads usually degenerate into. He was trying to be controversial and it is such controversial statements that makes CUK such a busy place for discussion. So his behaviour was neither extreme nor unbeneficial.
Thirdly, although I disagree with 95% of what Cyberman says, I still think he is entitled to say it. He tends to back up most of what he says with links to news stories or some form of reasoned argument. So he is adding to debate in a cerebral way. CUK has been accused of being a Group-Mind and he is one of the characters that makes that accusation false.
Fourth, Ferret has a good way of moderating: editing out unacceptable content and warning the offender. I should have thought that would have been an appropriate course of action in this instance. Especially since Cyberman's comment was made at midnight; many postings after about 22:30 are less rational and shlightly lesh thougt through <hic>.
Fifth, if that is all it is going to take for a reasonably active member to get banned, it is going to be get pretty quiet and lonely here very quickly. Especially if an alternative site is identified for people to go and play in.
So, would you consider giving Cyberman another chance, once passions have cooled and the new regime of what is to be posted where (and for what post count) is clarified? He then has a chance to change his ways and I suspect he could become a valuable contributor.
Richard Cranium.
I understand why you banned Cyberman. I also understand you want to change the content of the fora on CUK and the behaviour of those of us on here.
However, I would like to see him back, once everything has cooled down.
Firstly, would you mind setting down the new rules? Otherwise we are going to see more bannings. For example, despite what you said yesterday, there is already a party thread in General. Unless you make it clear what you want, we cannot easily conform. That is not good for the forum nor fair on us as users.
Second, what Cyberman said is no worse than many of us have said, and far less bad than the football threads usually degenerate into. He was trying to be controversial and it is such controversial statements that makes CUK such a busy place for discussion. So his behaviour was neither extreme nor unbeneficial.
Thirdly, although I disagree with 95% of what Cyberman says, I still think he is entitled to say it. He tends to back up most of what he says with links to news stories or some form of reasoned argument. So he is adding to debate in a cerebral way. CUK has been accused of being a Group-Mind and he is one of the characters that makes that accusation false.
Fourth, Ferret has a good way of moderating: editing out unacceptable content and warning the offender. I should have thought that would have been an appropriate course of action in this instance. Especially since Cyberman's comment was made at midnight; many postings after about 22:30 are less rational and shlightly lesh thougt through <hic>.
Fifth, if that is all it is going to take for a reasonably active member to get banned, it is going to be get pretty quiet and lonely here very quickly. Especially if an alternative site is identified for people to go and play in.
So, would you consider giving Cyberman another chance, once passions have cooled and the new regime of what is to be posted where (and for what post count) is clarified? He then has a chance to change his ways and I suspect he could become a valuable contributor.
Richard Cranium.
Comment