Tim?

Indeed, proving we can learn from each other after all. This has been the most constructive conversation we've had Smeggy, a pleasure to exchange thoughts.

Still at a loss as to what the original ban, which 'necessitated' the slew of fake identities, was for or what could have possibly justified it. Because the ban was in place before any of that took place. 'Ours is not to wonder why'?

I am actually even more confused now. I started to follow this thread from the first few posts and I was under the impression that all the multiple user account posts happened after the ban, and therefore not the reason for it. I thought that Tim's ban was related to making a post in the wrong place, which I thought at the time sounded a bit severe! It would now appear that that wasn't the reason and I have even less idea what it was all about. Then another longstanding member (Robbie) appears to get banned with even less explanation. I am a relative newcomer to this site but have started to visit, upload images, and post more regularly as it seems a friendly, well run and helpful place, with a great bunch of people. However, I have to say this whole episode gives me an uneasy feeling. I have seen some massive - on forums that have finally resulted in bans, but the reason has always been obvious, either because the threads are there for all to see, albeit locked or commented, or some sort of statement to indicate which forum rule has been breached. In this case each attempt to add clarity seems to add more suspicion

Doug. For the sake of confidentiality I have not mentioned you. You have chosen to reveal yourself and to spike speculation I must defend myself.

You accused me of threatening you. The concept of threatening another member of this forum is too ludicrous to contemplate. What did I threaten you with? Being over four hundred miles away how could I carry out any conceived threat?

My PP never mentioned the word threat. I did warn you that there could be consequences if you go too close to the wire in your postings.

You chose to go crying into the mods apron for sympathy and, I suspect, retribution. Out of your own mouth on this forum you have confessed to being a reactionary. Sure you are. This time tou over- reacted

JR gave me a warning. I told him his warning had no substance and that I would disregard it.

End of matter as far as I was concerned. Holding grudges is for the playground not on an adult forum.

That is an explanation for that mysterious comment, John. You are not in a position to tell the story, but I have.

Let it rest Doug, and move on.

Fair enough comments crossed-up, it must seem very strange. Also confusing and just a bit repetitive now.

We don't normally discuss moderation in public, and we can see why. Still, I was trying to be fair, but there we go.

Robbie had a long history of warnings, even a previous 7 day ban and the latest escapade was the final straw. There's no doubt about this one at all and we are all agreed here.

Tim is another matter and as you have now understood, the original issue was not a banning one. All the threads attacking PU were the issue. Yes, the multiple identities did come after the ban didn't they. They pretty much clinched it though, although i shall still probably make enquiries after 7 days as originally planned.

If I do that I will remove this thread as there's no point rubbing it in so to speak. Despite the severest provocation I really have an open mind on that. Things get forgotten very quickly, so as far as I'm concerned it's back to business as usual.

Are you sure the 'amok' wasn't catalysed by the way you moderated the issue in the first place?

If Tim's testimony below is true then it looks to the rest of us that he created a succession of accounts in order to both get his side of the story across and to vent some anger out after being silenced/punished so quickly and severely with a 7 day ban, and then following his accounts a permanent ban.

While Typing this I referred to this thread and have seen a link to Tim's blog and your last reply. I would respectfully suggest that deleting or locking this thread will only make things worse.

It's out in the open now, you have to let it come to a close naturally.

Tim can post whatever he likes on his own blog, my only interest is what he posts here.

When I mentioned removing this thread I was actually meaning to make it easier for Tim to return after the 7 day ban, if he wanted to. Obviously he may not want to.

In future we will revert to the principle of not discussing moderation in public, because whatever is said someone takes it the wrong way and has to see a conspiracy where there is none.

I have tried to tell you as much as I can and without actually publishing a mass of complete PMs, some of which might well give you pause for thought, I don't see that we can accomplish any more. It seems even Richard's effort to crerate peace is viewed with suspicion, which is so far of the mark it's tragic.

No they don't John. They get remembered for a long long time. I know this from running my own forum that every action you make as a moderator all adds or substracts to your reputation brownie points

Then I shall rephrase that to say I don't hold grudges, nor does PU as a whole. If something is resolved, it's forgotten.

And of course i don't mean literally forgotten, our memories aren't that bad, but I mean the slate is wiped clean.

I'm sure this has gone far enough now. Those who are genuinely concerned, I would tell you more if i could. Those who have agendas of their own, well, why waste time away like that.

One post deleted Smeggy, no need to broaden the discussion any more, enough is enough.

Just deleting something you're uncomfortable with is exactly why you're getting the criticism you're getting John.

I just asked what was wrong with a thread showing a fun photography stunt?

I'm not uncomfortable with it, but it's definitely off topic.

Now we need to call a halt and move on to other things.

Another one deleted

Why do you keep deleting these posts John?

Because it's now time to stop. There's a certain point beyond which it becomes unreasoable, and we're there. You've had your say, now that's enough.

You have a PM, as does gareth. Take it there.