Tim?

I hope I'm not acting the prima donna. JR does a great job and I'm happy to abide by the rules. But it's quite within any player's remit to request clarification of the interpretation of the rules. Especially the one saying Users should be aware that Pentax User does not generally monitor Forum content. Taking the dispassionate and neutral observer's stance I can't help feeling that it takes two to tango and this whole issue got far too personal far too soon and there is a better way to modify topics that do not prima facia denigrate the site in any way.

I'm disappointed as I'll have to find a new sucker for my next April Fool. I've made my point and therefore whether or not it is considered I'll leave this thread now. I will do so in the knowledge that in the absence of clarification any of my topics may be removed for any reason whatsoever and while I disagree with that I do accept it.

Seems notification works again. Could have been finger trouble on my part and not part of the general conspiracy.

I wasn''t for a moment meaning you. Unlike some other posters, you have been measured, and keen not to jump to conclusions on the basis of hearing one side of the story.

ETA: Apart from the first two sentences, my post was addressed to all and sundry. In fact, especially to sundry.

G

As Hyram said, there are more significant disasters in the world than this. It's been very much a monsoon in a thimble.

G

George, I have heard both sides, I have seen the thread that had been removed, I have seen the series of photos that was linked to.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, it's more like things became more and more apparent as this thread unfolded...

Prieni

Guys, girls, there are two sides to every story.

Let's just leave it to the two sides who really know what happened and the rest of us move on and keep out of it.

As George says 'lifes too short'.

Sorry, but it is too important for me. It's deciding whether PUF is still for me or not. If posts are removed in an instant without prior notice and members banned for voicing criticism then this is not the place for me.

Of course the mods have the right to do as they see fit at their discretion, as spelled out in the rules. But I, as every other member, have the freedom to stay or leave. And for me it is important that the moderation is carried out responsibly and fairly.

Prieni

Ralf, I think the simple fact that this thread is allowed to continue shows that the Mods are taking a responsible and fair view of things.
The subject has been pretty much done to death now don't you think?

Only you can decide whether or not you wish to stay with PU or not, but I think the banning of Tim should not influence that decision unduly.

If he had reacted in a calm, sensible, and dare I say it an adult manner to his initial temporary ban he would have been able to return. Instead he turned on the bully mode (something he was very good at incidentally) and then behaved in a very stupid childish way, earning his total ban.

I hope you choose to stay, I shall be sorry if you go, but please don't let this single incident get any more attention, or influence you too much.

George
More metaphors please
This issue is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Regards
Chris

I haven't read all of this thread - life is too short - but I got the gist of it.

Misunderstandings happen on the internet that probably wouldn't happen between the same people if they were communicating in person.
Forums are imperfect places and nobody is going to agree with everything, and moderators have a thankless task.

If John and Tim wish to make up or not then I suggest they are left to do that by themselves, and they don't really need our advice.

I also suggest we all go and have a nice cup of tea and then go and do some photography

Best Regards

The other 'Tim'

I think Wales were robbed in the game vs. South Africa, but the referee's decision is final. I don't hear them complaining about what would have been an epic win. They're just focussing on their next game!!

If you stay - great. If you go - it'll be a loss. Your decision, but either way life goes on.

(Bu**er! Now I'm getting drawn into this thread. I'm as bad as all the rest of you MUST GET A LIFE:roll

How so? If they would lock this thread things were a bit too obvious. That's how I read it anyway.

Unduly? As I said, for me it is important whether moderation is carried out in a fair and transparent manner or not.

I do agree that he earned the total ban by clearly breaking the rules. I'm sure he did that knowingly. In fairness it has to be said that he had no other way of voicing his view of matters in this forum. That's the downside of banning people, you take their right of defence away from them. That is why a ban is such a serious issue. In real life an accused can answer to the accusations.

And this is also the root of the problem. Let's assume for a moment that the ban was not justified. What could he have done without breaking the rules? Calmly and sensibly sit out the seven days and come back pretending all is well? Well, I for one understand why he was not prepared to adopt this cause of action.

For me an unjustified temporary ban is permanent in everything but the name. How could you return to a forum that issues it's second highest punishment unfairly?

As things stand I doubt that I will stay.

But I guess you are right in that the subject has been exhausted and there will be no more explanations of the moderators (whoever they are) on their actions.

Prieni

Absolutely. And I accept that. However, I can go to the replay and judge the situation by myself. I can decide whether it was the right decision, an obviously wrong decision or a close call that was difficult to make.

No replay here, I have to take the referees word that his decision was right. Quite a difference, don't you think?

Prieni

I came to the conclusion it was not but i missed some of you guys too much so i returned.

Ralf,

Tim didn't get banned for 7 days until he had earned that ban.

Whether or not Tim agreed with JR's initial action, there was no need to escalate the issue. He could have discussed it calmly by PM, and at the end agreed to differ. At that stage he DID have a right to reply, and he abused it.

You are making out that a great injustice has been done. It hasn't.

To be banned, you have to seriously overstep the mark.

I have, in seven years, never known somebody to be banned who didn't deserve it.

As I said, this is the Internet. It's not life or death.

G