Rules around banning?

Really bumbley?

I'm just thinking that if people want to make double sure they're not receiving warnings they know nothing about, they can set their PMs to be emailed too.

I wonder how so many other forums manage this?

The flaw in that brilliant plan might be... I've been on MN about a decade, use browser on my pc and app on ipad, and haven't the faintest idea what 'little symbol' is being referred to. I only know i've got a pm if I check my email. I don't think I'm particularly unobservant.

I think it would make more sense - esp if they're just trying to give a warning to calm down/step away or if they've been getting lots of reports. You would see the notification immediately. It could be followed up by the email if they needed to have that as well.

I've suggested that before worra but apparently they can't use PMs for warnings. Something to do with not being able to keep track of them if moderators are sending them from their accounts and are on different shifts iirc. I'm sure there were other reasons too. I must see if I can find the email...

I reckon I could have a wild stab in the dark of what it might have been, based on the name...!!

Whoever said it's made up as it goes along is right.

I guess it's because some people have PMs turned off? Though I'd assume HQ could override that...?

It's a very weird system.

It would make more sense Yonic because obviously HQ are going to want that person to stop doing whatever they're doing immediately.

But even if they do check their emails, they might not do it until the next day (if say they'd already checked that morning).

That's a good idea worra. After jeffreygate I re-rugged with an old student email and don't check it much.

Also I got a PM and the notification didn't arrive in email for 24h or so, it was from another poster so all fine but if someone had got upset by GF, it could look like they were ignoring a warning they hadn't actually received.

Can I make a suggestion? (haven't RTFT so someone might have already said this).

Why don't HQ send any warnings via inbox on here?

Surely I'm not the only one who never checks the email address they signed up with?

If I had a warning, I honestly wouldn't know about it but if the little symbol appeared to say I've got a PM, I'd read it straight away.

Yes, it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'just following talk guidelines'. Some people get posts deleted all the time for breaking guidelines but don't get suspended/banned while others can get suspended without breaking guidelines and/or having only ever had a few posts deleted.

"I am struggling to understand where lines are being drawn at present."

YY.
I've been struggling with this for quite a while now, but lately more than ever.

Yy.

All the while they are surprised long term posters are snapping at them. I don't condone it, but it's understandable.

There isn't any lines drawn, HQ make it up as they go along, it's as simple as that. Which is way a poster who has been here years and snaps once at a goady fucker who has been here 6 months and gets banned with no email or anything (in wannabes case).

It's an absolute joke.

no they didn't purple, but their behaviour suggests otherwise and the manner of trolling was particularly unpleasant. However, it isn't about one particular poster, more an illustration that I am struggling to understand where lines are being drawn at present.

Others can be good people who sometimes call out what they see and they are the ones that get banned.

Spot on.

Because early today I reported someone who actually said they deliberately troll sites using a really unpleasant underhand technique. They are still there, no deletion, no nothing.

Did they say they were trolling this site? Just saying they behave badly elsewhere isn't grounds for deletion. I haven't seen the post you're talking about so I'm not sure if it was deletion worthy. Sometimes it takes a while for MNHQ to delete posts-maybe they're having a busy morning.

I'm really struggling to understand now what is acceptable. Because early today I reported someone who actually said they deliberately troll sites using a really unpleasant underhand technique. They are still there, no deletion, no nothing.

It seems that people can be deliberately goady - say really nasty things about collective groups, yet get away with it. Others can be good people who sometimes call out what they see and they are the ones that get banned. If mn responded quickly to reports, instead of it feeling as though they are just dropping into a black hole, maybe fewer of those who are snapping because nothing gets done would be banned.

I've been despairing at some of the political posts over the past few months.

It's very odd, surely if mnhq think someone is repeatedly being a cunty bollocks they would email a warning or something?

It's very hit and miss, sometimes they send a, "We've had lots of reports" email, sometimes they don't. Depends who's on duty at the time.