Suggestions

Now we have a * new look * GR why not let all the banned members back and if they do not play by the rules :D there gone. ;-)

Presumably those members who have been banned from using the site were banned because they abused the site's rules or terms and conditions.

I'm sorry but I cannot really see why today's largely cosmetic GR site changes should be used as a reason or an excuse for reinstating such members. As far as I am aware the site's rules and its terms and conditions have not been changed.

Sorry you feel like that Jonesey but l still think people should be given a second chance.

I would agree with Jonesy but for one point ( and there are a number of banned members I have very good reason NOT to want back here lol) BUT the point where I have to agree with you Mummo is this:

The powers that be have been horribly inconsistent in who they have banned and for what , 'Concerted reporting' of minor infringements of T & Cs by people who have been provoked beyond endurance has led to the 'wrong' people being banned, and for so much less than those who did the provoking! Some just come back under a different board name anyway, but soon give themselves away by their abusive behaviour..

The decent ones have refused to return in an 'underhand way', so on balance I would rather see all banned members back ...and a last chance given.

Mummo and Rose,

Let me start by saying that I am not one of the "Shoot them all and let God sort them out" Brigade. I also believe that people should normally be given a second chance if there is a possibility of them changing their ways for the better.

I have no personal experience of anyone who has been banned from using GR so therefore I do not know what "Crimes" those who have been banned have been accused of and presumably found guilty of.

Am I misunderstanding something here? I find it a little bit difficult to understand why concerted reporting of minor infringements should lead to a ban. Which party was banned, the reporter or the reported on?

If the former why? If the latter, how minor was minor? I can only presume that at some stage in the proceedings GR issued whichever party it considered was in breach of its rules with a warning that if they did not stop doing whatever it was that they were doing that a ban was likely. Presumably that warning was not heeded and whatever the breach was, it was repeated.

I find it quite sad that GR, which is basically a site for genealogical research and connection to other of ones family members past and present, seems at times to attract people who seem to delight in upsetting others. Fortunately such individuals are very much the minority.

Jonesey...it's difficult to give an exact example without being too specific ..but supposing i were to post sniping remarks at you constantly for weeks on end and after putting up with it as placidly as possible you 'snapped' and told me exactly where to go...who should be banned if GR admin only sees reports of you 'snapping back ' but not the 'provocation'?

As far as inconsistency goes....some terribly abusive posts have remained on the board for days and the poster 'unpunished' , where much less abusive posts have earned an immediate reprimand. One rule for all should apply, but it has seemed at times to depend on who is working in admin at a given time.

Banned members just rejoin with different names so it wont stop people

Have to agree,

If I got banned I would just use my works Email and a different card and come straight back on..

And then its so confusing to work out who they are ....this is half the problem with this site banned members take revenge ...

And before anyone starts I havent changed my name or number I just face the Bl@@dy music which is another reason so many people watch and dont post

Hayley has said on the GR facebook page that it is three strikes and your out so that would indicate that warnings were issued and went unheeded.

They could stop banned members from resigning using a different email address by blocking the ISP address instead.

Yes they could stop it via the I P.

Br

DL

I think GR should consider each new application asking to return on individual merits.

Many bans have come after the person has retaliated to goading. Yes they have broken the rules by their resulting behaviour. But lets not forget those who have continued to wum & got away with it. Those who goad, then sit back, watch the fire burn, then report the fallout, gathering strength from friends who also report the incident.

However if there was a ban due to sexual harrasment or threatening behaviour (not heat of the moment stuff said) then that ban should remain.

But that would mean that they actually had to study the relevant threads and posts before issuing bans and I don't think that happens. That is actually what needs to happen though, for GR to actually look and see what caused the fracas in the first place. Then the right people might be banned.

Mildred thats just what I think

Speaking as a victim of those "concerted" things, which are more properly called vendettas, I can witness to the completely arbitrary and capricious and improper nature of some suspensions that have been imposed.

I was suspended because somebody alleged that my joke about squirrels was an attack on a user of the site whom I'd never heard of. The management's reply to my effort to point out the Shakespearean silliness of the situation was, not to put too fine a point on it, to call me a liar, and to make the false allegation that I had repeatedly "bullied" (or some d*n thing) the user whom I had never heard of.

On the other hand, I know of a couple of people I tried to have banned myself. Their posts were obscene, vulgar and abusive in the extreme, and I had received semi-coherent threatening messages from them.

The people that seem to be in mind in this thread are not them. I don't know anything about the facts of those situations, but from what I know of the posters I think their circumstances were far more in the nature of what has happened to me: they were targeted for extinction by a group whose concern was not the welfare of the site or its users.

Bans have been lifted before, and I do think it would be appropriate for case by case consideration to be given in this case.

We're seeing a bit of a new day at this site and it would be wise for the new management to reconsider some of the old staff's actions and keep a closer eye on how the site is administered by that staff from now on.