Suggestions

GR do seem to be paying more attention to why a post or thread has been reported

witness the fact that a reported post is not removed immediately, but is replaced with "this post reported for review"

and

witness the fact that several posts that I know of have been reinstated after such RR has been reviewed, including several of Janey's.


I also believe that the ones reporting are being tracked ..... and given warnings if RR are shown to be trivial, abusive or harassing. GR has said that is so.



so there does seem to a change in the climate ....... which might well have prevented Hayley's permanent banning and Janey's several suspensions.


I escaped any suspensions, but I did have several postings reported and removed when they were not abusive or whatever. That is one of the reasons why I rarely posted on Chat, until about a year ago when things seemed to have settled down a little bit.


Before that, I seemed to get in the middle of something every time I even looked on the Board.


I was even accused some time ago of being Janey in another guise :-S

I know we live in the same country, thus we usually post at around the same time, but ....................???

We live almost 3000 km away from each other!


In short, I see no reason why someone who was banned as a result of other people's actions should not be allowed to re-apply



But I still think it should be a one chance only.



and people identified as trouble makers and who have conducted vendettas should not be allowed even that one chance. In fact, it would be ideal if GR could develop some means of tracking so that such people cannot return under another ID



sylvia

Just alongside all this -- having been the target of at least three independent campaigns / groups over the years -- I know just how it feels.

The fact that site management is now acknowledging that this goes on -- the amazingly abrupt about-face a couple of weeks ago on the question of abusive post reporting and assurances of attention to the problem -- suggests that a clean slate might be possible.

I've had no apology from site management for all of the mistreatment meted out to me in the past (suspensions imposed because of totally negligent treatment of abusive review requests, being called a liar when I pointed out that the grounds cited for suspending me were based entirely on a false claim about what I had said, etc.). A credit for all the time I had paid for and was denied would be nice. But hey, living well is the best revenge. And I'm the one living well now.

Bygones, whatever. As long as the attitude has changed now and for the future, that will do.

For the suspended ones: no admission from site management of bad management needed, and no admission of misconduct by the members either.

Just a clean slate and a "second chance" not to be interpreted as an admission by either side. ;-)

Everybody agrees to behave (just as a little concession), and management pursues its new-found interest in abusive behaviour by users who are obviously engaged in vendettas.

To be fair TootyFruity, unless you've had an intense campaign (for want of a less dramatic word) persistently aimed at you for a prolonged amount of time I think it's hard to appreciate how difficult it is to remain calm and not to react. I know I did. Especially when appealing to GR doesnt work generally. As I remember Hayley dealt with it with exceptional good humour for a long time.

I guess if it were me I would not bother because, as with those banned, Facebook is available to all and they can stay in touch with their real friends from here. Also, If I had been banned, as I thought unjustly, then I would not want to put my trust in the site supporting me should the same thing happen again.

I guess it comes down to whether a point of principle is worth the possible hassle of a renewed campaign.

If you have been unfairly banned because you have eventually responded to extreme provocation ( as in Hayley's case) do you ask to rejoin and let those who caused it know you 'won't be got at and not come back fighting' lol?

or just say 'it isn't worth the bother, I have better places to be and things to do", and leave the idiots without their target!

Muffy, how many chances should a previously banned member get before their amnesty is revoked? How many chances do you give to a child so that no means no?

If they are RRed then the GR team will look at their posts and make a decision as to whether or not the behaviour is appropriate for their website. A person can only be provoked if they rise to the bait and it is in their power to RR the provoker before it escalates.

These are previously banned members being given not a second chance but a third and as such it should be one more proven inappropriate behaviour and you are out

Like many I have no idea who has been banned or what for what for but limitations should be put in place if they are to return

Fair point I'd say Muffy thought I'm still in a vague mist about it all - that's what happened to Hayley though wasn't it?

One chance for what? To be mass reported and kicked off again?.To be targetted by people spouting lies about your personal life and then getting the boot for defending yourself against them whilst the perpetrators carry on posting?

If I were them I wouldn't waste the £15 or whatever it is to rejoin under those circumstances. x

I'm among the many who have no idea about what went on, who was responsible / not responsible, got banned / left in sympathy, etc etc, apart from threads such as this or on fb


Mainly because this, I believe, all happened on Chat, which was a board I did not visit very often.

I have always spent most of my time on the Genealogy boards, and paid little attention to "spats"


They maybe should be given a second chance ......... with the understanding, as Tooty said, that they have one chance, and one chance only.


but any disruption, and out they go.



Now, if we could only get rid of the pestilences who keep RR perfectly good threads and posts out of spite, fun, or they are bored.



sylvia

Uggers..." I hold one or two grudges but that's mostly cos I don't like the people" that's made me laugh :-D

People must have longer memories than me cos I haven't got a scooby who was banned other than Hayley and I thought that was all sorted ages ago? I hold one or two grudges but that's mostly cos I don't like the people but I'm quite happy to try and ignore/avoid anyone I don't like as I do now.

Does anyone fancy being a bit less vague for those of us who don't keep a notebook on past goings on and who said/ did what? :-D

If there is an amnesty then it should be on a one strike and you are out basis rather than three.

I may be labouring under the delusion that only 3 have been banned? though others left in 'sympathy'.

of those 3, I would be happy to see the one back at anytime, the 2nd had good points though I don't 'like' her, and the feeling is mutual with the third lol......

sorry edited to put in the third lol

edited again because I think there may be a 4th lol

I hope they know Joy......don't answer that......If they do they do and it is their choice not to return, and if they don't, we can tell them :-)


that last sentence needs to be read very carefully lol

I posted this request on genes reunited's page on facebook, not long after the latest revamp of the site, and was told that individuals would have to make personal application.

I for one wouldn't want any malicious person re-instated. I hope my post didn't suggest that I did.

To be blunt -- if some of the banned are who I think they are (as I say, I just *don't know*), I know they have sent malicious PMs to newbies about myself. (That's "know", not suspect: I know who sent PMs.)

If somebody wants to PM me the names of these banned people whose return is requested, then I'll know!

I'm not talking about anybody whose initial is H, but that's the only name I do know in connection with that spate of bannings.

Sometimes JC I never quite know what you are talking about.....not to worry though......I shall have a guess and hopefully come up with the right answer ;-)

And these are *not* the ones who are engaging in the malicious post reporting. ;-)

I was not privy to the events themselves and I don't really even know who the persons are. In fact, I rather suspect that there are a couple of them I was quite happy to see the back of, if they were among the banned.

But I gather there was a vendetta and they were the victims of malice, and that this problem is now seeping into the management consciousness (or at least being acknowledged where it wasn't before), and a rethink might perhaps be in order.

Be allowed to come back home. We miss them and think their penance is a bit harsh considerin the circumstances.

Susan who needs to laugh more but can't cos people are missing :-\ :-\