reginaldon
Well-Known Member
Am I in order in starting a 'Reinstate Mad Frankie' thread or will it culminate in my expulsion?
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
'Reinstate Mad Frankie?'
- Thread starter reginaldon
- Start date
Searush
Well-Known Member
I am definitely up for that - even if it means he has to rise under a new identity to fool the hounds of hell - or is it cheveaux de la mare?
pessimist
Well-Known Member
No idea whether you're in or out of order but you have my support.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
I am a Mad Frankie fan.
There! I said it.
There! I said it.
KevB
Well-Known Member
me too
sarabande
Well-Known Member
Let him out !
I'm up for bringing back madfranky & kicking Dan out.....very very dissapointed.
Richard Shead
Slipped Anchor
Yes thats
a good idea....kick Dan out, I cant actually get near him today or yesterday for that matter as he is having to go through 100s of posts to sort this.
Do I think this is a good use of a senior member of staffs time?
Sorry
I'm up for bringing back madfranky & kicking Dan out.....very very dissapointed.
a good idea....kick Dan out, I cant actually get near him today or yesterday for that matter as he is having to go through 100s of posts to sort this.
Do I think this is a good use of a senior member of staffs time?
Sorry
FullCircle
Well-Known Member
I think it may have been a bit harsh Dan. I support a sin-binning and return.
Robin
Well-Known Member
Not our fault. It isn't a good use of our time either as perhaps contrary to popular opinion some of us do work also.
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
I think peeps should be thankfull that the only person banned was MadFrankie.....
That thread was one of the nastiest most defamatory things I have read in a long time... there were at least two other posters who put up material that was clearly defamatory and actionable...
MadFrankie was a new poster who had not contributed anything else to this place, and he got everyone wound up something chronic....If he had been a more widespread contributor then I doubt he would have gotten banned... but I think taking the petrol from the fire was probably the best bet.. as the other solution would have been the banning of at least 2 popular members here I suspect.
There is a debate that needs to be engaged in... but there were several peeps who were not engaging in debate, just mouthing off. Go back... look at all the posts.. and tell me that that was a reasonable debate.
People need to be very carefull about what they say... if the other person is not annoymous, then you need to be very carefull not to engage in personal insults... ST44 was being clearly ID'd by everyone in sight... as such he was capable of suffering a defamation and a loss, (given his position in the SHT.)
I can think of no reason why IPC should spend money on defending a defamation action when doing so will add nothing to their bottom line.
I think that the lesson here is very clear... if you want to engage in debate, then do so, but this needs to be reasonable and reasoned. If your "Style" of debate is to be abusive, then expect to land in the ****.
That thread was one of the nastiest most defamatory things I have read in a long time... there were at least two other posters who put up material that was clearly defamatory and actionable...
MadFrankie was a new poster who had not contributed anything else to this place, and he got everyone wound up something chronic....If he had been a more widespread contributor then I doubt he would have gotten banned... but I think taking the petrol from the fire was probably the best bet.. as the other solution would have been the banning of at least 2 popular members here I suspect.
There is a debate that needs to be engaged in... but there were several peeps who were not engaging in debate, just mouthing off. Go back... look at all the posts.. and tell me that that was a reasonable debate.
People need to be very carefull about what they say... if the other person is not annoymous, then you need to be very carefull not to engage in personal insults... ST44 was being clearly ID'd by everyone in sight... as such he was capable of suffering a defamation and a loss, (given his position in the SHT.)
I can think of no reason why IPC should spend money on defending a defamation action when doing so will add nothing to their bottom line.
I think that the lesson here is very clear... if you want to engage in debate, then do so, but this needs to be reasonable and reasoned. If your "Style" of debate is to be abusive, then expect to land in the ****.
Searush
Well-Known Member
Sorry, Richard. I understand your distress, but we didn't set the rules. Perhaps we should set up a seperate group elsewhere to sort out a plan of action.
I may well come back to follow this through when I hear from one or two fellow forumites.
Steve Kean
Pity he did'nt go through the posts before making his decision....seems to me that there are principles at stake here that deserve all our attension.(& not just a little bit of financial investment by you if necessary since it is your livelyhood that depends on it).
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
Poor Dan is on the horns of a dilemma, don't knock him.
I suppose I didn't follow the thread all that closely, but I didn't see this nasty defamatory stuff that Photodog refers to - or maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.
haydude
Well-Known Member
This practice of banning users not only is childish but also dangerous.
I quote one of the Presidents of my country:
"Even if I disagree with you I would give my life fighting if that was necessary to ensure that you can express your views and opinion freely!"
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
This is all very disquieting to one who has in no way been involved with the spat.
- from one who was banned from a cruising forum on the other side of the Herring Pond - for asking - in all innocence why it was that their fora were so much less popular than the one's based in the UK: was it because we were more garrulous or given to controversy - found them to be a mirthless lot, who were ultra-sensitive to anything that could be interpreted as criticism. We don't want to go down that road! Long live free speech as long as no one is personally injured by it, however rackets should be exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, I,m pasting what I put on another thread in this forum.
By all means keep it lively - and keep it (reasonably)sweet!
- from one who was banned from a cruising forum on the other side of the Herring Pond - for asking - in all innocence why it was that their fora were so much less popular than the one's based in the UK: was it because we were more garrulous or given to controversy - found them to be a mirthless lot, who were ultra-sensitive to anything that could be interpreted as criticism. We don't want to go down that road! Long live free speech as long as no one is personally injured by it, however rackets should be exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, I,m pasting what I put on another thread in this forum.
By all means keep it lively - and keep it (reasonably)sweet!
I think photodogs being a bit of a big girls blouse.Madfranky's facts spoke for themselves & I have been very impressed by other peoples resoning in here.
You cannot just dismiss them all that lightly (in my opinion).
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
Yeah, thats great, a excellent sentiment. Unfortunatley we are not in the US, the servers are in the UK and therefore we are publishing this in the UK... and the stuff that is posted on the site is subject to the same laws in regards to libel and defamation that apply to any other method of publishing in the UK.
This is the downside of "User Generated Content"... very few people here are trained and qualified journalists or solicitors. so they dont know beans about the law in regards to this.
Folks come in here and think that they are sitting around some fire in the pub, were they can slag off to their hearts content. But this is not your pub, this is publishing. When you write something down and post it in public, you need to THINK about it...
There are a few folks here who are consistently not doing this... and in the current climate, they are gonna get banned.
If people want to do something about this, then they should address the UK libel Laws, This place is not some bastion of free speech and liberalism that exists outside of reach of UK lawmakers... we have to live with it.
As Elton said; Its aint a democracy, Get used to it.
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
I have no truck with the arguement, and I dont think that any of MF's posts were the problem.... There were several other posts put up by other folks which were bad news for IPC... It was just easier to ban MF, as he started the thread and was feeding the fire, than to lose the long standing forum members who were causing the problem.
The thread was actionable, no doubt about that IMO.. (But that is based on my experience as a journalist and owner of a Press Agency and a contributor to the national newspaper, versus as a lawyer..) so I have no doubt that there may be some debate in regards to my opinion.
