Some users are asking me not to hijack other threads with this topic so I'll create my own thread for it here . Let's have a poll
Right so that means you deleted Barry's posts yourself with no outside interference. If that's true then it's good to know the Trust doesn't have influence here, but it still doesn't explain why you've been lying to people and claiming you know nothing about it. Time to fess up mods?
If it were my site and I thought that something might get me into bother I might also delete it in a bit of a panic.
I don't think that there is anything to be ashamed at doing so if that was the reason, I would say why I had done it as well.
I would be gan radge to the server folk if they had deleted information from my site without my consent however.
I wouldn't bother though if I knew beforehand that they would just say to me 'you know fine well what happened to the missing posts'.
I don't think that there is anything to be ashamed at doing so if that was the reason, I would say why I had done it as well.
I would be gan radge to the server folk if they had deleted information from my site without my consent however.
I wouldn't bother though if I knew beforehand that they would just say to me 'you know fine well what happened to the missing posts'.
I was just thinking, seriously - do the law have the permission to access sites on their own accord and delete things that they consider not acceptable?
Maybe the law would have to mention it, another thing is - could The Trust have contacted the people who do the site directly and have them remove anything they deem unsavoury by threatening them with legal issues?
These might be bollocks and not lawful
Maybe the law would have to mention it, another thing is - could The Trust have contacted the people who do the site directly and have them remove anything they deem unsavoury by threatening them with legal issues?
These might be bollocks and not lawful
I was just thinking, seriously - do the law have the permission to access sites on their own accord and delete things that they consider not acceptable?
No. They would need to serve a notice to the site admins asking them to take it down.
Maybe the law would have to mention it, another thing is - could The Trust have contacted the people who do the site directly and have them remove anything they deem unsavoury by threatening them with legal issues?
They wouldn't need to mention it to us, the users of the forum, but they would need to inform the admins.
No. They would need to serve a notice to the site admins asking them to take it down.
Maybe the law would have to mention it, another thing is - could The Trust have contacted the people who do the site directly and have them remove anything they deem unsavoury by threatening them with legal issues?
They wouldn't need to mention it to us, the users of the forum, but they would need to inform the admins.
The mods now appear to have deleted another thread by another user which mentions Barry's posts.
I'm sorry, but the mods on here are liars. And it really is that simple. Some people have criticized me saying that, one user said they found it "disgusting". I see nothing wrong or disgusting in calling liars out on their lies. I am happy to call the mods liars and can I suggest if they don't like that, then maybe they should stop lying to people.
I'm sorry, but the mods on here are liars. And it really is that simple. Some people have criticized me saying that, one user said they found it "disgusting". I see nothing wrong or disgusting in calling liars out on their lies. I am happy to call the mods liars and can I suggest if they don't like that, then maybe they should stop lying to people.
Nine months after this issue was first publicly discussed on the forums, the mods still don't seem ready to admit they got rid of Barry's posts.
I've always thought that "Mod X" was CCU but now I'm wondering if it could be that scouser. One thing is for sure, the "software glitch" explanation is bullshit
I've always thought that "Mod X" was CCU but now I'm wondering if it could be that scouser. One thing is for sure, the "software glitch" explanation is bullshit
Some questions for Merseyside Blue.
Why Can't Kes be a moderator?
You were given this site and is it not a site for the fans by the fans so is it a closed shop?
I would prefer that you answer on this thread please as I wouldn't want to interrupt the other threads and clog them up although ignoring things may lead to this being essential.
Why Can't Kes be a moderator?
You were given this site and is it not a site for the fans by the fans so is it a closed shop?
I would prefer that you answer on this thread please as I wouldn't want to interrupt the other threads and clog them up although ignoring things may lead to this being essential.
You were given this site and is it not a site for the fans by the fans so is it a closed shop?
Or we stepped up when nobody else was interested, and for over five and half years have funded it ourselves…
Or we stepped up when nobody else was interested, and for over five and half years have funded it ourselves…
And for the most part you have done a good job. But deleting Barrys posts because the Trust asked you to was inappropriate. You are not an "independent" forum like you claim.
You were given this site and is it not a site for the fans by the fans so is it a closed shop?
Or we stepped up when nobody else was interested, and for over five and half years have funded it ourselves…
No offence CCU but it was MerseyBlue I asked.
So just like John Nixon - do you see the value of your token gesture payments being worth something significant now then after five years?
Everything good that you and Mouldy do on here CCU is undone by the others.
Everything good that you and Mouldy do on here CCU is undone by the others.
The way the mods have persistently lied to the members of this forum about what happened to Barry's posts hasn't helped. Not having the guts to own up loses them a lot of respect, regardless of any positives they do.
Or we stepped up when nobody else was interested, and for over five and half years have funded it ourselves…
And for the most part you have done a good job. But deleting Barrys posts because the Trust asked you to was inappropriate. You are not an "independent" forum like you claim.
I suggest you read the following carefully Kessler:
You have been told several times on here, and at least a couple more via the CUSG Q’s that we have never deleted Post’s at the request of others, least of all CUOSC.
Bored of it now, mainly as you’re basically accusing me of lying (something you once said you don’t think I do?!). So, repeat that accusation again, and don’t be surprised if you find yourself unable to login…
It is pretty tiresome though when the decent two moderators are doing their best but the other moderators who are never seen just appear every now and then to act like 'Internet Hardmen' because they have the power to ban someone.
Luckily Mullen see's the funny side of things because MB's behaviour yesterday as a moderator was a disgrace.
Luckily Mullen see's the funny side of things because MB's behaviour yesterday as a moderator was a disgrace.
Bored of it now, mainly as you’re basically accusing me of lying (something you once said you don’t think I do?!). So, repeat that accusation again, and don’t be surprised if you find yourself unable to login…
Barry's account is disabled and all of his posts have disappeared. Last October you told us you didn't know what happened but would look into it. Nine months later we've heard nothing more about this from yourselves. All questions regarding whether Barry can register again or whether you can restore his account have been deflected or outright ignored. Do you not see how such behaviour from yourselves might lead people to wonder whether they can believe you?
Bored of it now, mainly as you’re basically accusing me of lying (something you once said you don’t think I do?!). So, repeat that accusation again, and don’t be surprised if you find yourself unable to login…
Barry's account is disabled and all of his posts have disappeared. Last October you told us you didn't know what happened but would look into it. Nine months later we've heard nothing more about this from yourselves. All questions regarding whether Barry can register again or whether you can restore his account have been deflected or outright ignored. Do you not see how such behaviour from yourselves might lead people to wonder whether they can believe you?
The day is nigh, the ban is inbound. All rejoice.
Put yourself in my shoes CCU. You've asked someone to give their version of events, and the explanation they give doesn't quite add up. You give them a further opportunity to clarify those details, but they refuse, and get very evasive and defensive. At that point in time, would you trust their explanation or would you be very skeptical?
The day is nigh, the ban is inbound. All rejoice.
Nothing in that post is an accusation.
Put yourself in my shoes Kessler. It’s actually none of your business…
Then don't act all offended at the idea someone might doubt your version of events and threaten to abuse your moderator powers to silence them.
don’t be surprised if you find yourself unable to login…
If I'm "unable to login" it won't be because of any connectivity or technical issues, it will be because the mods have banned me.
You’re learning…
My account kept getting briefly banned a couple of weeks ago, and every time I emailed the mods to mention it the account was suddenly unbanned and I got nothing but denial from the mods, who even suggested it could be a connectivity issue on my side. So if I suddenly stop posting and disappear, and the mods suggest it could be connection issues, people will know what's really happened.
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Online Users
pigeonpete
, Markovitch
, Mullen103
, trevortrevorswinburne
, Ibogaine
, Stamfordblue
, Poopdeck
, Wukkie
, Mush
, Tom
, beefsister
, Dancingbear
, deepfathom
, Laffy
, Highland Blue
, Roneca
, redders71
, Accyblue
and 435 other guests