If you really are that unhappy about it, I'll happily send you some emails....Cougar - Member
I'd get emails from "Colin" rather than a faceless machine?
... I didn't realise I had so many fans.
Sorry, I picked that name at random, if it's actually your name then that's wholly coincidental. You can be Brian instead.
(But, you can't all be)
Cougar +1 on this:
Cougar - Member
I was thinking about this earlier,I'd quite like a bit more transparency and consistency, so that when an infraction of the rules occurs it's clear what's happened and the offender has a chance to make their case before sentence is passed.
I accept that I was arguing my corner on the one thread but no more than on others (in fact a lot less given who I was arguing with 😉 ) and much less than subsequent threads that went unpunished. It does seem a bit random and hence looks like people tread on egg shells for a few days and then revert. There doesn't seem much point in that IMO?
'eck, this thread is now three pages without any real "biff", maybe these bans do work after all!!
Let Fred back in.
Let Fred back in.
😯
Let Fred back in.
Who's to say he's not?
but it'd be nice to know whether replies (apologies / explanations) are ignored, acted on, or at least taken on board.
always replied to me [ wel ldrac has but I have never done more than one e-mail and never really tired to have achat /argument over it - not worth it imho
I'd quite like a bit more transparency and consistency, so that when an infraction of the rules occurs it's clear what's happened and the offender has a chance to make their case before sentence is passed.
Yes true genuis ;ets let peole banned for arguing havea n argument about their ban
TBH i would support it as a forumite but not if I was Mark or a moderator. Not like the argumentative ones will get all humble now is it.
Wunundred!
😉
