Due to decreasing use over the years, I have decided to disable the forum functionality of the site.

Forums will still be available to view but new posts are no longer allowed.

On the Branik

NZ Appaloosas May 19, 2009 February 22, 2011

Forums

subject, what is going to be our stance? IIRC, we should be able to put her on a purely moderated status should she wander back into our midst... On another note, I personally would prefer it if Sharon Irwin/Shawin, be prevented from ever joining us again, in light of the letter I had to have my barrister send her a while back...and the potential lawsuit for defamation she is still facing... Diane

lipigirl Sat, 05/30/2009 - 04:56

I missed it all think I might have been in hospital, anyway, I agree that disagreements are not a good enough reason to abn someone, we can't all get on all of the time. However since you can't really swear on the board - think the words wouldn't come up, I do think that if someone becomes abusive to another they should get a warning then a ban if they continue, we want this to be a friendly place.

Someone else said to me that they thought EC was clicky but that is the trouble when we all become like a family - I think we do make an effort to invite new people but we should remember this.

NZ Appaloosas Sat, 05/30/2009 - 05:59

[quote="Jenks"]Blowups should not be a reason to ban someone....I've not agreed with many a person and acted a fool in the past. What is -or are- the rules one must break to be banned specifically? Having a disagreement with a moderator or in front of one is not enough IMO.[/quote]

It's not so much the blow-up, it's the not letting go of a blow-up that's the problem. With Branik, everytime she came on, she specifically would go "for the throat" with certain other members...nothing they said went unchallenged by Branik, and it would eventually start to slide into a tirade of name-calling. THAT's the sort of stuff that needs stopping/preventing. That's one of the reasons I would want Shawin not approved as a member...I can't say something without her coming at me, sooner or later. She's dug up posts I did over a year ago, to try and make out that I don't know what I'm talking about (and the day that someone, who has never met one of my horses and has only seen one black-and-white photocopy of a photograph of him, actually knows more about one of my horses than me or my husband, I'll eat the sofa!).

So, anyhoo, in the matter of preventing known troublemakers to create any sort of scene on here, my vote is that we keep an eye out for them, and stop them before they get a chance to cause trouble.

Diane

Maigray Sat, 05/30/2009 - 06:43

I would agree that Shawin should not come on here. You have said she has interfered in your real life, and once someone crosses that line, they have gone into no-man's land as far as I am concerned. So out of respect for you as a moderator on this board, I would agree with it.

Beyond that, though, I don't think anyone else should be pre-emptively banned. Everyone has done something stupid in the past that they should be allowed to get over. I think this should be a clean slate, and we should be objective as moderators. If someone causes trouble on THIS board, then that is one thing, but other boards or past boards don't need to be a factor.

Also, I guess we all have opinions, but none of us would act without a final word from Daylene anyway, so in the end it is up to her :D

Daylene Alford Sat, 05/30/2009 - 20:46

I agree with Maigray. It does sound to me like we all basically agree on what action needs to be taken if a bad situation where to come up and where to let things take their own course.

I usually only check the board once a day so if something like this comes up I do expect you ladies to handle it. Although it would be nice to post an update here as to what happened and what action was taken. I trust you to make good which is why I made you moderators.

:toast