Disappearing contributers

Wyllow3

Oreo

Me too Galaxy
And it wasn’t a banning this morning Wyllow3 and you are wrong in any case.

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about actually, I haven't been in much for a couple of days just now and then. I suppose I was mainly saying that broadly I do trust GNHQ.

Broadly so do I but they got things very wrong in this case imo.

Whitewavemark2

I know that is what GCHQ want you to do DAR, but sometimes we don’t need our hands held and can deal with it perfectly adequately.

That is also true.

I do know who has been banned. I don’t understand what she did to cause this. Many posters here share the view that’s she’s a long standing poster. I don’t like conspiracy theories but sometimes it does feel a poster is banned as a consequence of underhand reporting

Are we allowed to ask which thread the banning happened as a result of without invoking GN admins wrath, or has the thread been deleted?
I don’t know who has been banned, but I do agree that reporting people is nearly always the wrong thing to do, unless they have seriously broken the guidelines, and that if you do report, you should have the courage of your convictions and say that you have done so on the thread.

On MN when a poster was banned ( feminist, worked in safeguarding - targeted by those who didn't like safeguarding) all the feminists changed their name to a version of her name. It was very funny, if entirely pointless, my MN name is still a version of her name. I am not sure GN will let me play that padticular game.

I know that is what GCHQ want you to do DAR, but sometimes we don’t need our hands held and can deal with it perfectly adequately.

petra

Norah

I've no idea who has been banned recently. Perhaps the person is ill, partner/family is ill or dead? Or perhaps they were patronising and a know all?

Things come to light, eventually.

She’s not ill. She has been banned.

Thank you, I'm glad they're not ill.

Regardless, no idea who they are or if I've read their posts.

I’m not sure preventing the persons name being posted is a terribly sensible thing by GCHQ.

M0nica

Given our age group, some people disappear because they have died. Sometimes a family member posts the news, but, I think, mainly they do not.

That and perhaps a change of circumstances or health Monica, all are possible.

What I do not think happens is someone reporting "you as soon as they spot the slightest word you have written that annoys them" [Primrose53] causes a ban. It depend on how GNHQ see it, not on how the person reporting sees it.

We do get differing reactions to the reporting system. As I understand GNHQ would rather you "report than reply" if someone seems to have moved to attacking the person rather than the subject. I could be wrong but you do have to ask "why attack people when we are here for a discussion?" The subject matter is what is important. Not everyone will agree with you, nor should they. Some of us will never agree but we are old enough to deal with that in an adult way - or we should be.

Norah

I've no idea who has been banned recently. Perhaps the person is ill, partner/family is ill or dead? Or perhaps they were patronising and a know all?

Things come to light, eventually.

She’s not ill. She has been banned.

Well, I, too, have no idea who has been banned, so no idea what brought it about.

The person banned is a lovely, caring person and I really can’t imagine why she was banned. She has been here a long time. As with others, I don’t want to name her but I just hope her case will be reviewed.

I've no idea who has been banned recently. Perhaps the person is ill, partner/family is ill or dead? Or perhaps they were patronising and a know all?

Things come to light, eventually.

Thanks for trying Iam64.

I started a thread, named the now banned poster. It was removed by Gransnet

Finding not founding. I should be banned for typos.

I actually generally trust them as well. But I am founding it really weird and quite uncomfortable at the moment.

Oreo

Me too Galaxy
And it wasn’t a banning this morning Wyllow3 and you are wrong in any case.

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about actually, I haven't been in much for a couple of days just now and then. I suppose I was mainly saying that broadly I do trust GNHQ.

Silvershadow

I’ve no idea what this is all about or who is missing. Generally it’s on the news and politics that this happens. I avoid for the most part but admit to starting a thread about Peter Murrell yesterday, which is still going, so can’t be that one!

Trouble is, one or two are vociferous, patronising and know alls and woe betide if you say something they find offensive. Not everyone will, but they do. Ping, reported.

Everybody is entitled to their views. Not everyone will agree and isn’t that life? Why else are there so many political parties across the UK? If everyone agreed, there wouldn’t be would there.

I don't know who has been banned either, but I do agree that there are posts that appear patronising, even insulting, and yet the posters concerned seem very quick to report posts that they claim to find offensive. I've never reported anyone, as I would rather see posts and make my own mind up as to whether they really are offensive or not.

Perhaps we could ask those very handy with the report button, approach it in a different way.

If something posted is offensive, then maybe someone who is intent on reporting might give that person the opportunity to retract their post? Or at least repost in a less offensive manner.

That would serve two purposes, it would make clear who felt offended and who did the apparent offending.

Of course some people like the anonymity which to my mind shows a moral cowardice. But tbh I think most people have a good idea who is likely to be doing the reporting.

Wyllow3

PhilipGransnet

Hello everyone, just a quick note from GNHQ: while we cannot discuss individual posters with other GNers, on this thread or via email, what we can say is that we do not ban posters arbitrarily - there is a process. And unless a poster is an obvious spammer or a troll they are afforded many opportunities to adhere to our guidelines before we would ban.
Pip.

What I've always thought.

Some people decide they have had enough or leave for entirely different reasons.

Those who have been just warned and are well known posters often PM other GN's to let them know and whether to tell everyone online or not.

(I'm not aware of this mornings banning so honestly I have no idea)

But you'd maybe have had to have read all the posts by the banned person across threads to try and understand why GNHQ did it?

I prefer to see stuff left in unless its a very nasty personal attack indeed.

A great many of us have read the posts put up by the banned member over the many years she has been a member.
Btw. I was suspended for a week for calling out a BOT.

Me too Galaxy
And it wasn’t a banning this morning Wyllow3 and you are wrong in any case.

I have emailed them. I am not sure will have any impact but hey ho. I am finding GN quite weird at the moment.

PhilipGransnet

Hello everyone, just a quick note from GNHQ: while we cannot discuss individual posters with other GNers, on this thread or via email, what we can say is that we do not ban posters arbitrarily - there is a process. And unless a poster is an obvious spammer or a troll they are afforded many opportunities to adhere to our guidelines before we would ban.
Pip.

What I've always thought.

Some people decide they have had enough or leave for entirely different reasons.

Those who have been just warned and are well known posters often PM other GN's to let them know and whether to tell everyone online or not.

(I'm not aware of this mornings banning so honestly I have no idea)

But you'd maybe have had to have read all the posts by the banned person across threads to try and understand why GNHQ did it?

I prefer to see stuff left in unless its a very nasty personal attack indeed.

I’ve no idea what this is all about or who is missing. Generally it’s on the news and politics that this happens. I avoid for the most part but admit to starting a thread about Peter Murrell yesterday, which is still going, so can’t be that one!

Trouble is, one or two are vociferous, patronising and know alls and woe betide if you say something they find offensive. Not everyone will, but they do. Ping, reported.

Everybody is entitled to their views. Not everyone will agree and isn’t that life? Why else are there so many political parties across the UK? If everyone agreed, there wouldn’t be would there.