DonabatePortrane.net

Ok, so someone posts that they think it's dangerous for a 5 year old to be out talking to strangers unsupervised and suddenly they get attacked from all angles?

Phheeww, can you see my house from that high horse you're on Mr Stupid?

bear wrote:ken locking the post ? Is it you dont like other opinions so you throw your toys out of your pram ?

People's opinions of a situation are fine, it's attacking each other that will cause threads to be locked.

bear wrote:ken locking the post ? Is it you dont like other opinions so you throw your toys out of your pram ?

That's unfair. I'm a moderator here and gave no indication that I was upset about anyone disagreeing with me. We generally live and let live here when it comes to moderation, but draw the line at personal attacks. This was an interesting thread, but we can't have people insulting each other.

no one got vulgar we all have opinions or do we walk on egg shells in case some ones feelings get hurt

bear wrote:no one got vulgar we all have opinions or do we walk on egg shells in case some ones feelings get hurt

Your second post ever on this forum was insulting someone;

to let the child wander again kids can find there way out could have been a number of reasons i think the first poster is the real mr stupid

As I said, opinions of a situation are fine, there's no need for personal insults.

thanks for keeping count of my posts but can the first poster not speak for themselves if i offended them and they let me know i will be only too happy to rectify the matter or have you elected yourself as their spokesman ?

Beware, keyboard warrior at work!!!!!!! LOL

keyboard warrior ?

bear banned for a week for abusive behavior towards other forum members. We didn't want to get into this game, but if you want to insult someone in place of conversation, go back to the old forum.

I think a similar thread on boards.ie would have been slated for being nothing more than a pointless rant and the OP would have got a lot more criticism unless it was in the "after hours" in which case the OP would just got a load of slagging.

I think if you are going to get into banning you should at least have a charter and an appeals section like boards.ie.

Otherwise, I see people leaving this forum going back to the old one or else setting up donabateportrane.org.

Mr. Stupid wrote:I think a similar thread on boards.ie would have been slated for being nothing more than a pointless rant and the OP would have got a lot more criticism unless it was in the "after hours" in which case the OP would just got a load of slagging.

I think if you are going to get into banning you should at least have a charter and an appeals section like boards.ie.

Otherwise, I see people leaving this forum going back to the old one or else setting up donabateportrane.org.

A charter is a great idea, we'll look into that. And he has the option to appeal directly to a mod via PM.

Hold on a minute. This isn't boards.ie where there are thousands of members spanning hundreds of individual forums. This a community website set up, run and supported by a small number of people who's intentions are very admirable indeed. Most of the people who post here might not personally know another member but would probably know them to see. I don't think we need a charter. But we do need people to be civil and respectful others and that comes nothing more than simple common sense. If someone gets banned for the sort of indiscretions witnessed earlier then they only have themselves to blame. If they don't like the sanction they've earned themselves, they can go troll and rant somewhere else.

Here here

Derek wrote:But we do need people to be civil and respectful others and that comes nothing more than simple common sense.

That's exactly what I intended a charter to say. I completely agree that a rule book is not needed, but when you have some muppet questioning why he was banned, there should be something to point to.

"have some muppet questioning why he was banned"

Thats abusive. Ban yourself for a week maybe?

Absolutely. Attack the post not the poster.

This banning thing is absolutely ridiculous and speaks more of the Mod than the percieved crime. In any online discussion dirt gets thrown about. A moderator's job is to keep it within reasonable bounds, none of which were exceeded in this case. Its like the Mod had a yellow card in his pocket and was itching to use it.

And if this reads that I am attacking the moderator, I am.

Problem with the old site was it was not moderated - problem with this site looks like it is going to be over-moderated.

It's not easy being a moderator/admin. If someone was itching to levy a ban, it would have been done long before now. We're just trying to get a balance and have the forum as a place where everyone can have their say without fear of personal attack.

Both Steve (Bill) and myself spend a lot of time on the forum. As mods/admins, we have to read every post and delete and ban spammers. We get a lot of spam which is dealt with quickly so mostly not seen by users.

If anyone else wants to volunteer their services to moderate the forum they are more than welcome as we could do with the help.

BTW, I don't read the "muppet" comment above as referring to the banned poster.

bland wrote:"have some muppet questioning why he was banned"

Thats abusive. Ban yourself for a week maybe?

True and apologies. I guess frustration creeped out, won't happen again, I shall now ban myself for a week.

I found this post so utterly ridiculous that I felt compelled to sign up just to comment. The facts of the matter are irrelevant...a young child should not be unsupervised full stop. I get the impression that bear and mr stupid probably dont have kids, and that if they do their other halves do the child rearing, because I can safely say that if any responsible parent realised their child had "wandered off" they would be out the door immediately to find them. It's not like the OP dashed off asap...they waited incase such an incident had indeed occurred. As for not attacking the poster...i think some people need to re-evaluate their understanding of the term "attack." It is crazy to attack a concerned member of the community in favour of an obviously irresponsible parent...well unless, of course, you are one yourself???

Well there are a few possibilities:
1. Parents are negligent, child is danger as you describe. Estuarine should have called the police.
2. Parents are not negligent, child is in danger because of some genuine accident. Estuarine should have called the police.
3. Parents are negligent but child is not in danger. Estuarine correctly decides not to call police. In this case, I am puzzled how the parents can be accused of being negligent if the child is not in danger.
4. Parents are not negligent, child is not in danger. Estuarine correctly decides not to call police. This would suggest that the original post in nothing short of a pointless rant.

Now we don't have all the facts so we don't know which one it is.

But, when you look at this problem in this logical way you come to the conclusion that either

• Estuarine should have called the police

or else

• has decided to judge parents unfairly.

The last time I checked it was innocent until proven guilty. And by way attack me for not having kids is a classic attack the poster - how about you attack the post instead?

I have 16 kids by the way.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

i am not going to comment on this post again the last time i did it got me into a load of you know what !! But for the record im just a bit short of the 16 kids the other lad has lol

Mr stupid, why do you go to such lengths and effort to lay responsibility for the child's welfare at the OP's feet, and not the parents?

Just thought i'd give you a taste of your own medicine! Classic responses from the two afforementioned offenders. I would agree with diggerbarnes...you almost blame the OP...she assessed the situation and decided there was no immediate risk at the time...that is not to say there will be no risk in the future and i think that is one of her main concerns. Now THAT is only logical. And yet again the main point has been missed...NO CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 10 SHOULD BE UNATTENDED IN A PLACE WHERE THEY COULD FALL VICTIM TO AN EASILY AVOIDABLE INCIDENT!!!!!! Oh and by the way if this kind of thing happens to a child on a regular basis it could form the basis of a neglect proceeding...but I'm sure it wouldn't be against irresponsible parents or anything