I would like to demonstrate for you, exactly why you will never get rid of John.

The first reason is because the moderators here do not want to ban John for life. They want him on here. Trust me on that one.

The second reason is because it is impossible.

It is all too easy to use a proxy to block your I.P. address as I am now and re-register under another name.

Rest assured that after this demonstration I will not be fucking up the forums and will stay away. I promise you that. I am simply demonstrating to you all why you can't get rid of John or any troll on this site without decent moderation.

Despite repeated requests from many, many people for John to be banned as and when he shows up, the moderators have refused to action a swift ban UNTIL a crisis point is reached.

On this occasion a handful of forum users have set up another Liverpool Development forum in order to express themselves without John ruining things. Since there are a number of decent moderators constantly watching the forum, John can and will be banned as and when he shows up. I am NOT one of the moderators, I hasten to add.

It's a shame it has come to that, but there you go.

So for anyone who has had enough of the weak moderation on here and the constant re-appearance of the train lunatic, please feel free to join the rest of us here @ liverpoolmetropolis.com

Yours,



Evertonian.

He comes across of a bit of a turd sometimes, but is it that important you need him to be blocked? I've never read one of his full posts properly so he doesn't irritate me.

http://www.franticscribbles.com/USERIMAGES/Idiom%203.jpg

my demonstration is better...

I find this whole episode sad.:ohno:

My impression of 'John' is that he is harmless, and even pleasant, until provoked with hostility. I, personally, skip most of his posts because I realise that they are compulsive & obsessive - but, nonetheless, valid as arguments and points of view.
But I'm not that interested in trains. As many will be aware, MY 'thing' is houses, women's issues & literature, plus a variety of other 'things' to greater or lesser degrees.

I suspect that 'John' is on the autistic-spectrum - probably 'high-functioning'. His lack of awareness or consideration for the 'normal' social cues and 'rules' is absent.

Yes, this can be irritating when whole threads are taken over - but he isn't malicious or nasty - unlike some others - until provoked, when he responds in kind.

I do not know the history of the forum, as I have not been party to it for as long as some - but i do get the feeling that the forum is seen to 'belong' to some and not to others - a bit of an 'old boys network' - although not ALL of the old boys behave in this way.

I speculated, that given time, John's passion for his subject would wane a little; and, like some others have said - that if more people contributed to certain threads then the issue of 'domination' would be less of an issue.

Let's face it - the 'Culture' thread is Babaloo's; the 'Emergency Services' thread is Howie's; the Churches and Religious Buildings thread is 'golden vision's'; the 'Mersey Shipping ' thread is Kenny Rouge's ....etc, etc; in that these people keep these threads alive, & have particular passions which lead them to contribute more to these threads than others.

I feel that there is a need for more tolerance and inclusivity - unless people are willfully offensive and abusive towards others.:grouphug:

i do get the feeling that there is a feeling that the forum 'belongs' to some and not to others - a bit of an 'old boys network' - although not ALL of the old boys behave in this way.... I feel that there is a need for more tolerance and inclusivity - unless people are willfully offensive and abusive towards others.:grouphug:

agree with everything you said, and that just about sums it up

http://www.franticscribbles.com/USERIMAGES/Idiom%203.jpg

my demonstration is better...

cool graphics ; )

I agree with pretty much everything Jane said. As much of an idiot John is, he is clearly very passionate and very knowledgeable about his subject area. Like Jane said, until he is provoked he is quite happily doing his copy and paste exercise on maybe one or two threads. Simply don't reply to him, about anything. And if you don't want to read his posts, just stick him on ignore.

I doubt many who complain about John genuinely want him permanently banned. I'd be very interested to see how much traffic went up on the Liverpool forum since he re-registered.

Are you all talking about the same John? :lol:

"Football knobheads"
"You are stupid"
"Battle of the Boyne lol"
"You are thick"
"Trams, ding, ding!"

Destroyer of thread upon thread. THE most myopic individual ever to festoon these forua.

Admittedly, he can be informative and occasionally comes out with something worthy of note, but all of his good points are easily drowned out by the fact that he can't make a point once and leave it, concede that some of his hair-brained schemes are unfeasible in the real world, accept other people may know more that he does on given subjects, is oblivious to (or revelling in the fact) that he pisses 99% of people here off

I've said before, if he could reign some of his frankly autistic behaviour in, he could be a very worthy contributer to the site, but as it stands, you've got more chance of seeing a muslim pope.

Dont understand why people get so irritated by him. If you don't like someone, dont respond to them

Thick knobhead is a bit extreme I must admit.

Dont understand why people get so irritated by him. If you don't like someone, dont respond to them

Easier said than done I'm afraid. Seriously, put him on your ignore list and read one of the threads he's ruined with post after post of his 'ideas'. There is no flow, he kills discussions stone dead and he cannot just let a sleeping dog lie. I did find his post on Brunswick Dock silo rather good though. That was one, in how many thousand, under how many guises?

I find this whole episode sad.:ohno:

My impression of 'John' is that he is harmless, and even pleasant, until provoked with hostility. I, personally, skip most of his posts because I realise that they are compulsive & obsessive - but, nonetheless, valid as arguments and points of view.
But I'm not that interested in trains. As many will be aware, MY 'thing' is houses, women's issues & literature, plus a variety of other 'things' to greater or lesser degrees.

I suspect that 'John' is on the autistic-spectrum - probably 'high-functioning'. His lack of awareness or consideration for the 'normal' social cues and 'rules' is absent.

Yes, this can be irritating when whole threads are taken over - but he isn't malicious or nasty - unlike some others - until provoked, when he responds in kind.

I do not know the history of the forum, as I have not been party to it for as long as some - but i do get the feeling that the forum is seen to 'belong' to some and not to others - a bit of an 'old boys network' - although not ALL of the old boys behave in this way.

I speculated, that given time, John's passion for his subject would wane a little; and, like some others have said - that if more people contributed to certain threads then the issue of 'domination' would be less of an issue.

Let's face it - the 'Culture' thread is Babaloo's; the 'Emergency Services' thread is Howie's; the Churches and Religious Buildings thread is 'golden vision's'; the 'Mersey Shipping ' thread is Kenny Rouge's ....etc, etc; in that these people keep these threads alive, & have particular passions which lead them to contribute more to these threads than others.

I feel that there is a need for more tolerance and inclusivity - unless people are willfully offensive and abusive towards others.:grouphug:

I’m glad you wrote that, Jane. I found some of his posts informative, especially the stuff about the infilling of docks to “canal boat depth” and Liverpool’s disused tunnels (two things which I knew nothing about).

The reason I never said anything until now is:

A) I got the impression there was “history” between John/Romania1 and the other forum members, which I wasn’t party to. It was a suspicion that made me loath to interject.

B) John/Romania1 failed, in my mind, to offer up his alternative to Peel’s plans for “Liverpool Waters” despite the fact he was so vociferous about condemning them.

C) I found it a turnoff that people felt the need to ridicule him because of his (or Wayne’s, for that matter) passion for heritage. It’s not like anyone on here is going to ultimately get to decide on planning issues. It’s okay to disagree!

D) I couldn’t work out if “Milton Keynes” was a euphemism?

And…

E) I’m dyslexic – quite frankly, I’m very selective about where and when I’ll go to the trouble of writing. As a matter of fact, I wrote a post about Peel’s Liverpool Waters, but elected not to post it because I suspected it would just get dismissed/shouted down on the basis I’m not an advocate of Peel’s current plans.

I come to this forum because of my relationship with Liverpool, and a healthy respect for architecture (old and new). I enjoy reading the debates (even the heated ones); I find within them there is a gold mine of information to be gleaned about my city and its evolution. In that respect, I personally, appreciated the discourse between John/Romania1 and the other contributors. I accept John/Romania1 can be obstreperous when asserting his standpoint, but I didn’t find his behaviour so shocking :shocked: or disruptive that it warranted him being BANNED. It’s all a bit “extra” if you ask me. :|

The daft thing about all this is that the person who constantly wanted John banned was the same person who, in my opinion, hounded him!

If he had been left alone, as Jane has said, he would have gotten bored.

Evertonian, again in my opinion, exhibits some of the same characteristics but just doesn't see it, a bit sad really.

I’m glad you wrote that, Jane. I found some of his posts informative, especially the stuff about the infilling of docks to “canal boat depth” and Liverpool’s disused tunnels (two things which I knew nothing about).

The reason I never said anything until now is:

A) I got the impression there was “history” between John/Romania1 and the other forum members, which I wasn’t party to. It was a suspicion that made me loath to interject.

B) John/Romania1 failed, in my mind, to offer up his alternative to Peel’s plans for “Liverpool Waters” despite the fact he was so vociferous about condemning them.

C) I found it a turnoff that people felt the need to ridicule him because of his (or Wayne’s, for that matter) passion for heritage. It’s not like anyone on here is going to ultimately get to decide on planning issues. It’s okay to disagree!

D) I couldn’t work out if “Milton Keynes” was a euphemism?

And…

E) I’m dyslexic – quite frankly, I’m very selective about where and when I’ll go to the trouble of writing. As a matter of fact, I wrote a post about Peel’s Liverpool Waters, but elected not to post it because I suspected it would just get dismissed/shouted down on the basis I’m not an advocate of Peel’s current plans.

I come to this forum because of my relationship with Liverpool, and a healthy respect for architecture (old and new). I enjoy reading the debates (even the heated ones); I find within them there is a gold mine of information to be gleaned about my city and its evolution. In that respect, I personally, appreciated the discourse between John/Romania1 and the other contributors. I accept John/Romania1 can be obstreperous when asserting his standpoint, but I didn’t find his behaviour so shocking :shocked: or disruptive that it warranted him being BANNED. It’s all a bit “extra” if you ask me. :|

John has made several good/reasonable points over the years, and some stuff I would agree with whole-heartedly, but these points are never open to discussion.... they are the gospel according to John, end of story..... so much so that this "truth" is then spread liberally across all threads, regardless of how tenuous the link may be.

I recently spotted a repeated assertion of his regarding the location of stadia (a subject I have a lot of interest in), and to pass a few idle minutes I engaged with him, as it illustrated the whole obsessive nature of "his world"...... All things MUST tie in to his grand masterplan for Liverpool. I didn't even realise that the thread was supposed to be about the Tory's effect on Liverpool as I was simply browsing at the time. I suspect this episode has led to his latest ban.

I should explain there is a bit of history there. Many years ago John led a whole campaign to show that EFC's proposed stadium at the King's Dock was a great idea. Yes, that's right, a stadium on his beloved Docks, completely contradicting his current strongly held view. He had whole websites explaining all the pros of such a move to the Dock.... something I agreed entirely with at the time. He then conducted a similar campaign on the Kings Dock forum which was set up to discuss these issues, saturating the site with his opinion, and slagging everyone who dared oppose moving to the dock. Rather quickly I realised that while I agreed with most of his points, there was absolutely no flexibility in ANYTHING he was saying.... Ultimately he became a laughing stock, to the extent that he is still talked about on several EFC fansites as a loon, 10 years later.

His latest obsession for the docks (again, much of which I might agree with) is now also supported by another of his websites, and anything that contradicts his vision is jumped upon.... even though he himself strongly advocated many of the things he now declares as "knobhead" opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but even in his latest incarnation he managed to post more messages in a couple of months than I have in 4yrs.... clearly demonstrating the obsessive nature of the man. He certainly could contribute to the forum, but that is not his objective.... he wants to dominate with shear volume of posts and will never waver from his own view.

In addition to that Tom, also remember he posts identical threads and posts in multiple parts of this site, not just the Liverpool section. It isn't just a small group of Liverpudlians he annoys. If people think it isn't a serious problem, maybe they should message the admins of this site and ask them why he has been banned 10+ times and been threatened by them with the police.

In addition to that Tom, also remember he posts identical threads and posts in multiple parts of this site, not just the Liverpool section. It isn't just a small group of Liverpudlians he annoys. If people think it isn't a serious problem, maybe they should message the admins of this site and ask them why he has been banned 10+ times and been threatened by them with the police.

I couldn't verify that ML, I do know at least two Liverpool members who have been threatened with legal action, but I never heard that John was one of them.

Anyway, I can't resist this opportunity to demonstrate my ironic visual wit...

http://www.virtual-planit.com/CHRIS/john.jpg

It is back in an old thread in the UK Transport section maybe 18 months ago :)

I appreciate the heads-up, Tom. Sometimes, for a newbie, this place is like walking into the cinema halfway through a Mike Leigh film – you get the feeling you’ve missed something pretty significant about the characters, but the chances are no-one could adequately explain it to you and it’s highly unlikely there will be any form of resolution anyway. :nuts:

Is there a way to allow John to post here, but make his posts visible only to him? They do a similar thing for barking dogs. They snip the vocal chords, allowing the mutt to bark all it likes, without bothering other people.

there is a way yes... you hit that little ignore button. As this involves some self determination on the part of those most offended, it's a tactic rarely employed.

It has already been explained why ignoring him doesn't work b4mmy. You seem to be ignoring what is said about it. Ignoring him does not stop whole threads getting disrupted and dragged off topic.

It has already been explained why ignoring him doesn't work b4mmy. You seem to be ignoring what is said about it. Ignoring him does not stop whole threads getting disrupted and dragged off topic.

Quite. Maybe when he returns, have 'ignore' the default setting for his account, with the option for people to remove him from ignore if they so wish. Ignore does not work unless done en masse.

I'm starting to exhibit OCD on this subject so I'd best leave you to it. John has been banned... which is what you wanted. Will it affect the forum for the better - I doubt it.

Careful b4mmy, if you carry on with this behaviour, someone will start diagnosing you with autism soon ;)

Anyway, with this most recent incarnation, I didn't once ask you to ban him or even complain about him, I tried my best to ignore him (and told a few others to do so) - but unless everyone ignores him the problem persists.

it was a 'royal' you

I'm starting to exhibit OCD on this subject so I'd best leave you to it. John has been banned... which is what you wanted. Will it affect the forum for the better - I doubt it.

Indeed. Watch the activity levels drop over the next couple of weeks...

Indeed. Watch the activity levels drop over the next couple of weeks...

No posts for an hour or two... so yeah. I'm quite missing my late night abuse for not banning someone... :(

Quite right.

I don't think people should be banned for trolling providing they don't do in threads you are personally interested in, and threads that there is never more than a gap of a few hours in.

People (not just John) get banned for breaking the rules, not for breaking the rules in quiet threads. Maybe if he is banned straight away when he rejoins (after all, he is banned already right?) there wouldn't be a problem.

Jesus.

Ah some abuse at last... :)

You must live a very sheltered life if you think that is abuse :) Bless.

I know you know it isn't abuse anyway - remember the messages I used to send you about a year ago ;)

I'm just titting about... :cheers:

I'm just titting about... :cheers:

I know :)

I know that you know what abuse is - you are from Macclesfield after all ;)

It seems that there are a number of forumers who feel that, in collaboration, they have the right to decide who is and who is not welcome/'acceptable' on the forum; I suspect that this feeling of 'ownership' is to do with length of contribution, or through personal affinity to certain others, or through a relationship which involves private messages back & forth, where 'issues' are discussed.

It strikes me that certain people take the approach of, for example, football managers who feel that they can bully and intimidate the referee, in order to effect the result of a game in their favour. I can see that B4bammy is trying to keep people on side, but is feeling that he has to justify himself, unnecessarily - even though, it seems, that he has been forced into making a decision he is uncomfortable with - due to pressure! A moderator must have, and be seen to have integrity - and he does!

I suggest that if there has been a clear infringement of the rules, as signed up to by all contributors when first 'joining' - then unless this infringement is blatantly transparent - in which case the moderator must decide - then a vote could be taken amongst all posters, to elicit their views on the so-called 'offences'. This would make the process more democratic.

I have seen various posters 'fall away' recently, and I think that is because they have felt ignored, rejected or just plain -bullied off, if not cheesed off with the dynamics on this forum. This then reinforces the dominant 'groupings', making it seem that it does indeed belong to them.

The 'high status' threads, it seems, are the ones most controversial & 'protected' when it comes to people being banned.

Some thoughts anyway.:lurker:

^^ Good idea Jane.

I have to say that I altered from an interested involvement to a passive browser due to being bored rigid by some of the views expressed and yes, by John selectively editing comments to fit his world view.

The problem (if it is a problem) with a forum is that it is an autocracy and not a democracy and it is the responsibility of an individual to bring posters into line and not the community as a whole. That is the forum's structure and until a new governance is introduced then we will have to live with contributors we find irritating, trolls and wums, - a bit like going to the pub on Friday night!

I have to say that I altered from an interested involvement to a passive browser due to being bored rigid by some of the views expressed and yes, by John selectively editing comments to fit his world view.

The problem (if it is a problem) with a forum is that it is an autocracy and not a democracy and it is the responsibility of an individual to bring posters into line and not the community as a whole. That is the forum's structure and until a new governance is introduced then we will have to live with contributors we find irritating, trolls and wums, - a bit like going to the pub on Friday night!

The reality is though that a when a number of people,usually a small number,call for somebody to be banned it normally happens. There isn't a consensus. Personally if find the views of someone irritating or even obnoxious, i ignore them. If everyone would've ignored John he would've left . I've never asked for anyone to be banned, because no matter how distasteful i personally might find them, others may see it differently. I'd probably abstain on most votes anyway but would be happy to abide by the decision of the majority of the forum.

It seems that there are a number of forumers who feel that, in collaboration, they have the right to decide who is and who is not welcome/'acceptable' on the forum; I suspect that this feeling of 'ownership' is to do with length of contribution, or through personal affinity to certain others, or through a relationship which involves private messages back & forth, where 'issues' are discussed.

It strikes me that certain people take the approach of, for example, football managers who feel that they can bully and intimidate the referee, in order to effect the result of a game in their favour. I can see that B4bammy is trying to keep people on side, but is feeling that he has to justify himself, unnecessarily - even though, it seems, that he has been forced into making a decision he is uncomfortable with - due to pressure! A moderator must have, and be seen to have integrity - and he does!

I suggest that if there has been a clear infringement of the rules, as signed up to by all contributors when first 'joining' - then unless this infringement is blatantly transparent - in which case the moderator must decide - then a vote could be taken amongst all posters, to elicit their views on the so-called 'offences'. This would make the process more democratic.

I have seen various posters 'fall away' recently, and I think that is because they have felt ignored, rejected or just plain -bullied off, if not cheesed off with the dynamics on this forum. This then reinforces the dominant 'groupings', making it seem that it does indeed belong to them.

The 'high status' threads, it seems, are the ones most controversial & 'protected' when it comes to people being banned.

Some thoughts anyway.:lurker:

Some interesting thoughts jane. Who are you thinking of specifially when you suggest some people have left through being ignored, rejected and bullied?

I would suggest more have left through boredom, principally as this is first and foremost a forum looking at construction / development etc and very little is happening compared to even a couple of years ago. Secondly, many of the longer-standing members have left or post much less frequently because of repetitive and regurgitated posts from (former) members like John and Evertonian.

Excellent long-term contributors like Gareth, Pobbie, TOM, Scouse Yuppie / 21C, Woody, Doug, Phil G, Juxta and others are either absent entirely or post relatively infrequently. John's 10 or so incarnations in my time here (there were at least two before) which since his initial banning follow the same pattern, repeat his ideas, deny his identity, clutter up multiple threads with these ideas, deny his identity, turn increasingly abusive (though less than some others here) and eventually being banned.

Ignoring him is useful, which I have done in his last few guises but he can be difficult to ignore if you are passionate about something and he is destroying a thread with irrelevances.

Also, some of his bigoted posts in his early days should have been sufficient for a permanent banning whilst excellent contributors like Sebo were banned for upsetting the big cheese but have contributed infinitely more and abused considerably less to SSC.

John had some interesting, if unworkable / impractical / wholly unrealistic ideas but when you have heard them multiple times in each of his incarnations, you can be forgiven for being a bit pissed off when he materialises again. I won't miss him but he will doubtless be back.

Ordinarily I would also be against banning anyone, but let's not pretend that John is an "ordinary" case, or someone that can be simply "ignored" ALL the time. On the vast majority of occasions I have indeed ignored him, as shown by the massive disparity in numbers of posts. Every now and then though John's incessant volume of postings will impact or intertwine on even my relatively sparse submissions.... or sometimes, as in the other day he'll regurgitate one of his "untruths" and I might respond..... especially if it underpins so much of his whole "masterplan". The result was there for all to see. He's the fella who would bring a megaphone to a debate between 2 people. That said..... at no point have I ever asked for him to be banned.

Let's face it if everyone would've had him on ignore or just ignored the problem would've largely resolved itself. What amazes me is some of the most experienced posters engage him for a few days and then appear surprised that he won't listen to reasoned argument. What we don't want on here on a small group, no matter how well intentioned dictating who can and can't post. Let's face it, there was an overtly racist contributor on here for years(infringeing the conditions of use) and nobody bothered him. He was only banned with the big purge a couple of years ago. John probably is/was an exception, that's why Jane's idea is a good one for future .

I am referring to Selecta, for example - who, clearly, was sick of the usual dynamic. I also refer to, forgot his username, who declared that he, also, was sick of the dynamic & the automatic negativity & dismissiveness by some posters. I also refer to Richard A - for the same reasons.

Quite a lot of people post and are completely ignored; no welcome, no encouragement etc
There is also a pack mentality, on occasion, when it is predictable who will show up and join in 'having a go' at someone who dares to disagree.

I accept that the forum is a reflection of the real world & the way people are; but I also think that some post offensively because anonymous. It is tempting, because it offers security, to cosy up to 'the big boys', and adopt positions which will gain favour or converge with others - the prime motive, seemingly, social conformity or acceptance.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

...this episode has been distasteful only in the sense that John has had far more abuse thrown at him by the likes of Evertonian, than he ever reciprocated with. Does 'ding ding', 'pay attention at the back', and 'knobhead' come anywhere close to the disgusting language that has been thrown at him over the years. I think not.

^^^^ Not quite sure about John's martyrdom here. He did, granted, after a lot of provocation threaten someone with a 'visit' from some 'people' also one of his previous user names was KB1690, translated, King Billy, Battle of the Boyne, hardly in the spirit of unity. He also made sectarian comments,totally unprovoked.

I don't know about them GV... I wasn't being selective, or suggesting he's a martyr honestly... I can only call it as I see it.

You need to pay more attention the the Liverpool forums, b4mmy. If the abuse was one-of and sporadic, instead of bubbling frustration at what the moderators are jamming their tumbs up anally, are about, you may have a point.

I suspect the people defending John are not the people who frequent the Liverpool area regularly (Accy a case in point).

There'll be a campaign to have me banned as well at this rate. Mind you, that wouldn't come as a surprise...

I completely agree with Jane's points, although I'm not a regular poster and have only been posting from the start of this year, I too have become frustrated with the forum for the reasons stated. Hopefully this will all change for the better :)

You might not be wrong about that. Alex Ferguson, as an example of a bully & serial abuser, still claims his comments about referees are justified and fair - whilst at the same time agreeing that he wouldn't like the job himself.
A man, who if he doesn't get his own way, refuses to speak to his audience.
Arrogance & blind spots cannot be accounted for - but must not be given in to.

You have the support of all reasonable people on this forum, I'm sure. In fact, we could do a vote on it.:)

Thank you very much :D I still enjoy this forum, partly because I haven't found anywhere else which discusses so many different topics that interest me.

I agree with Jane.


































About Alex Ferguson! :)

I have seen various posters 'fall away' recently, and I think that is because they have felt ignored, rejected or just plain -bullied off, if not cheesed off with the dynamics on this forum. This then reinforces the dominant 'groupings', making it seem that it does indeed belong to them.


I don't spend enough time here to know who is in what "grouping" as you call it, if anyone. Who are these groups? How does one know if they exist? And why do they matter? I've not seen the bullies you refer to but again maybe I just don't read enough threads so I'm missing things, (although you and I did have a bit of a chat about how you and another member were getting on with Babs a while ago, with a feeling on my part that Babs was being hounded - it's good to see you two getting on better these days as the atmosphere was dreadful and probably very offputting to casual and new visitors).

I daresay there are small friendship groups everywhere, and also people who don't get on, such is life - but do such things actually influence posting behaviour? Are there gangs here and I'm just blissfully unaware of them? I'm not asking you for examples, for obvious reasons, but I suspect that you would struggle to find any if I did.

I'm another one whose never called for John to be banned, I've tried to counsel him a bit in PM in the past, to encourage him to stay on the straight and narrow, but although he's a perfectly nice bloke, it never lasts, and his ideas get the better of him.

I have been a bit critical of those who have played with him, either nicely or horribly, only to then get bored and irritated with him. I agree with Bammy that Evertonian has been far worse to John than vice versa (and laugh at the idea of joining a forum with Evertonian - a real thread killer if ever there was one, get him on his obsession topics like the tolls or Wirral and you can kiss any decent discussion good bye). A tolerant and accepting tone isn't something to demand of others, but rather it is something to demonstrate through ones own postings and behaviour towards those we disagree with, wouldn't you agree?

But mainly I agree with Mostly Lurking here - the problem isn't about tolerance, it's more basic than that, about whether we can even have a simple conversation. You cannot have a sane and inclusive conversation with someone being a an over-bearing loon in the room shouting "tunnels!" every five minutes. That is what he has done on some threads, and it kills conversation. Personally, and I've no idea how it could work, i think John should have been "pre-moderated" and restricted to one posting and one follow-up reply a day. That would give him his say, and his come-back.

I don't, however, think that John is the reason that people have left recently, I think the drift away started quite a while ago really, and is partly because there isn't much development going on, partly because moderation was, for a while, sporadic and passive, partly because the balance between people with interesting views and intelligence started to be outnumbered by people with neither. Maybe an invisible tipping point was reached, where intelligent and well-informed people found threads clogged with nonsense and stupidity, and where there was no point sharing new information or attempting a serious discussion because this just didn't seem to be place.

I don't bring new regeneration discussions here anymore because there aren't enough people interested in a serious discussion, and, unlike some years ago, there are good alternatives now for such online discussions. Sebo was one of the few people who also brought regeneration topics to the forum, and was capable of serious discussion of them, and his loss is a serious one.

It's good to see some contributors re-appearing over the last couple of days.

This place must really be going to the dogs if I'm being wistfully referred to as an excellent contributor (thanks nonetheless Joe!). Not all the criticism I saw directed towards John MK was merited, but he was certainly guilty of unprovoked antagonism on many an occasion. Maybe he has changed recently, but I don't know.

Evertonian triggered much heated debate regarding the Liverpool city region (or more specifically the Wirral's place within it), but I always felt his heart was in the right place. Plus, I agreed completely with his scepticism regarding the incremental process of seemingly converting Liverpool into a Beatles theme park.

Why did Tony Sebo get banned? The forum is certainly poorer without him.

I don't spend enough time here to know who is in what "grouping" as you call it, if anyone. Who are these groups? How does one know if they exist? And why do they matter? I've not seen the bullies you refer to but again maybe I just don't read enough threads so I'm missing things, (although you and I did have a bit of a chat about how you and another member were getting on with Babs a while ago, with a feeling on my part that Babs was being hounded - it's good to see you two getting on better these days as the atmosphere was dreadful and probably very offputting to casual and new visitors).

I daresay there are small friendship groups everywhere, and also people who don't get on, such is life - but do such things actually influence posting behaviour? Are there gangs here and I'm just blissfully unaware of them? I'm not asking you for examples, for obvious reasons, but I suspect that you would struggle to find any if I did.

I'm another one whose never called for John to be banned, I've tried to counsel him a bit in PM in the past, to encourage him to stay on the straight and narrow, but although he's a perfectly nice bloke, it never lasts, and his ideas get the better of him.

I have been a bit critical of those who have played with him, either nicely or horribly, only to then get bored and irritated with him. I agree with Bammy that Evertonian has been far worse to John than vice versa (and laugh at the idea of joining a forum with Evertonian - a real thread killer if ever there was one, get him on his obsession topics like the tolls or Wirral and you can kiss any decent discussion good bye). A tolerant and accepting tone isn't something to demand of others, but rather it is something to demonstrate through ones own postings and behaviour towards those we disagree with, wouldn't you agree?

But mainly I agree with Mostly Lurking here - the problem isn't about tolerance, it's more basic than that, about whether we can even have a simple conversation. You cannot have a sane and inclusive conversation with someone being a an over-bearing loon in the room shouting "tunnels!" every five minutes. That is what he has done on some threads, and it kills conversation. Personally, and I've no idea how it could work, i think John should have been "pre-moderated" and restricted to one posting and one follow-up reply a day. That would give him his say, and his come-back.

I don't, however, think that John is the reason that people have left recently, I think the drift away started quite a while ago really, and is partly because there isn't much development going on, partly because moderation was, for a while, sporadic and passive, partly because the balance between people with interesting views and intelligence started to be outnumbered by people with neither. Maybe an invisible tipping point was reached, where intelligent and well-informed people found threads clogged with nonsense and stupidity, and where there was no point sharing new information or attempting a serious discussion because this just didn't seem to be place.

I don't bring new regeneration discussions here anymore because there aren't enough people interested in a serious discussion, and, unlike some years ago, there are good alternatives now for such online discussions. Sebo was one of the few people who also brought regeneration topics to the forum, and was capable of serious discussion of them, and his loss is a serious one.

I've seen John Burn's impact on several sites over the last decade and a bit.... it's always dramatic, and usually catastrophic.... forget discussion though, for those who lament his passing haha.

However, it's an absolute sin that Sebo isn't amongst us NOW, and whoever sanctioned his ban whilst happily presiding over JB's reign of forum terror needs his system resetting urgently.... Preferably while many miles out at sea....

I've lobbied several for Tony to be reinstated (that's if he actually wants to contribute) without success. I didn't see the posts in other parts of ssc that promoted his ban. And yes, it is a great loss.

An indictment though, that the current most popular thread is about a man that the loudest voices wanted shot of.

Rather than focussing on the various personalities around which there will never be agreement, I would suggest that it’s better to think about desired outcomes and the process through which they might be achieved.

A contributor becomes a problem when s/he becomes abusive towards other posters, and/or engages in a posting style that kills debate – in particular an inability to take on board critical feedback concerning content/demeanour towards others.

Putting someone on ignore never works in an open forum because there is always someone who will engage – someone new, someone who posts once in a blue moon or someone who enjoys flame wars. However, for me, the main problem with this approach is that it doesn’t allow for engagement on those occasions where the individual concerned might be behaving in a constructive way. It therefore doesn’t reinforce adaptive behaviour – all behaviour (good and bad) is ignored.

On another thread Martin S spoke about the symbolic aspect of what ‘banning’ someone signifies and what it suggests when someone who has been banned multiple times is given another chance (only to be banned again) and the cumulative impact of this on regular contributors to a forum over a period of many years. In effect this approach privileges the well-being of the person who is continually being banned for engaging in disruptive behaviour over the well-being of the community s/he is continually being banned from!

That’s why I support design_man’s suggestion of moderating the posts of disruptive contributors – it prevents a snowball effect. Of course, there is nothing to prevent someone from re-registering and using a proxy server and continuing to post in a similar fashion. I would regard this break of faith as meriting a permanent ban. The individual concerned could still get round it by using a proxy server and adopting a more mature posting style – I could live with that. I ‘m interested in supporting socially adaptive behaviour not an inquisition.

I don't think it's possible to restrict members access and posting abilities. It might be on other places, but its never been something that I've seen discussed or implemented in the staff forums.

There are 'software' ways of having members posts 'ignored' en-masse but the effect is pretty much the same as banning someone...

The server software is quite robust, and though it takes a few minutes of extrapolation - multiple ID's can usually be tracked down... though it needs an IP to work backwards from. If a moderators role was to ensure that no one re-registered, and could spend most of his or her time cleaning up the forum - then that would be a full time 24/7 job.

The pack mentality of identifying who a 'John' is, reminds me in part of Where's Wally. Ok he's been found this time, again,... but not being satisfied with the 'find' we have a small group of people (maybe only one this time) intent on ripping him to shreds.

Impact of this is that instead of creating valuable content and adding to the rich knowledge of the city and it's surrounds, there is a preoccupation with a rogue. I can see the 'damage' limitation mentality that might kick in when he steps into a thread with a completely contrary view, but I thought that was what a forum was all about. If you want to create unadulterated content why not simply create a wiki, or a personal blog? I know the answer before you try and flumox me... it's because SSC has half a million members and 40 odd million posts and the value of having content exposed to so many is exhilarating and often provides unique feedback from professionals and peers. Not to mention the fact that SSC puts your content right at the top of search engines, and is often drawn down by researchers, journalists, students, professionals, and local government.

All one should ever expect out of SSC (as was said earlier) is organised chaos. There are half a million members on ssc... and without resorting to pastiche or cliches, I'm not about to start knocking on every single door just to see if there's a John behind it.

This place must really be going to the dogs if I'm being wistfully referred to as an excellent contributor (thanks nonetheless Joe!). Not all the criticism I saw directed towards John MK was merited, but he was certainly guilty of unprovoked antagonism on many an occasion. Maybe he has changed recently, but I don't know.

Evertonian triggered much heated debate regarding the Liverpool city region (or more specifically the Wirral's place within it), but I always felt his heart was in the right place. Plus, I agreed completely with his scepticism regarding the incremental process of seemingly converting Liverpool into a Beatles theme park.

Why did Tony Sebo get banned? The forum is certainly poorer without him.

I agree about Evertonian - I could not see why people were so antagonistic towards him. He did use too much foul language - but usually when subject to relentless hostility and aggression from others.

There ARE people who enjoy winding others up, and they DO operate with a pack mentality.

How do we decide , & Who decides, what the 'desired' outcomes are?

Who decides what 'acceptable' conduct is, when apart from the obvious infringements of the 'rules', that seems to mean a particular poster posting against the consensus of opinion. Is consensus of opinion or 'social adaptation' the measure of acceptability?

I agree that conduct is of primary importance - in terms of respect and courtesy. If you 'don't like someone's style then ignore them.

It has never entered my mind to appeal to the moderator to have someone banned or cautioned, even though, Awayo, for example relentlessly follows me around the forum posting trite or personally offensive remarks and comments - the sole aim to needle me. I have taken to ignoring him completely - but his behaviour IS antagonistic and childish.:bash:

That's not at all true as it happens. One jocular and mild post in this thread I aside don't recall the last time I addressed oJ or referred to that forum member in any fashion. :dunno:

But whatever. Continuez.

Oh, apart from talking about Wuthering Heights. And that's no crime. :no:

Oh, apart from talking about Wuthering Heights. And that's no crime. :no:

Perhaps you have, conveniently, forgotten your last post on that thread, which went: " If i was a woman, I'd really, really hate OpenlyJane". I think that was because I didn't like Wuthering Heights as much as you, or something....

Yes, that was snarky. But rare really to be fair. What I meant by that was that your take on feminism actually helped undermine arguments against sexism. It is too extreme, muddled and badly articulated and therefore convinces no one but allows knuckle-heads the luxury of stereotyping anti-sexist views of women as the rantings of Millie Tant style extremists, when of course they so frequently are not.

Play it straight Awayo,it's not just the feminist issue.You've made several attacks on her professional capabilities. She's tolerated much more provocation than any man would put up with. There's one particular inadequate on here who targeted her for months.

Yes, that was snarky. But rare really to be fair. What I meant by that was that your take on feminism actually helped undermine arguments against sexism. It is too extreme, muddled and badly articulated and therefore convinces no one but allows knuckle-heads the luxury of stereotyping anti-sexist views of women as the rantings of Millie Tant style extremists, when of course they so frequently are not.

My view is not extreme, it is simply stating things as they are, according to my observation and experience. I will not compromise on that to keep you sweet.
Besides, I'm not getting into this here - because it's not the place.

It is not for no reason that someone described you as 'my nemesis'. You try to put me down all over the place; on many threads - but because I have not engaged with you - it has dwindled - although you still pop up and persist.

Your insistence on your 'superiority' in terms of intellect, education etc will brook no opposition to any one who has a different view. You post patronising & condescending comments - see your post above - and make unfunny 'jokes' at my expense.

This is not about me, anyway - it is about the sort of attitudes of some posters and their subsequent behaviour - and I used you as an example.

Play it straight Awayo,it's not just the feminist issue.You've made several attacks on her professional capabilities.

Not lately though, GV. And after all oJ is no angel in her behaviour either.

Nevertheless (and I think it's fair to point out that I joined this discussion here today because oJ brought me up), as is my usual habit now I will return to not disagreeing with, commenting on, insulting (if you like) or otherwise generally concerning myself with oJ. I do like the photies however.

That’s something I really like about you, Jane; you can handle your business – you’re ballsy like that. And despite the fact you don’t seem to expect people to rush to your defence, you’re not afraid to “step in” if you think someone else has been shortchanged. In a way, your story exemplifies why I think the moderation on this site is pitched just right.

I first became aware of you during “bitch-gate”, and I have to admit, I thought: Oh, no! She’s gonna be a Victor Meldrew type – over-sensitive and hypercritical of other forum members’ posting style. But, over time, you’ve become one of my favourite contributors. Partly because I now realize that what I perceived as you being over-sensitive and hypercritical was, in fact, you just setting out your stall…a stall you’ve been pretty consistent in maintaining. I wont/don’t always agree with you (i.e. regarding swearing – I’ve got a potty mouth :wink2:), however, I have grown to respect you. Which is why, I think, the moderation on here is site-appropriate; given enough time (and an open mind) opinions can, and do, change about certain projects, buildings and – surprisingly – people.

I first came across John on another forum which I joined because someone pointed me in the direction of it as it contained some information on tenement housing that I was researching at the time. The 'welcome' I got from him which amounted to being told that only scum came from the tenements might have been enough to put me off posting anything further but I soldiered on as I realised the forum wasn't all just about him.

He would go on to say that tenements needed bulldozing due to fuel poverty but when I pointed out that many tenements are still standing having been refurbished to a higher standard and his way of thinking would have the whole of the Canning area demolished, I was met with more insults as it seemed nobody had stood up to him before but I was new, that was my way, not to be bullied and then some people came out on my side.

I ended up clicking onto his Amsterdam waters signature, seeing he was into preserving the docks etc, looked up some of his previous posts on the subject and when he was eventually banned, asked that it may be lifted as he genuinely did have some interesting points and that in any case, at least let's have a debate and if he's saying anything so silly, then it's best that it's left there for all to see etc etc. Being a bit green back then to forums, I did pm him suggesting he might want to re-register under a different name (not knowing he'd probably been doing this elsewhere after bans since forever anyway)

I've since had, maybe slightly heated debates about Everton/Kirkby/groundmoves etc but what i'm getting at is, perhaps if I could put up with him after all that, the tolerance shown by others since seems very harsh. Maybe i'm just more worried that having been banned from here, he'll actually show up on the forum I use more frequently - no, sorry, only joking lol.