EnviroLink Forum

I would like to suggest that the feedback section be left for Josh to edit because moderators are deleting, then banning, members for posting in this section claiming warning were given for arguing when such claims were not given.

I have also noticed that post in the feedback section that complain about moderators are fast deleted. I believe that the forum moderators should be held accountable and be able to stand upto ligit critisism but this doesn't seem to happen instead, what happens, is that complains are swept under the carpet.

Maybe a word in the ear about bending alittle before banning instead of this ridgid stance we are subject to?

What happened to the old Envirolink where we could all have it out once in a while but still be friends, part of life is it not? Used to be fun here.

The problem, X-Black, is that the feedback section for a while was being abused and it became a place for people to vent their embarrassment at "getting in trouble" somewhere else. In our Rules, which everyone agrees to before posting and also has a reminder of at the top of every forum area here, it clearly states:



I do intervene when I think a mod has gone overboard or whatever, but to be honest most of the time that is just not the case. Users will vote with their feet and move on to another forum if I'm wrong too many times.

-josh

Well Josh I was not given any warnings at all before posts were deleted and I was banned for very little IMHO. How else can things be sorted if you have no evidence of what goes on and if you do have an unfair mod/s how can you police them if people complain of indiscriminate deleting and bans?

Is it the case you wish people to vote with their feet or would it be best for objective moderation, then people wouldn't have to leave like the likes of Wayne a well respected member? I do believe the heart of the issue of him leaving is the main reason for MANY complaints in the past few months. This was always a fair forum that moderated objectivly, not anymore from what I'v noticed.

Am I missing someting here?

Why is it that this rule is not followed equally? There has been a person banned without the three strikes or even a temporary ban. Straight to a permanent one foregoing all warnings.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

I would like to see you prove that one because it never happened.

Why is it that this rule is not followed equally? There has been a person banned without the three strikes or even a temporary ban. Straight to a permanent one foregoing all warnings.

Valid point?

I'll help you out on this one:

You were issued a warning on Sun Nov 16, Sun Nov 16, and on Sun Nov 17 at which time you were issued a temporary ban..and not by Animallover.

_________________
We do what we must because we can,for the good of all of us....except the ones that are dead.

Not according to my mail box! Please help me out more by pointing me in the right direction

We have better ways of keeping track of these issues other than your mailbox.

_________________
We do what we must because we can,for the good of all of us....except the ones that are dead.

Josh answered to my feedback and so my issue I quoted his reply,SD took the words out of my mouth. Isn't your post covered under the enviro laws under baiting?

Does this prove a point Josh???

I'm familiar with php forums, so please enlighten me withthe warnings backed up with the "offending" posts.