@TomAxford. Thank you for broaching the term. I didn't want to have to.

@Stig has written:
what comes into my mind is the term "Lynch mob"

That was a quote by Tom Axford. Not by Stig!

What I would like to see is more respect for other people, including people we disagree with.

I'd love to see a return of stocks... just to authenticate your thinking, which is wrong of course.

Where was the disrespect? To you or the Moderators?

Fair enough. I do hope this site can come up with a solution that works.

DPR approach didn't work well, and one of the reasons I joined this site was that I knew you were banned several times, and therefore my hope was/is that you would be the last person to allow the same approach to be adopted here.

This is an interesting one. 😉

I was sandboxed by a certain moderator mentioned in here (first time in 23 years) and when another moderator noticed it reversed it on the spot, he knows me well. He couldn't believe it. What was interesting, is that he said he thought about banning the other moderator on the spot, but he decided to follow DPR policy and just reported the other moderator. I didn't realise a moderator could actually ban another moderator, but they obviously can ;)

I get the same vibe. That said...

...I think it's important to have the discussion in the open. I mean, you do understand why the "mob" wants to "lynch" based on what they're saying, right? So you have to at least acknowledge their position. But those who are "out for blood" may wish to consider the following. A while back, I knew a guy who said how he had a boss that was just a complete asshole. Eventually, the boss stepped down and became a coworker alongside the people he used to be the boss over, and was pretty chill. One day, the guy telling me the story said he asked him why he was such an asshole as a boss. He said that he was forced to act that way, which is why he stepped down.

So, the question is, if the "mob" here is willing to acknowledge that the situation here may well be different than granting Putin citizenship in your country, which is pretty much how they are framing it -- at least from what I've read.

Edit.

Edit.

There's money in the web forum game. Much more than you would think if you haven't been in it before. That's all any of you need to know to understand why things play out the way they do behind the scenes.

Not as much as in human trafficking. Take, Apple, for instance. They're making a killing with Siri telling people, "Turn Left", "Turn Right", and "Arrived". I'm telling you, human trafficking is where it's at if you want to make money. : )

I saw that exchange too, whilst sizing up that particular Forum, to see if it is of any interest to me. Two things stuck me. First I think the DPR Mods were taken onboard, because of the presumption that they know who causes trouble. One Ex DPR mod chimes in and makes it clear that he believes Teldoph is a well known trouble maker. Actually he is just a guy with a strange sense of humour, if you ever followed the M43 forum.

Then we see Dirk, almost gloating about how he has banned a few DPR members who signed up to his forum.

Looks like he has not learnt much in his 20 years as a Forum supremo.

[deleted]

That's true for me in any context

ah, I needed that.

I'm still crying after laughing too much.

Thanks
That was the most fun moment in this thread.!

You did a pretty nice stance about freedom, in this thread. And that's what I care about.
You demonstrated you have good roots in that territory. - respect-

I'll trust you even when you'll mess !!

as an aside:

Facebook banned me > one month for "violence"

I told a guy - "Asap I see you, I'll shot you to death" . . . < He was harshly kidding me >

( it was a mate, and we were in a group for a shooting game named "WorldOfTanks" )

CONTEXT MATTER

"My problem with DPR is that the original Z6s and Z7s weren't much of it, and moderation changed, deleted, adjusted, banned, whatever and whomever they needed to put them in a favorable light. That's just crooked business. And if I were a mod, or if someone wanted me to do that in business, the answer would have been no."

What you have said is exactly right. I can recount numerous times he deleted anything that put those cameras in a poor light. It occurred over and over. Bob is explaining (paraphrasing) "he was just enforcing the poorly made rules as he seen them." I have direct evidence he went way, way beyond just that over a time frame that spans years. Just because a conversation has been had with him and he's tried to explain away some things...spare me! In order to really determine what he was up to one would have to be privy to every pm; at a great deal more than just bobs experience with him to properly draw a conclusion as to his actions. It would not paint a pretty picture to do so! I think it would extremely difficult to learn anything from someone as ignorant (as the mod in question) and my best advice is - get off this hill before you die on it.