Could you explain to the forum why you have banned Sean again.
He, understandably, responded to Willi's personal attack. He had done nothing to provoke this attack.

. This is beginning to be a witch hunt.

If you were going to ban anyone, it should have been Willi.


Patricia

From what I have seen Willi has been a good guy by offering his help to others that are ineed of some parts. His coment in his post (possibly aimed at Sean) was surprising to me, for I thought he respected Sean's work.
Sean reacted to his comment feeling it was aimed at him, defending himself.
This ban seems to be an over reaction on the modrerators part. The most that needed to be done was to edit peoples posts. Even then the "personal attacks" were fairly mild, mainly humourous.
I Second that Sean should be un-banned for this was unfair to him.

Lets all get along now

If you look at the post in question Willi recieved a warning which is site policy. Sean had the option of reporting the post and made the decision to reply instead of report. Because of Seans past history and the sites policy Sean also got a warning which again put him over the top and he has a temp. ban again.

There is a "Rules" button at the bottom of every forum which we expect every member to comply with. When they choose not to follow the rules they accept the consequences. Our guidelines are very easy to comply with generally and thousands of members do so. With Seans knowledge, it's a shame he chooses not to follow the guidelines.

deleted by Patricia J B

Originally Posted by Patricia J B

I had a look at the Rules. In my opinion, 'Trolling" should be given an immediate 5 day ban not just one demerit point.

Then open a thread in the Site Suggestions/Complaints forum and suggest that.
This forum is for discussion of Ornithopters.

When someone posts a message that is intended to provoke another member into responding so that he will get himself banned, it is a lot more serious than a simple personal attack

One post does not get a person banned.
It takes 10 points to achieve that - meaning you must continue to violate the rules, over and over.

The moderators should not just apply the 'Rules' blindly but should take into account the circumstances of each case.

I disagree. If done as you suggest then each circumstance is open to "interpretation". I beleive the warning system is designed to avoid just that.

The rules as exist are simple and to the point. Violate them and get a warning point. It couldn't be much more straightforward.

Since the vast majority of users manage to use the site without getting any warning points (yourself included ), I would say the system works quite well as it is.

deleted by Patricia J B

Originally Posted by Patricia J B

I also think that expecting anyone to complain to the moderators instead of responding to a personal attack themselves is asking a bit much.

No, it's not "asking a bit much". There are respectful ways to respond, regardless of what the initial post said.
Or, respond in violation of the rules and pay the price. His choice.

Better yet, deliver the products that people paid for and eliminate the problems completely.

The 'system' works only when the rules are applied to all without bias. In this case that didn't happen.

Oh please. Now there is a bias against Sean?
The system works just fine for many thousands of users. They abide by the forum rules.

I think you need to look at your own objectivity regarding this issue.
I wonder what your response would have been if you sent money and never received what you paid for? Those are hardly "personal attacks".

I'm done here. It's obvious this discussion is going no where. I question whether you are able to look at this issue without your own bias clouding your viewpoint.

deleted by Patricia J B

Originally Posted by Patricia

It is quite clear for all to see that warnings have not been given to everyone who posted a personal attack

I question whether you understand what a personal attack is. Demanding to know where the products are that you've bought and paid for is NOT a personal attack.

Here is yet another angry customer. Is this a personal attack? Nooooo

Sean Kinkade ! I want my money Back now!

deleted by Patricia J B