London Capital & Finance

pip895

MSE should pay Dunstonh - not ban him. He is the boards (pensions & investments at least) No 1 asset. MSE is poorer for this decision. I'm voting with my feet.

bowlhead99

fifeken wrote: »

He's not been banned but has had his Posting Privileges Removed which is more of a suspension. With luck he'll be back with us shortly.

The forum rules talk about bans and PPR as being a multi stage process where a 'red card' is having your posting privileges removed for a short time but the PPR status is the final sanction of having posting privileges removed indefinitely if for example you have already had the red card.



Intriguingly the same rules state: "Our decision to suspend or stop any user's posting privileges (PPR) may be final."

If the decision 'may' be final then by implication the decision may not be final and perhaps the visible outpouring of love and respect from the other forum members in the 'feedback' part of the site (i.e. this thread) would encourage the Forum Team to reconsider that decision.

The Rules do note:

In the past, we tried hard not to PPR long-standing forum users. Sadly, we had so many issues taking time away from our core MoneySaving work, that protection had to go. Now, if someone's persistently causing trouble, they're PPR'd

Our contributor dunstonh was not persistently a troublemaker and would certainly be more remembered for posting almost 90,000 useful posts and having people click the 'thanks' button in over a third of them - quite an achievment. An example of the support from a small proportion of his fanbase is on this thread here

As this is the 'feedback' part of the site I will offer this feedback: The PPR process where trolls and spammers and troublemakers etc are banned could do with some improvement.

If someone is banned with no public explanation you may encourage paranoia. For example was someone banned because they criticised a particular company or a brand? Was it because they dared to criticise MSE itself? That would be Big Brother stuff, but people on this thread seem to be thinking it. Or was it something mundane and unsinister, as you would get on lots of forums, such as being banned / restricted for being overly disparaging towards someone elses comments or opinion or being a cyberbully? With the Rules telling us that "if someone is PPR'd, please don't talk about them" it is difficult for users to understand whether the Forum Team are doing a good job or a bad one.

For better engagement with the users, I think people would like to see more transparency. It is a 'community' after all, even though the site exists as a commercial venture. I recognise that from a practical perspective if you have limited resource you can't devote a lot of time to publishing reasons behind decisions or whatever and there are thousands of spam/scam posts to deal with so transparency would be resource intensive....

...but the depth of the 'community' is your best resource - all that time given for free by the users helping others, highlighting deals and pitfalls in financial matters, and pulling more users to the site from Google hits etc allowing MSE to monetise them by harvesting their clicks on referral links within the main site. So, dealing with 'the community' in a transparent way should be seen as a necessity rather than an expensive luxury and maybe that needs more staffing or a less heavy-handed approach to PPRs etc.

Certainly there are some offences which would be better dealt with by the internet equivalent of "go and sit quietly in the corner for the rest of the week / month" rather than "you are permanently banned from saying anything on this site". Without feedback from the forum team on why someone got kicked out, people will speculate and start campaigns etc - so it would seem that it could be better on balance to be open about actions rather than have the policy that dirty laundry must never be aired.

Putting oneself in the shoes of MSE it may appear there is fundamental problem in giving into a user campaign to "bring back xyz person" or "tell us all about the reasons for your actions on abc". If you 'give in' it is like giving in to a terrorist or paying off a kidnapper - next time an issue comes up you will have to deal with yet another campaign because people know they can just launch a protest and get what they want. However that would be a simplification.

People will protest and campaign things that are important to them ; far fewer would protest the banning of a troll or spammer. They are only going to complain and expect justification if they perceive the site management is making the site worse for the community by its actions.

Zanderman

pip895 wrote: »

MSE should pay Dunstonh - not ban him. He is the boards (pensions & investments at least) No 1 asset. MSE is poorer for this decision. I'm voting with my feet.

Indeed, Dunstonh is (was) a major asset, and in banning him MSE have lost a huge resource. Their behaviour implies they don't understand what they are doing, which is worrying in itself.

I've just been told by MSE that I've earned my 8 year badge. I'm not sure I'll make it to the 9th.

Aegis

As someone who has run a forum before, albeit nowhere near this size, this is precisely the point where the site moderators need to step in and explain themselves. It is true that forum owners have final say over who does and does not get to post on their site, however any forum owners who believe they don't have a responsibility back to the members when a favourite is banned often find themselves being walked out on by a lot of aggrevated members.

The fact that this issue now seems to be spanning no fewer than three discussion areas suggests that some fairly prompt communication is required!

I'll also add that dunstonh gave me some great (and free) advice on becoming an IFA myself back in 2007, so I'm not exactly happy to see him banned.

ChesterDog

Oh a forum where the most frequent and loudest voices are those of DIY, amateur and passive investors, Dunsonh's contributions have been invaluable and - especially importantly - balanced.

His posts make the case for IFAs (but goes far beyond) - something that will be a much more suitable approach for many people viewing these boards who do not have the desire or confidence to make posts of their own. His contributions, in keeping with his profession, are measured, accurate, informative, instructive, and above all useful.

He injects a much needed balance to the forum and has proved to be an inexhaustible source of information and guidance.

He is an essential pillar of several of these boards and his enforced absence is highly damaging to their content, usefulness, value and reputation.

Sometimes, people of principle find themselves in conflict with the rules. When that happens, those who make and enforce the rules should ensure they are moderate and fair in their enforcement thereof.

Dunstonh is integral to these forums.

Please reinstate him.

Pollycat

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The forum rules talk about bans and PPR as being a multi stage process where a 'red card' is having your posting privileges removed for a short time but the PPR status is the final sanction of having posting privileges removed indefinitely if for example you have already had the red card.



Intriguingly the same rules state: "Our decision to suspend or stop any user's posting privileges (PPR) may be final."

If the decision 'may' be final then by implication the decision may not be final and perhaps the visible outpouring of love and respect from the other forum members in the 'feedback' part of the site (i.e. this thread) would encourage the Forum Team to reconsider that decision.

I've seen posters PPRd and after a couple of weeks they've been posting again.

Let's hope that at the very worst, this is what will happen to dunstonh.
Better still if MSE reconsider and reinstate him now.

elsien

It's not just about re-instating though, is it? If the PPR was in respect of the unregistered companies mentioned previously in the thread, then the same is likely to happen again but leading to a permanent ban.
MSE needs to grow a pair, clarify exactly what is and isn't acceptable in these circumstances and hold their hands up to submitting to pressure from said companies. Which, in the absence of any other explanation, appears to be what they are doing to the detriment of the forums and the site's reputation.

le_loup

Have any of you considered that he may not wish to return after his appalling treatment?
I'm probably on my last chance and I feel like quitting because of the Orwellian nature of this board.

Malthusian

silvercar wrote: »

MSE doesn't moderate the forum

The banning of dunstonh and the removal of various posts with negative opinion on London Capital & Finance demonstrates that they do.

fifeken wrote: »

He's not been banned but has had his Posting Privileges Removed which is more of a suspension. With luck he'll be back with us shortly.

I can confirm that DunstonH's ban is permanent.

Biggles

Malthusian wrote: »

I can confirm that DunstonH's ban is permanent.

Has this been confirmed, Malthusian? That would be shameful if so.

I can't (now) know exactly what DH said but, like most of our more respected posters, he says little without due consideration and I can't imagine it having been anything but factual.

Sounds like pressure has been applied by the disgruntled company involved, which is definitely not the way this forum should ever work.