# Are we even allowed to ask?



## GrumpyPaul (8/12/14)

Just wondering......why


----------



## poggor (8/12/14)

asking why is against company policy


----------



## DJ_L3ThAL (8/12/14)

poggor you're now an accomplice, reported!


----------



## bradsbrew (8/12/14)

I received a polite pm by a member and I explained the situation, well, as far as I know what happened.
Long story short, if you get nasty via pm and emails to the owner, the owner's not going to put up with it.


----------



## MartinOC (8/12/14)

So, Nev got a bit pissed & vented something at Austin?

Firearm directed at metatarsals, methinks....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/12/14)

Is he still unhappy that there are no WA mods..?


----------



## manticle (8/12/14)

MartinOC said:


> So, Nev got a bit pissed & vented something at Austin?
> 
> Firearm directed at metatarsals, methinks....


I don't believe it was a premiere event.


----------



## manticle (8/12/14)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Is he still unhappy that there are no WA mods..?


Where's dent live then?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/12/14)

manticle said:


> Where's dent live then?


I could have re-phrased that...but prob better not to....


----------



## dicko (9/12/14)

Most would refer to "Martin OC 's" avatar......


----------



## jyo (9/12/14)

Ok...well I think it sucks. There you go.


----------



## StalkingWilbur (9/12/14)

Have to agree with jyo.


----------



## barls (9/12/14)

people have to take responsibility for their actions and i can honestly say that it wasn't one action that caused this. its been building for a while.


----------



## TheWiggman (9/12/14)

This would be a confusing thread to read in the future. I don't think there's any reason to protect his name so... 

Nev of OnlineBrewingSupplies was banned. Why? I don't know the details but you don't accidentally get banned. He's been banned temporarily before and recently I can see he's had some posts modded and rule 9 quoted. Apart from that, nothing untoward. Obviously as stated above, he handled something the wrong way.

It's a damn shame to see him go, he's been on here for 8 years and there are many valuable posts past and present I've referred to in my short time here. He's the HERM-IT man, proponent of the PVC tube from what I can gather a very fine brewer of beers. There's a lot of valuable discussion on here that he has been involved with and isn't afraid to challenge opinion. Also a very good bloke to deal with in my opinion.

He'll be missed.


----------



## Mardoo (9/12/14)

Oh damn, Nev's been very helpful to me. Not happy to hear this. Not passing judgement on whether it was deserved or not, I'm just not happy to hear it. I was enough of an asshole once to nearly get banned from the most important thing in my life, so I know it does happen.


----------



## AHB_Admin (9/12/14)

I don't talk about bans. I think it's a personal issue best left between the banned and the person doing it. If this was something we could all learn from that might be different, but it's not. It's a personality conflict and I would like to leave it at that. 

Please note I do not ban for arguments, disagreeing with me, telling me I'm wrong, or anything of the sort. I encourage dissent. 

I wish Nev the best in his business, and hope things truly go well for him. I don't have anything else to say on that point as I will not reveal the personal information that led up to this ban.


----------



## Camo6 (9/12/14)

Damn. I enjoyed Nev's humour and the knowledge he shared. He certainly had no problems calling it how he saw it.

I shall run the Herm-it at half flow today.


----------



## StalkingWilbur (9/12/14)

So you're allowed to ban for a personality conflict? 

I was a part of the thread where that recent rule 9 violation occurred. Someone asked about buying kegs. Nev said he had kegs. I don't see the harm in that? Especially when another forum retail member had already mentioned a different retail member in that thread.

I'd prefer someone who comes out and says what they're thinking, even if I disagree with it, rather than make bullshit, backhanded, little remarks as seen a few posts above.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (9/12/14)

meh..


----------



## Spiesy (9/12/14)

StalkingWilbur said:


> I was a part of the thread where that recent rule 9 violation occurred. Someone asked about buying kegs. Nev said he had kegs. I don't see the harm in that? Especially when another forum retail member had already mentioned a different retail member in that thread.


Don't see what me mentioning another retailer has to do with anything. 

The rules state you cannot tout your own gear anywhere except your retail thread. I've been pulled up on it before, rules is rules, until they're not.


----------



## AHB_Admin (9/12/14)

StalkingWilbur said:


> So you're allowed to ban for a personality conflict?
> 
> I was a part of the thread where that recent rule 9 violation occurred. Someone asked about buying kegs. Nev said he had kegs. I don't see the harm in that? Especially when another forum retail member had already mentioned a different retail member in that thread.
> 
> I'd prefer someone who comes out and says what they're thinking, even if I disagree with it, rather than make bullshit, backhanded, little remarks as seen a few posts above.


No. I do not want to give the number of the rule violated as I do not feel it's conducive to moving on, and it would be discussing the ban, which as stated I do not do. 

Anyone who has had any interaction with me here knows I talk the to the mods and admins, and I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. In fact I go so far as to make sure there's not some sort of cultural difference leading to a misunderstanding.


----------



## StalkingWilbur (9/12/14)

Spiesy said:


> Don't see what me mentioning another retailer has to do with anything.
> 
> The rules state you cannot tout your own gear anywhere except your retail thread. I've been pulled up on it before, rules is rules, until they're not.


Then maybe there should be a rule about retailers "touting" other retailers gear. There could be a reason for it. You could just be mates and trying to direct sales his way, or for all we know, you could be wholesaling gear to him and effectively "touting" your own stuff through a proxy.


----------



## Forever Wort (9/12/14)

I appreciate AHB for what its members have taught me about beer - especially in that exciting first year of brewing. With that said AHB is highly regulated as far as forums go and every ban is a dent in its armor, in my view. 

Still, Nev shouldn't feel too bad. Excommunication by secret decree is personal rather than institutional and reflects only on the person with the power.

I've never really understood the quirky premise Aussie HB is built on (Americans?).

So many Internet tears.

:chug:


----------



## Spiesy (9/12/14)

StalkingWilbur said:


> Then maybe there should be a rule about retailers "touting" other retailers gear. There could be a reason for it. You could just be mates and trying to direct sales his way, or for all we know, you could be wholesaling gear to him and effectively "touting" your own stuff through a proxy.


Could be, wasn't. 

We don't wholesale kegs, in fact we don't deal with that particular retailer at all. 

I was just an AHB member trying to help another AHB member out. 

Didn't think it would be an issue, mate.

Edit: I should add, I would imagine most members here are mates with a retailer or two. Should they not be allowed to make recommendations either? Because I can tell you, everyone does it.


----------



## SmallFry (9/12/14)

Must be a December thing


----------



## manticle (9/12/14)

StalkingWilbur said:


> Then maybe there should be a rule about retailers "touting" other retailers gear. There could be a reason for it. You could just be mates and trying to direct sales his way, or for all we know, you could be wholesaling gear to him and effectively "touting" your own stuff through a proxy.


Really?


----------



## Bridges (9/12/14)

It must be a difficult thing for retailers when someone is asking for help and the answer is a product you sell, I know rules are rules and all but I imagine it would be easy to break that rule when just trying to help.


----------



## Spiesy (9/12/14)

Bridges said:


> It must be a difficult thing for retailers when someone is asking for help and the answer is a product you sell, I know rules are rules and all but I imagine it would be easy to break that rule when just trying to help.


Retailers are encouraged to PM the member directly.


----------



## Bridges (9/12/14)

OK that makes sense then, so the member can jump on and post that the answer to my problem is product 'X' which I got from here...


----------



## Spiesy (9/12/14)

Bridges said:


> OK that makes sense then, so the member can jump on and post that the answer to my problem is product 'X' which I got from here...


I guess, yeah.


----------



## Feldon (9/12/14)

The only take-out I get from this is that if you chose to personally abuse the owner, admins, mods etc, don't do the courteous thing and do it by private PM.

No, do it in a public thread so other forum users can know the reason why you are (eventually) banned.

I also don't see why abuse received by private PM cannot be dealt with by a private ban on receipt of PM's from that person.


----------



## technobabble66 (9/12/14)

StalkingWilbur said:


> So you're allowed to ban for a personality conflict? ...


It might not be for having the actual conflict, it might be more the way the conflict was conducted. 

I'd be of a similar mind to Mardoo - it's v sad to see long time members and brewers get struck down by the ban hammer. I've greatly appreciated Nev's input over the couple of years I've been following AHB. 

Unfortunately people sometimes seem to get a bee in their bonnet about something (they believe is) unfair and their emotions get the better of them. 
On the other hand, we're all adults and should be capable of behaving appropriately, not letting the red mist take over. 

I know I'm still relatively new here, however I've noticed a big change over the past 2 years. And to be honest, I think it's generally much better for the absence of snarky comments, DASFFS's and various other bitchy comments/squabbles. At the same time there was a loss of some highly knowledgeable brewers due to their breaches of the enforced code of conduct. However, I get the impression there was a loss of many more great brewers previously due to the aforementioned bitchiness. 
And most of us have to deal with people being arses on a regular basis in normal life. I for one don't want to come home to log into my favorite hobby forum and have to deal with more of them. If that comes at the cost of me not being one either, then so be it. 
So I find the implementation of a stronger code of conduct to be much better for AHB overall. 
I guess I'd see the likes of Nev as being a bit more like collateral damage. Someone who, like mardoo mentioned maybe, generally was doing the right thing and just got worked up over something (not the first time, as mentioned, but still quite infrequently). 
I'm obviously making some broad assumptions here. 
However, rules is rules. 
And we're all adults, so should be behaving responsibly *and* respectfully. 

Wish Nev all the best and sincerely thank him for his valuable input into the community.


----------



## technobabble66 (9/12/14)

Feldon said:


> The only take-out I get from this is that if you chose to personally abuse the owner, admins, mods etc, don't do the courteous thing and do it by private PM.
> 
> No, do it in a public thread so other forum users can know the reason why you are (eventually) banned.
> 
> I also don't see why abuse received by private PM cannot be dealt with by a private ban on receipt of PM's from that person.


I think the take-out is just don't abuse people on the forum. Period. 
Surely that is not difficult.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (9/12/14)

I just can't see what reason someone would have for getting abusive, it's not that hard to show decorum online. Being drunk & having a brain explosion might be an excuse but it shouldn't be tolerated. Permanent bans really irk me though. An extended ban system (1week, 1 month etc depending on offence) has worked on other forums I've been a part of.


----------



## Feldon (9/12/14)

technobabble66 said:


> I think the take-out is just don't abuse people on the forum. Period.
> Surely that is not difficult.


Evidently it is.


----------



## StalkingWilbur (9/12/14)

manticle said:


> Really?


Not really, no. But it's just as illogical as the original rule to me. Anyway, it's far removed from the topic. 

Do we even know if he did get abusive or are we just assuming? I've definitely said stuff I shouldn't have before, but if there's been aggressive, personal abuse, then I don't really have much of a defense, no matter how much I love Nev. 

I also don't agree with a permanent ban either. I think it's pretty rare disputes can't be resolved.


----------



## Dave70 (9/12/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> I just can't see what reason someone would have for getting abusive, it's not that hard to show decorum online. Being drunk & having a brain explosion might be an excuse but it shouldn't be tolerated. Permanent bans really irk me though. *An extended ban system (1week, 1 month etc depending on offence*) has worked on other forums I've been a part of.


I thought that was in place already, isn't it something like 3 strikes and you're out? 

Repeated Breaches

Any member who continues to breach the rules of the site after having content deleted (i.e. reposts deleted material), or receiving a PM warning from a moderator will have their account suspended for 24 hours. Repeat offenses after this will result in a one week ban, followed by revocation of membership.


And honestly, if a grown adult needs to be told_ that_ many times to pull their head in, it's unlikely they're going to change their ways.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (9/12/14)

maybe 24hrs isn't enough for people to cool off, I don't know, I'm not one of them.


----------



## wally (9/12/14)

Dave70 said:


> I thought that was in place already, isn't it something like 3 strikes and you're out?
> 
> Repeated Breaches
> 
> ...


Spare a thought for the guys who got banned last year during the "Great Purge".

I know of one member who was banned, and the site owner or admin didn't even have the courtesy to advise him why he was banned.


----------



## mckenry (9/12/14)

Obviously most of us will never know the whole truth. Nev however, obviously has had issues in the past. I assume the correct procedures were followed and that he continued to break the rules??
Being a retailer and this being the most frequented HB forum, I would imagine it was in his best (business) interests to toe the line.
I think he has made a huge mistake.
Unfortunate as he was a good contributor.


----------



## Dave70 (9/12/14)

Liam_snorkel said:


> maybe 24hrs isn't enough for people to cool off, I don't know, I'm not one of them.


Me neither. 
I'm more the seething type.


----------



## manticle (9/12/14)

> Not really, no. But it's just as illogical as the original rule to me. Anyway, it's far removed from the topic.


OT yes but the original rule is simply to stop retailers flogging products at every opportunity. Retailer tag currently costs nothing so it's essentially free advertising. There are specific threads in specific forums that enable retailers to do their spruiking (sponsors are bound by similar rules although they pay for their space) and rules preventing them interrupting other retail and sponsor threads with negativity or competition.

They have a space to advertise, it's discouraged to do it elsewhere as it clutters up threads. Most retailers get it right most of the time, ocassionally there are some crossed wires. I don't think it's a big deal.



> Do we even know if he did get abusive or are we just assuming? I've definitely said stuff I shouldn't have before, but if there's been aggressive, personal abuse, then I don't really have much of a defense, no matter how much I love Nev.
> 
> I also don't agree with a permanent ban either. I think it's pretty rare disputes can't be resolved.


I'm not big on permanent bans either and I very much believe in dispute resolution where possible. I wasn't involved with the ban and don't know the specifics but I do know it wasn't the first time and he has had short term bans and warnings before.

I also regret seeing long term users with valuable knowledge go but remember there's compromise between gathering knowledgeable, informative membership and discouraging certain behaviour towards both members and staff (who are also members). If someone was strongly abusive towards a member, there's an expectation that mods/admin deal with it. I can't see it being different when the target is part of mod/admin. OBS was a paid sponsor so I doubt the decision was taken lightly.


----------



## GrumpyPaul (9/12/14)

GrumpyPaul said:


> Just wondering......why


Boy did this thread go OT.

I was actually pondering the meaning of life and all that deep existential stuff and put it out there....why?

Why are we here?, Why is the sky blue? Why do my socks go missing in the wash? Why does Cocko evoke slightly tingly and unnatural feeling in so many brewers?

Just wondering.....why????


----------



## Bridges (9/12/14)

GrumpyPaul said:


> Boy did this thread go OT.
> 
> I was actually pondering the meaning of life and all that deep existential stuff and put it out there....why?
> 
> ...


42


----------



## droid (9/12/14)

when people are not behaving appropriately, when their actions, words or behaviour is unacceptable , where possible I think it is important to separate the person from the behaviour, we don't want to be telling people that they are unacceptable, it is the behaviour that is unacceptable and give them an opportunity to change that behaviour er ~ such as mine the other day

<edit> to me it is understandable that people want to know what genre? of behaviour was it that was unnacceptable, don't need specifics but the model of learning is:

action - feedback-reflection-new understanding


----------



## AHB_Admin (10/12/14)

Forever Wort said:


> I appreciate AHB for what its members have taught me about beer - especially in that exciting first year of brewing. With that said AHB is highly regulated as far as forums go and every ban is a dent in its armor, in my view.
> 
> Still, Nev shouldn't feel too bad. Excommunication by secret decree is personal rather than institutional and reflects only on the person with the power.
> 
> ...


I get into this from time to time and it frustrates me. What does my nationality have to do with the way things are ran? I don't have a team of American Mods seeing to the rules and deciding things now do I? Nope. They are your Aussie Brothers one and all. I'm sure they will also verify for me that I have made no unilateral decisions, and that changes in policy, rule infringements, etc, are discussed thoroughly. 

Before I came here the rules were ambiguous at best, and the number one complaint was uneven enforcement,and improper application. That was resolved,and we're moving along quite nicely. 

So that I'm clear, any ban not put out into the forum is a secret ban? Because I didn't share the word by word and reason it's some sort of cabal? Please explain. 



Bridges said:


> It must be a difficult thing for retailers when someone is asking for help and the answer is a product you sell, I know rules are rules and all but I imagine it would be easy to break that rule when just trying to help.





Spiesy said:


> Retailers are encouraged to PM the member directly.


Yup. If not, all threads get turned into ads. I don't want that, nor do I feel it will serve the community well. 



Feldon said:


> The only take-out I get from this is that if you chose to personally abuse the owner, admins, mods etc, don't do the courteous thing and do it by private PM.
> 
> No, do it in a public thread so other forum users can know the reason why you are (eventually) banned.
> 
> I also don't see why abuse received by private PM cannot be dealt with by a private ban on receipt of PM's from that person.


Don't do it all. I'm very reasonable. Talk to me like a human being worthy of your words. You will have no issues from me. 



technobabble66 said:


> I think the take-out is just don't abuse people on the forum. Period.
> Surely that is not difficult.


I think not, but it can be.



Liam_snorkel said:


> I just can't see what reason someone would have for getting abusive, it's not that hard to show decorum online. Being drunk & having a brain explosion might be an excuse but it shouldn't be tolerated. Permanent bans really irk me though. An extended ban system (1week, 1 month etc depending on offence) has worked on other forums I've been a part of.


I appreciate what you're saying, but this is the straw that broke the camels back. 



wally said:


> Spare a thought for the guys who got banned last year during the "Great Purge".
> 
> I know of one member who was banned, and the site owner or admin didn't even have the courtesy to advise him why he was banned.


I don't have contact after the ban. Unless they have my personal email, how am I supposed to let them know?



GrumpyPaul said:


> Boy did this thread go OT.
> 
> I was actually pondering the meaning of life and all that deep existential stuff and put it out there....why?
> 
> ...


There is no why.


----------



## Feldon (10/12/14)

Austin.

You avoided my previous point: "I also don't see why abuse received by private PM cannot be dealt with by a private ban on receipt of PM's from that person."


----------



## Blind Dog (10/12/14)

Just my 2c, but I quite like the rules. They're clear and unambiguous, have pretty clear consequences for breach and from what I see are applied sensibly. Not sure I'd want to participate in a forum where that wasn't true.


----------



## DU99 (10/12/14)

:icon_offtopic: people tend to forget you can block messages/pm's thru my setting's "ignore" Preferences...


----------



## MastersBrewery (10/12/14)

DU99 said:


> :icon_offtopic: people tend to forget you can block messages/pm's thru my setting's "ignore" Preferences...


Though I don't believe it would be appropriate for MODS/AMIN block any user.


----------



## AndrewQLD (10/12/14)

> Austin.
> 
> You avoided my previous point: "I also don't see why abuse received by private PM cannot be dealt with by a private ban on receipt of PM's from that person."


Feldon, that would be nice if it always worked and that has been done before, however when the pm's continue without stopping regardless of what is explained to that member and they become more aggressive then at some point a line has to be drawn.

As far as why was someone banned? Look at it this way, if a member is banned it is always for breaking one or more of the site rules continuously or being abusive to another member or staff or as has happened in the past threats of violence, in our eyes everyone deserves a measure of privacy and as such posting the reasons for a particular members ban would not be respecting their privacy, there is no reason to drag it out in the open just to appease other members curiosity.

Suffice to say that every member who has been banned has been given ample opportunity to stop doing what it is that is giving other members reason to report them. Does anyone seriously think we like banning members? that's counter productive to the idea of what AHB is and banning a sponsor is certainly not something that we would ever want to do if it could possibly be helped.

I notice a few references to Austin and his nationality, I'd like to say right now that at no time since Austin took over the reigns here has he ever made changes to the running of AHB without first consulting with the admin team, changes are made after discussion with staff and in some cases the staff has overruled the changes and Austin has been happy to take our advice. He very rarely plays much of a part in the moderating side of the forum as he feels that should be left to the all Australian moderation team. What Austins nationality has to do with this is beyond me.


----------



## AndrewQLD (10/12/14)

Oh and as far as someone being banned and not knowing the reason for it, when a member ban is generated a reason for the ban is requested in the form, this reason is then emailed to the member automatically for their clarity. Although if it gets to this stage the member would be more than aware what he is being banned for.


----------



## Dave70 (10/12/14)

GrumpyPaul said:


> Why does Cocko evoke slightly tingly and unnatural feeling in so many brewers?


Its the deviously subliminal 'smoking meat' thread would be my guess.


----------



## Forever Wort (10/12/14)

austin said:


> I get into this from time to time and it frustrates me. What does my nationality have to do with the way things are ran? I don't have a team of American Mods seeing to the rules and deciding things now do I? Nope. They are your Aussie Brothers one and all. I'm sure they will also verify for me that I have made no unilateral decisions, and that changes in policy, rule infringements, etc, are discussed thoroughly.
> 
> Before I came here the rules were ambiguous at best, and the number one complaint was uneven enforcement,and improper application. That was resolved,and we're moving along quite nicely.
> 
> So that I'm clear, any ban not put out into the forum is a secret ban? Because I didn't share the word by word and reason it's some sort of cabal? Please explain.


No hard feelings old chap. Your _nationality_ has nothing to do with how things are run. It is simply absurd that Aussie Home Brewers is oxymoronically beholden to the bald eagle. Obviously you will continue to hear this from time to time. 

And yes, if you don't share the reasons behind an excommunication then you are implying there is something to hide. With power comes responsibility. Forums are communities. 
:beer:


----------



## Feldon (10/12/14)

AndrewQLD said:


> Feldon, that would be nice if it always worked and that has been done before, however when the pm's continue without stopping regardless of what is explained to that member and they become more aggressive then at some point a line has to be drawn.


That makes no sense at all. How can one be aware of the content of PMs if one has blocked receipt of PMs from that person.

So I ask it again (of Austin): Why can't abuse you receive by private PM be ignored henceforth by simply blocking receipt of further PM's from that person?


----------



## mje1980 (10/12/14)

Forever Wort said:


> No hard feelings old chap. Your _nationality_ has nothing to do with how things are run. It is simply absurd that Aussie Home Brewers is oxymoronically beholden to the bald eagle. Obviously you will continue to hear this from time to time.
> 
> And yes, if you don't share the reasons behind an excommunication then you are implying there is something to hide. With power comes responsibility. Forums are communities.
> :beer:



What a load of shit, respectfully


----------



## Batz (10/12/14)

I would like to suggest we all move right along now and get back to discussing things like brewing, and drinking good beers.


----------



## AndrewQLD (10/12/14)

Feldon said:


> That makes no sense at all. How can one be aware of the content of PMs if one has blocked receipt of PMs from that person.
> 
> So I ask it again (of Austin): Why can't abuse you receive by private PM be ignored henceforth by simply blocking receipt of further PM's from that person?


Even though you are not asking me I will answer anyway, 
Because as an owner, admin or moderator it would be counter productive to block messages or pms from members, we need to be contactable regardless.

I'll pose another question, why can't the member NOT message/pm abuse?


----------



## Feldon (10/12/14)

AndrewQLD said:


> Even though you are not asking me I will answer anyway,
> Because as an owner, admin or moderator it would be counter productive to block messages or pms from members, we need to be contactable regardless.
> 
> I'll pose another question, why can't the member NOT message/pm abuse?


The issue that led to the banning is clearly a personal one solely between Austin and Nev, not between Nev and the other Admins and Mods etc.

And don't tell me otherwise. Austin put it clearly on p.1 of this thread: "I think it's a personal issue best left between the banned and the person doing it... It's a personality conflict and I would like to leave it at that."

So if Austin simply hit the ignore button to ban receipt of further PMs from Nev, that would leave Austin in peace of mind and Nev open to contact with you and other site officials. No counter-productivity there.

Bradsbrews (Admin) stated what's really going on here on p.1 : "[SIZE=medium]Long story short, if you get nasty via pm and emails to the owner, the owner's not going to put up with it."[/SIZE]

Attempts to explain this otherwise appear to be weak.


----------



## madpierre06 (10/12/14)

Seems to me that the explanations given were trying to be respectful to the banned person and the specific reasons kept private which is more than fair enough, and many respondents here have simply been unwilling to let it go.

*Bradsbrews (Admin) stated what's really going on here on p.1 : "[SIZE=medium]Long story short, if you get nasty via pm and emails to the owner, the owner's not going to put up with it."[/SIZE]*

It's easy....don't get nasty.


----------



## QldKev (10/12/14)

Feldon said:


> The issue that led to the banning is clearly a personal one solely between Austin and Nev, not between Nev and the other Admins and Mods etc.
> 
> And don't tell me otherwise. Austin put it clearly on p.1 of this thread: "I think it's a personal issue best left between the banned and the person doing it... It's a personality conflict and I would like to leave it at that."
> 
> ...


What needs to be taken into account is that the member has had many warnings prior, and had just returned from a time out period. Don't just focus on the final incident.


----------



## Eagleburger (10/12/14)

Who owns ahb? Austin...


----------



## spog (10/12/14)

Forever Wort said:


> No hard feelings old chap. Your _nationality_ has nothing to do with how things are run. It is simply absurd that Aussie Home Brewers is oxymoronically beholden to the bald eagle. Obviously you will continue to hear this from time to time.
> 
> And yes, if you don't share the reasons behind an excommunication then you are implying there is something to hide. With power comes responsibility. Forums are communities.
> :beer:


" Forums are communities ". Correct. And communities have rules, just like forums.
Being banned from here doesn't just happen,I understand that warnings are given and if the warnings are not heeded or unacceptable behaviour continues then a ban is implemented.
A simple system really.
What the causes are in this case I don't know, nor do have the need to find out.
My 2c .
Cheers....spog....


----------



## barls (10/12/14)

austin owns ahb. but thats not the point being discussed here.
seriously peoples what has happened has happened and it falls on one person alone as being responsible. thats it. 
this wasn't a light decision and was discussed at length before it happened. end of story.
any bans or time outs are discussed by the mods/ admins well before they happen with the exception of spammers they get an instant ban.
plus ill point you all to rule 14


> 14. Posts complaining about moderation, or discussing administrative decisions will be deleted. Such discussion should take place via Private Message.


this one has been let gofer the time being but i don't know for how much longer


----------



## Weizguy (10/12/14)

> Spare a thought for the guys who got banned last year during the "Great Purge".
> 
> I know of one member who was banned, and the site owner or admin didn't even have the courtesy to advise him why he was banned.


Great Purge, my @rse. Sounds like you are baiting/ trolling with that comment.
You break the rules, you go to gaol, same as everyone, whether an individual or group action.



> I would like to suggest we all move right along now and get back to discussing things like brewing, and drinking good beers.


Batz, you know that conflict is more enticing than brewing and drinking. Not even sure why I got drawn in to this conversation, but it seems some others are just trolling. Surely there's a rule about that?



> The issue that led to the banning is clearly a personal one solely between Austin and Nev, not between Nev and the other Admins and Mods etc.
> 
> And don't tell me otherwise. Austin put it clearly on p.1 of this thread: "I think it's a personal issue best left between the banned and the person doing it... It's a personality conflict and I would like to leave it at that."
> 
> ...


I respect the right not to have to explain why someone's (possibly d!ckhead) behaviour has got them banned. THEY know!
I have noticed an increasing belligerence toward mods on this forum, and was wondering when it would come to a head. I just didn't realise that it had already happened and was continuing to happen.

OK to lock this thread, now that I've included my 2c worth.


----------



## Batz (10/12/14)

> Batz, you know that conflict is more enticing than brewing and drinking. Not even sure why I got drawn in to this conversation, but it seems some others are just trolling. Surely there's a rule about that?


Trolling or just plain whinging.

Few more hours till beer o'clock


----------



## Blind Dog (10/12/14)

And now we're back to talking beer

Yay!


----------



## GrumpyPaul (10/12/14)

I try not to troll......but some times I can help myself.

Sometime when I see a sleeping bear I just get an urge to poke it with a stick.

This I time I saw a bear and just put the stick out for the rest of you to poke it with.

Can I have my stick back please, I think bear is rightfully (or righteously) getting angry. 

I think its time to let sleeping bears lie.


----------



## warra48 (10/12/14)

Sleeping bears are easy to let lie. Sleeping bares are a much more difficult situation.

Methinks we have had enough discussion of the issue raised in this thread. Time to get back to the more usual discussions.


----------



## Weizguy (10/12/14)

> Sleeping bears are easy to let lie. Sleeping bares are a much more difficult situation.
> 
> Methinks we have had enough discussion of the issue raised in this thread. Time to get back to the more usual discussions.


I agree about those sleeping beers. Too strong, and they do make you somnulent, and the cracking headaches.


----------



## manticle (10/12/14)

Thread locked for now as it seems most interested have had their say. Questions about moderation and admin decisions are supposed to be via pm so the thread has done well to remain thus far. 
However, it's important people have a say and feel listened to so we've deliberately considered that balance.
For now, direct any further questions to a relevant mod via pm or just accept and move on.

Cheers.


----------

