Estoppel Suspensions

[AB Editor]

We've just suspended 13 members who decided to post nonsense in a thread in Law.

I'm making this post as it will hopefully cut down on the number of indignant emails we get... It's a bit of a special case as it's a large number of members and many of them are long serving and much liked members.

I shouldn't have to say this - but there's only one place for nonsense, and that's Chatterbank.

In Law heads roll when you muck about.

But you know that already...

Here is the thread:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question1307583.html

My comment is at the end here, where I closed the question:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Law/Question1307583-31.html

Users were suspended for passing judgement, spamming nonsense, being rude, counting the number of answers in hope of getting to whateverhundred, posting irrelevant answers, encouraging irrelevant answers, and generally taking the piss.

Some of these users also gave good answers and then went of the rails. It makes it a little sadder than restraint couldn't have been shown on their part.

I know it's easy to get swept up in a bit of playground bullying.

But they weren't in a playground.

I know sometimes those asking questions can be frustrating, but the lack of empathy and compassion was stunning. If you don't like something, please just avoid posting on it... I have no idea why this isn't obvious.

Apologies to the rest of you - you're probably as bored of this kind of behaviour as I am, and would prefer to not read any more about it.

All the best,

Ab Editor.

PS. I don't care if it's "unfair" in any way. Thanks.

[jno]

spose you'll be having to post for two for a while, China

[AB Editor]

Ha! You lot are funny sometimes.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Ed gave his reasons clearly and what he says goes.
There is ample warning against what was done on that thread.
If I do wrong, I expect to get suspended. That's how it works.
It's ED's site at the end of the day and he allows us to use it for free.

[China Doll]

I'm not sure even I can match snags level of sarcasm jno.

[AB Editor]

I thought I would have had more post by now.

[Arksided]

Smeg!, 204 posts, I'm not reading all this drivel either.

[China Doll]

Well no ones speaking to you fella... I'd count yourself lucky.

[AB Editor]

You don't have to read it, or respond arksided :)

[Psybbo]

Which is why I thought an amnesty would be a benefit to all, but mostly for AB. I enjoy this site and all the people on it. Yes China, you too

[AB Editor]

I don't see how anyone would benefit from the rules not being enforced...

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

They'll be back in a week. It's hardly a long goodbye Psybbo. Let it go.

[China Doll]

'I don't see how anyone would benefit from the rules not being enforced'

Well my funny (and potentially factual at this rate) answer from earlier would still be here ;oP

[Arksided]

Smooth

[boxtops]

If Ed's being consistent (as we all want him to), why should people be allowed back just because some of us find them helpful and friendly (normally)? He'd have to allow back everyone then, including the ones who regularly get a post "removed" for rudeness or inappropriateness. There will be less chat for a week for some, but so be it - Ed's rules are Ed's rules.

[mazie]

Right boxy :o( sad day for AnswerBank in my opinion

[China Doll]

Relax Mazie... I'm still here and that's the main thing ;o) x

[mazie]

Of course it is CD. xxx

[AB Editor]

No. It was sad when a bunch of normally nice members decide to take the piss - especially when I have warned them about it before.

This is the rules being enforced.

You can try and rewrite it all in your head if you like, but it doesn't change the reality of it!

[Mosaic]

I love it when Ed is strict. Go on, you big brute, thrash us.