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.

[ummmm]

Carrust - they aren't banned they are suspended.

As said earlier, posts were removed so it was being moderated to a point. So I assume the MOD watching in might have had to leave the computer.

Your posts becoming -answer removed- should be enough of a hint.

Yeah...a few of them might become user_inactive but they will rejoin.

[2sp_]

I have no idea what has happened (I do live in my own wee bubble), but if Ed felt he had to suspend 17 members over it all it must have been pretty extreme.

Ed, it's your party and we have to play by your rules. You make decisions that might prove to be unpopular, but I know I wouldn't have your job for all the tea in China. Or cake in B00's house.

I'm off back to my wee bubble. (Just to clarify, it's not a bubble of wee...)

[AB Editor]

Carrust. I didn't ban them. I suspended them.

Would you prefer those who broke the rules to go unpunished?

[AB Editor]

That is a disgusting mental image Sp_ - thanks for that!

[2sp_]

You are very welcome, Ed.

[carrust]

Ed, Ummm. I should have said suspended not banned. I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime. However, if you look at a lot of threads in AB, there's always someone who posts off-topic & doesn't get suspended. Perhaps a yellow card system could be implemented to warn them of the consequences?

[AB Editor]

"However, if you look at a lot of threads in AB, there's always someone who posts off-topic & doesn't get suspended. Perhaps a yellow card system could be implemented to warn them of the consequences?"

This is a yellow card.

They have been warned of the consequences.

There is a warning in Law to not do exactly what many of them did.

There is no defence for it.

[B00]

Carrust- That's why CB is there, for nonsense posts, in house chatter and going of on tangents. There is no header saying you'll be decapitated (or similar) of you stray off topic like there is in Law.

As I said I purposely don't mosy over to Law for that reason, I tend to specialise in 'crap' and I know full well that that it won't be welcome in there.

[237SJ]

Could somebody not have just have interjected with a "Please keep the answers on track or you will be suspended" type of comment? Might have saved a lot of grief all round.

[Peter Pedant]

Well done Barmaid - stand for the bar Council if not already on...

The point I would make - estoppel as a social phenomenon -surely an article/paper on that - that there were waves of people er trying to help, vaguely in hundred (not hundred of people but each hundred of answers). The law ably explained by Barmaid [Cobbe v Yeoman) didnt change - but the answers did.

She had contributed 15k in the original posting which gave rise to rights but then it wasnt mentioned in the divorce - Very strange and Eccles noticed this and rather became intemporate when she concluded what had gone on. - after all it was a colossal waste of time. [not mentioned as it was not contributed]

I had rejoined at 200 and wrestled with her £ 15k which would be the basis of a claim for continued possession.
O it wasnt mine it was my husband's, she said as cool as a cucumber
as tho contributing someone else's money has the same effect of contributing your own. This meant that the answers 200-400 were by and large er hot air.

we then [400 to end] got onto the subject of fabricating evidence
and quite a few people were baring their teeth by that time

So I am not sure that it was anyone's fault
I hope the suspensions are short.

I notice you havent suspended the ABer who made rational and well-judged anagrams of estoppel - by the end, the facts of the case stunk like a p+++-P++

[carrust]

I stand corrected. I didn't know of any warning in the law section. The miscreants should be flogged:-)

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis, just out of interest, what came first the avatar or the name

The name ...

[B00]

There is one Carrust- honest!

"Disclaimer: All Answers found here should not be taken in the stead of legal advice from a solicitor.

Please refrain from being rude, abusive or judgemental - members come here for advice, not judgement! Members who offer only moral judgement will be suspended. "

[carrust]

Thanks for that boo.

[AB Editor]

Hi Peter. You're an example of someone who contributed well, but then got a bit grumpy. I weighed the help vs the grumpiness and though you came out okay.

I wanted to make pragmatic judgements given the context - not just suspend everyone who said something grumpy. Although there were some where the judgement went the other way by an eyelashes girth.

Carrust - it's the nature of that section. People are highly invested in getting answers so being "silly" or "judgemental" serves zero purpose.

They will be flogged.

[netibiza]

May I just ask, in all innocence, and without causing a furore, was the OP entitled to the house? yes or no will suffice as I was totally confused by it all.

[AB Editor]

I just wanted to say - I'm sorry that this has caused some people to have an...

e-stropp (el)

... Thanks.

[AB Editor]

"May I just ask, in all innocence, and without causing a furore, was the OP entitled to the house? yes or no will suffice as I was totally confused by it all."

Are you joking Neti?

I think the answer was: it is very unlikely.

[Barmaid]

I would answer that Neti, but an currently producing a Skeleton argument for my case tomorrow which is (you will laugh at this) concerning proprietary estoppel.......

[WELSHYORKIE]

groan.................