A weird policy or not?

Just so as you know, I had no warning, I just tried to log in one day and the account wasn't recognised. It was only when I checked my emails did I see one from Dooyoo telling me they'd suspended my account.

jojopillo wrote:

Camp Freddy wrote:

There's at least one reasonably popular/high profile member who's been perma-banned at least twice and temp banned more times than I care to remember and is still allowed access to the site and still behaves in exactly the same way.

I don't know what bothers me more... that this person continues to return or that Dooyoo lets them.

I don't wish to be picky - oh, ok I do! But this is exaclty the type of comment that the other Dooyoo forum was slated for - not exactly naming someone but I doubt anyone on here doesn't know who you're talking about. Also, this person is not on here to defend themselves.

I disagree. I can think, offhand, of at least three members that my description could apply to, one would surprise you and the others might be guessable. However, this raises an interesting discussion and I'm going to create a new post in the forum HQ to discuss naming and shaming to save this topic from going further off-topic. If a mod wants to delete this or edit the other posts, then feel free.

The N&S discusion can be found here

jojopillo wrote:

I don't wish to be picky - oh, ok I do! But this is exaclty the type of comment that the other Dooyoo forum was slated for - not exactly naming someone but I doubt anyone on here doesn't know who you're talking about. Also, this person is not on here to defend themselves. And although I totally agree with what you said I think this forum is in danger of double standards if it doesn't address this!

This is a good point, it is about where to draw a line I think. My initial reaction is that this is not quite the same situation as we have seen on DL. Firstly, nobody can be identified from the comment made, whereas if he had ranted DL style about the author of the "crap review of Milton Keynes Premier Inn posted at 4.15pm today" then the member in question would be clearly identifiable. Also the forum is open, so if said person does recognise themselves and wants to state their case then they can, whereas certain people were denied the right to reply on DL as they were not allowed to sign up. I believe this as also one of the major concerns pointed out with DL.

Hope that makes sense and essentially I agree with you, we don't want double standards here.

What's wrong with my Premier Inn review

What's wrong with my Premier Inn review

At least you got an email from dooyoo though jojopillo, my point was that when I was banned I didn't get any message, or any response to my emails!

marymoose99 wrote:

At least you got an email from dooyoo though jojopillo, my point was that when I was banned I didn't get any message, or any response to my emails!

Yes. well that is not on!

Cat19 wrote:

jojopillo wrote:

I don't wish to be picky - oh, ok I do! But this is exaclty the type of comment that the other Dooyoo forum was slated for - not exactly naming someone but I doubt anyone on here doesn't know who you're talking about. Also, this person is not on here to defend themselves. And although I totally agree with what you said I think this forum is in danger of double standards if it doesn't address this!

This is a good point, it is about where to draw a line I think. My initial reaction is that this is not quite the same situation as we have seen on DL. Firstly, nobody can be identified from the comment made, whereas if he had ranted DL style about the author of the "crap review of Milton Keynes Premier Inn posted at 4.15pm today" then the member in question would be clearly identifiable. Also the forum is open, so if said person does recognise themselves and wants to state their case then they can, whereas certain people were denied the right to reply on DL as they were not allowed to sign up. I believe this as also one of the major concerns pointed out with DL.

Hope that makes sense and essentially I agree with you, we don't want double standards here.

A good point, then please tell me why it was removed?

jojopillo wrote:

A good point, then please tell me why it was removed?

Jojo - I sent you a PM yesterday afternoon explaining.

CF agreed to amend the comment you objected to whilst the N&S topic was debated in wider terms and he started a thread on this. So as your post quoted the post you objected to and your post would not have made sense without it once CF amended his comment, removing it seemed the sensible thing to do. More sensible yet might have been to mine too.

It seems illogical to have "objectionable" comments removed or amended but leave untouched the posts quoting those comments. Hope that makes sense.

Note to all: We decided it would be preferable if people could bring matters like this that concern them to the attention of a moderator privately in the first instance, to avoid drawing more attention to something we might not wish to have on the forum.

I posted before I read the PM

Maybe its to discourage them doing it again because what ever they have done is what pretty much everyone else is doing. You cant throw everyone off at once. Dooyoo wouldnt exist if everyone obeyed the rules, the handful left not prolific writers, raters or commenters..