cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

i think rev was one, and chesterfield himself
18 REPLIES
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

tell us here
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Another one was ibc01
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

and what happened - what did i miss?

Please keep this topic on track as i am now very curious :-)
Metalguru
Grafter
Posts: 791
Registered: 04-08-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

The Guilford 4 Huh??

The Bridgewater 3 Huh??

The Brimingham 6 Huh??

The Chesterfield 4 Huh??

I have no particular views on any of those groups.

But one thing I do know .................... The Renault 5's OK !
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,878
Registered: 04-04-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

lol.

The chesterfield 4 where a self named or other forum member named group of users who had thier forum access removed for various reasons a few months back. All have since been allowed back into the forums.

I don't know who is considered and not considered a member but I think if memory serves it was pr100, chesterfield (hence the name), channel and revroger, although I can't be sure.

Chris
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,877
Thanks: 1
Registered: 05-04-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Thanks, Chris.
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

pr100 should be a saint

his persistent stance on not letting plusnet off is something if it was me I would be proud of

the chesterfield 4, lol its as clear as mud :-)


glad they got reininstated on the forums tho
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,877
Thanks: 1
Registered: 05-04-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

I wonder what's happend to the group's namesake of late? Chesterfield hasn't posted in a while and his avatar has gone...
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Quote
was pr100, chesterfield (hence the name), channel and revroger

correct.
channel
Grafter
Posts: 697
Registered: 03-09-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Quote
Another one was ibc01


Alas not. ibc01 was history sometime before the Chesterfield 4 incident(s). ibc01 is/was something of a cult figure and you can find many of his posts through the search engine if you care to do so. He was a bit like Joan of Arc (in that he was burned at the stake before a howling mob) although some of the juicier threads have been removed from the archive.

However, if you want to see what happened in terms of the public lynching and the disgraceful behaviour of many of the current forum members, then you know who to speak to. Some of us had the good sense to take copies of the threads before they were deleted.

Quote
lol.

The chesterfield 4 where a self named or other forum member named group of users who had thier forum access removed for various reasons a few months back. All have since been allowed back into the forums.


Given that this topic has now been brought up, I thought I might add that my access was removed without any explanation at all (no idea what the "various reasons" were, although clearly there was some reasoning to it.) My access was, I think, removed for saying things which are pretty commonplace these days.

I had thought that being allowed to speak one's mind on PN and on moderation of these forums was now an issue that had pretty much been resolved in the Chesterfield 4's favour, although this rather odd post from one moderator made yesterday suggests that it may only be a temporary resolution. We'll see. Personally I think moderation on these forums has never been better during my time here (And at least these days you can say something about PN which isn't on the crib sheet without being swarmed by mods and various "fanboys".)
channel
Grafter
Posts: 697
Registered: 03-09-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Actually, I have to own up: I am getting very irritated with some of this.

Quote
People are under the illusion that the bans in question, were a result of going off-topic. This not true, and the reasons are well documented over in the threads where they originaly occured. Indeed, going off-topic was what originaly sparked the incident, but it was how it progressed that resulted in bans.


Just to reiterate, there was not, and has never been, any explanation given for why I was banned. If there is a rational explanation then it would be common courtesy to provide it to me before starting to hint at such matters on the public side of the forum. Furthermore, tt would be extremely discourteous to continue along such lines now that you have been alerted to this.

Quote
As a side note, If anyone does have any feedback / constructive critisim or even praise with regards to the moderators then we welcome this in a new thread.


Well, if that's true now then great. However, it was posting such feedback on such a thread that coincided with my ban. Just for reference, the post that "got me banned" is the third post from the end in this (locked) thread. It's for that reason that I have chosen to make most of my points in respect of moderation of these forums in other forums of late. However, I appreciate the era of glasnost that seems to be sweeping over us at the moment and will watch future developments with great interest.
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Since my ban only lasted 24 hours I can hardly lay claim to being a martyr -- especially as DT dropped me a cosy little email to explain that I hadn't done anything wrong but he needed to clear the battlefield for an undisturbed mod briefing that night. We won't ever be told what was said at that briefing but from the next day forth there was a perceptible improvement in moderator tone and we all started to be jolly polite to each other. A couple of the most notorious "fanboys" who were probably more to blame for the bad atmosphere than anyone, haven't been seen or heard from since. Apart from the odd isolated incident (like when Chris locked a thread while he went out to lunch because noone else was on duty), both the style of moderation and the style of posting have been much improved. And the arrival of Liam as a moderator has been a further positive influence. I might add that, notwithstanding acarr's post yesterday, several of the moderators have indeed stood up to be counted on some of the big issues in recent weeks and that has been welcomed by everyone. Even acarr has added his voice to those of the filthy peasants on occasion. So, in terms of moderation and mutual respect, this forum is a million miles ahead of where it was during the March/April uprisings.

So, like channel, I was surprised and concerned to read acarr's vaguely threatening post about the way that this forum is conducted. (I was also surprised by his post about Liam and the standard of moderation which I read as an attack on Liam although I am now perfectly willing to accept acarr's explanation that it was not. At the very least, it was badly and ambiguously worded and probably stands as a lesson to all to re-read what we write before hitting Submit.). I'm sure that acarr and other moderators can understand the frustrations that are being increasingly voiced here and possibly his concern is more about the moderators' rising workload than about the merit or otherwise of the issues being raised (and re-raised in the hope of getting some very elusive clear and satisfactory answers). Perhaps it would help the workload if we all stopped pestering for satisfactory answers - especially when all the evidence suggests that we won't be given any. But that would be to admit defeat in a just cause and there are too many decent people here - many without any self-interest in the issues - to give up just because we keep getting the same wrong answers. Perhaps acarr wants to ban us for trying to get justice for the thousands of Premier customers who are unwittingly overpaying. Let us hope not....

The better answer would be to recruit another moderator or two to handle the growing workload - and I will take this opportunity to nominate pcsni (Mark) for the job since he has already demonstrated by his numerous helpful and conciliatory posts that he is ably qualified for the job.

Finally, chesterfield, channel and revroger are as fine a bunch of soldiers as you will find on any battlefield and their unstinting efforts in this forum to highlight injustices, inconsistencies and misinformation should qualify them for a gong. And ibc01, our Che Guevara, is already a Saint -- although even I thought that he overstepped the mark on occasion and probably chose to fall on his own sword.

Simon
N/A

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

Quote

..... (I was also surprised by his post about Liam and the standard of moderation which I read as an attack on Liam although I am now perfectly willing to accept acarr's explanation that it was not. At the very least, it was badly and ambiguously worded and probably stands as a lesson to all to re-read what we write before hitting Submit.).



They were dark times prior to the March/April uprisings, and I certainly wouldn't want to see a return of the heavy handed moderating that prevailed among a few of the moderators and tutorial team members then.

Liam became a moderator because he was voted in by the users of these forums. He was the first and only democratically elected moderator. The other moderators on PlusNet don't have that mandate.

I also accept that acar didn't quite mean what he said when he posted what he posted, although I struggle to understand what he actually had in mind.

Quote

The better answer would be to recruit another moderator or two to handle the growing workload - and I will take this opportunity to nominate pcsni (Mark) for the job since he has already demonstrated by his numerous helpful and conciliatory posts that he is ably qualified for the job.


I second this proposal, assuming of course that pcsni (Mark) would want it and that it was put to a vote.
LiamM
Grafter
Posts: 5,636
Registered: 12-08-2007

who are the "chesterfield 4"?

We have discussed the possibility of recruiting another in recent months, but the workload has actually settled down somewhat to the extent that we feel we have everything in perfect balance - so we dismissed the idea.

If there was ever a moderator vacancy, then, of course, the same practice would have to apply as when I joined. People could apply, put themselves forward for consideration, and then the final decision would be based on our own judgements and a general poll on here. (Mainly the poll though).