at the first part, but its not "European" judges, it's British judges ruling on the law of the land (in the case of Qatada), because the government of the day doesn't know what that is and cannot behave appropriately.







If the C is Convention, I'm sure you won't mind your human rights being infringed if we do opt out. If C is Court, then the (UK) Human Rights Act provides for cases to avoid having to go to the European Court, as policymakers and courts in the UK are required to take the convention into account when making policy/laws/decisions. It means fewer cases should go to the Strasbourg court, thereby reducing costs to the taxpayer. Or are you advocating that May should go and lose her case in Strasbourg, costing the taxpayer even more than it has already?

First – after consultation among all the moderators, it was decided, some time ago, that such language is unacceptable. Consider this a warning on that matter.



Second – this is an ideal opportunity to make a larger reminder to some of our trolls that, in general, this has been a tad more civilised a place recently. So, a) let's keep that going. b) If any of you have nothing more to contribute than the same 'arguments', over and over, illustrating only that either you are incapable of understanding what has been posted in response previously or have no inclination to do so, then action will be taken. Such an approach contributes absolutely nothing of value to any discussion.

as an open question, does an opinion be more civilised the closer it is to yours, or another moderator?



The Sin Bin, in my opinion, has become more sanitised, if your opinion doesn't fit the norm then you're gone. It's like the Socialist Worker.



accepts ban for no reason in advance

Look at it this way - if you were discussing politics in a pub tap room with strangers, would you feel it necessary, constructive or socially acceptable to call someone a moron to his face simply because they held slightly different political views to yours ?

possibly not, but I'd also net feel it necessary to pre-dispose myself to banning them



we used to promote deabate, now it's just socialist dogma.



but I guess it shows why rugby retains it's origins.

Yes.



Because we are renowned on the [iSin Bin[/i for banning people simply because they don't agree with some (allegedly) general and (presumably) pre-agreed political ethos (which all we mod and admin types share totally).





And if you look more carefully at the two parts of the post that you have quoted, you will see that they cover different things.

Depends on how big he is

But the main thing they don't do is agree with you, is any post against the AUP?

If that were the case, a lot of other posters would have gone ages ago.





Moderators on any and all forums have the authority to ban someone if they are trolling in such a way as for it to become a distraction from anything else. That doesn't mean trolling per se (which I do not, personally, take to mean being abusive per se) is barred.

I always used/use the pub tap room marker as the standard to which internet forum discussion should take place and I've banned people on southstander.com for overstepping that mark - if you wouldn't say it in public, face to face with another party who is a stranger to you, then it doesn't belong on a forum, and lets face it, the pub tap room can be the most lively of debating chambers and attract the most diverse of opinions - its a good measuring post.