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.

[B00]

I'm not getting the whole "should've been nipped in the bud" beforehand argument some people are saying.

Are we not, as adults supposed to be self regulating to a degree?

Do we not have a thread posted elsewhere today rollocking the powers that be for deletions? Do we now think deletions of posts are acceptable if they believe their replies could lead to suspensions?

Seems to me some people want their cake and to eat it.

Mmmmmm cake!

[B00]

Less of your afflictions please Triggs!

[jno]

gotta agree with you, B00. I wonder if those people saying "it should have been nipped in the bud" did anything about reporting it themselves?

Well, I have to sympathise with those in the dungeon, it was bad enough when it was just you and me having to share the bucket, but 17 of them, and some of them the sort to be up talking all night...

[AB Editor]

"I wonder if those people saying "it should have been nipped in the bud" did anything about reporting it themselves?"

No, they didn't.

[B00]

I didn't, and still dont know what Estoppel means! That's why I don't venture into Law in the first place. Too many big words.

[Sqad]

Blimey....just back from the Club and the thread is still going.
I am going to have a look at my "Sensitivity " thread...see if that is still going....

[rowanwitch]

Its too tempting to wade in when a thread gets a little spicy I still adopt a draft, read, delete or post after a pause to consider approach. While I didn't have anything to offer on the legal stuff I could have supported those advocating the alternative housing approach also added some observations from my own divorce where the property was sorted at a later date but felt it was all pretty much covered.

I do sometimes feel posters with this and similar exchanges may simply be using a thread to express a kind of flight of ideas rather than really engaging with those trying to help... I'm not sure it is helpful to them at the time but if they return an revisit the thread when they calm down they might gain something.

[B00]

What I meant was- arent the people who were saying earlier in the this thread that it should've been nipped in the bud the very ones who made the comments in THAT thread in the first place? What I was getting at when I said that as adults we (they) should've been self regulating.

Anyhoo, tis done now, im sure those people regret doing it, I hope we see em sooner rather than later :-)

[trt]

Ed,
can you nip this thread in the bud, its getting boring and a waste of ink!

[Barmaid]

It’s not very often that I stick my head above the parapet but on this occasion I must do so. Firstly, I accept I did post some fairly intemperate replies to the OP on the estoppel thread – for that I apologise. Yes I was losing my rag and yes I probably shouldn’t have done so.

Secondly, when posters go to the Law section I am generally appalled with what they receive in response. I myself have often said “this is answerbank not judgemebank” and I think the Ed will probably agree that he often receives reports from me when I feel that poster are being harshly judged. (yes I am a snidey tell tale, but I don’t care – fact is posters go in there for a point in the right direction and not judgement. Although on this occasion I didn’t report the thread and I probably should have done so around the 200 mark). It matters not what the moral stance is – the issue is the legal question and the evidence on which it is based. If I was allowed to turn down cases (I am not) on the grounds that I find them morally abhorrent, I’d only work for half the year.

I can fully understand why many people saw the OP as an under bridge dwelling being. This too was in my mind. However, a technically difficult and evidentially challenging question was posed. It matters not if the OP was genuine or not – fact is, new posters may well be put off by some of the answers (not all, by any means – a large number of people were genuinely trying to help). I am, frankly, amazed at the number of people who professed to be able to assist in the area of proprietary estoppel (I wonder how many of those actually read the cases that were quoted on that thread rather than diving in with their “views” on the various issues that arise – I look forward to seeing some of you in the Chancery Division anytime soon). I am not for one minute saying that the Law section is only for the lawyers – however, it is certainly not for those who take the moral highground and seek to make uninformed judgements on those who post the OP.

Ed has warned before what will happen if stuff in “Serious” sections spills out. There is a clear warning at the top of the section. I’m inclined to think that there is a lot of you who “only have yourselves to blame” (and this is based entirely on the warning in the section and not on moral judgement). BM

[jno]

this is answerbank not judgemebank

ain't that the truth. Usually in Criminal Law, though - it's unusual to see such high horses in Chancery.

[AB Editor]

"Ed, can you nip this thread in the bud, its getting boring and a waste of ink!"

I would suggest that you stop printing it out!

Barmaid - Well put.

"But how smug and self satisfied will that bridge dweller be now though?"

It doesn't matter. It isn't about them, wherever they may arise...

[Alex_Higham]

The Tiger has been terminated and is now listed as User_Inactive. I wonder if she pulled the plug on herself or, in effect, been banned with all her postings allowed to remain. I don't suppose we'll ever now the truth about lots of things that happen in AB....... Nevertheless, it's still a great site.

[carrust]

I think some of the 17 banned members will be using the User_Inactive button when they finish the ban. I think it was a bit draconian of the Ed to ban them, why not just remove the answers from the thread? Where were the mods when they were needed? Is it not their job to remove inappropriate posts?

[Ellipsis]

Ironic ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede."