It is not the policy of this forum to discuss in detail the reasons behind moderation decisions to ban a member, for a number of very good reasons, not least of which is that it is not fair to a member who has been banned to list and describe the behaviour that led to the ban when they are no longer able to respond to anything we say publicly about them. However, since several members posting on this thread have asked about this decision, in this case we will reluctantly make an exception and make a statement on the matter. This is not a conversation, however, and I would ask all members to accept that this decision has been made and it is not open for discussion. Further posts about this matter are off-topic to this thread, and there have been multiple warnings about this, so any further offences of that nature will be dealt with firmly.
I must first emphasise that long-standing members should understand that we do not ever take lightly the decision to ban a member from this forum. This decision was taken after very careful consideration, and it was unanimously agreed by the moderation team, including myself.
I must also emphasise that moderators are always in possession of considerably more information about issues like this than members are. In this case, the evidence that this decision was based on included chat transcripts, private message conversations between ourselves and the members concerned, posts that were moderated or deleted before members may have seen them, evidence from discussions on other forums, and other material elsewhere on the internet.
We have been asked to point to the evidence of where the rules were breached. As always, such evidence has of course been removed and obviously we would not want to compound any breach of the rules by repeating the offence or pointing it out to everyone.
As regards the rule breach in this case, I can confirm that Dog Person was banned from the forum for soliciting business both on the forum and in the chat rooms. When members join this forum, they agree to follow the few rules we have set out for them. One of those rules states:
Advertising - please obtain moderator permission beforehand, otherwise it will be regarded as spamming.
We do not allow members to use this forum for commercial purposes.
One of the aspects of moderation work that is generally hidden from members is the removal of spam and advertising. To provide a glimpse into the work involved there, in the past week we have banned over 30 people attempting to use this forum for spamming and advertising purposes. If we didn't do this, the forum would be over-run with spammers within days.
We are aware that many members have already established email contact and commercial relationships with DogPerson. We regret that this has been allowed to happen, but of course those people who have such contacts are free to pursue those relationships outside the forums. It is also quite acceptable for members to discuss those services and the subject of hair analysis in general on this thread.
I am aware that this thread has sparked some interesting conversations arising from posts that DogPerson made, regarding B2 in particular. I would just like to suggest that members entering into a commercial relationship with DogPerson might do well to Google for some of the scientific text from her earlier posts, and decide for themselves how much of that thought-provoking content was lifted directly from other sources without attribution.
This thread will be re-opened, but I must stress again that this moderation decision is not a matter for debate, and that future posts in this thread should stick to the topic of the thread, which is Hair Mineral Testing.
