PDA

View Full Version : VM Newsgroups disconnect blind user.


kryogenik
09-05-2007, 11:48
I'm aware there's a few Virgin Media specific newsgroups. Discussion, Feedback etc. I'm only subscribed to one and rarely check it, but today I have, and noticed is now a support team (where on Earth did they come from? NTL's ran away scared yonks ago.. Are they Virgin's or BY's?) But Holy Moly, are they crackers!
They actually SUSPENDED a blind user's account on a bank holiday weekend for posting off-topic :rolleyes: Lunatics.

As moderators of the groups we will use our own judgment to decide what action is required. Warnings may be given however if we feel it's necessary then we will request an account be disconnected to prevent further breaches
in the AUP affecting other customers.

OK, so posting off-topic is against VM's AUP, but the poor bloke didn't even get chance to read the warnings sent to him - he has to have his voice-reader read one line at a time, he didn't get chance before they pulled the plug.
This is absolute madness.

Paul H
09-05-2007, 12:26
I'm disgusted by their actions towards Brian too. Brian has said that he's making a formal complaint now after the posting from the Team Manager.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 12:29
I'd like to see all the facts behind what happened.

I'm not entirely sure why he should be treat differently just because he uses a screen reader though? Or because he's blind.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 12:40
I'd like to see all the facts behind what happened.

I'm not entirely sure why he should be treat differently just because he uses a screen reader though? Or because he's blind.

You may. Read virginmedia.feedback

I'm not suggesting he should be treated differently? Where did you get that from? Just the mere fact the bloke is apparently a valued, helpful regular and not someone who's wont to break rules. I consider suspending his account a big uneccessary over-reaction.
The fact Brian IS blind makes him more disadvantaged than most from a suspended account... The technical support group are well aware of Brian's disability.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 12:42
No - the fact that he is blind does not make him more disadvantaged.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 12:43
Oh for goodness sake.

"disadvantaged than most from a suspended account..."

READ the group - you'll see Brian's time is spent co-ordinating many things ONLINE. That's why.

Paul H
09-05-2007, 12:46
No - the fact that he is blind does not make him more disadvantaged.

You really need to read the facts.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 12:46
He is NOT more disadvantaged than anyone else. Are you having trouble with that?

If his screen reader works - and it obviously does as he's on there a lot - then he is on no way disadvantaged.

That is all I'm saying.

I do know what I'm talking about here.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 12:50
Jefferson, I'm well aware of your vision, so please don't attempt to lead me to you having to impress that upon me. Using capitals to SHOUT and being condescending does nothing for me either.
How can his screen reader work when the content he needs to read is not available when offline? His email account didn't work.
Please, again - read the group and see for yourself.

Paul H
09-05-2007, 12:52
Guilty until proven innocent :td:

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 12:57
Don't call me condecending - you have NO idea what my vision is like. You only know what I tell people on here.

If I was leading you then you'd know about it. I don't need to lead anyone.

If he's got a visual impairment then he is also on the priority list for virgin (unless he's not done this and I somehow dout that as I bet he also gets either large print or braille billing - so would have been put on it)

So all he needs to do is call them and it would be sorted much faster than most.

And his screen reader will tell him that he can't connect. So as I said he is in no way disadvantaged as he will have the same information as anyone else.

How is that being at a disadvantage?

He's got exactly the same information.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Guilty until proven innocent :td:
Who has said he's guilty?

Paul H
09-05-2007, 12:58
Don't call me condecending - you have NO idea what my vision is like. You only know what I tell people on here.

If I was leading you then you'd know about it. I don't need to lead anyone.

If he's got a visual impairment then he is also on the priority list for virgin (unless he's not done this and I somehow dout that as I bet he also gets either large print or braille billing - so would have been put on it)

So all he needs to do is call them and it would be sorted much faster than most.

And his screen reader will tell him that he can't connect. So as I said he is in no way disadvantaged as he will have the same information as anyone else.

How is that being at a disadvantage?

He's got exactly the same information.

You are basing all this theory without knowing the full facts of the matter.
One fact is that he wasn't within earshot of his screen reader.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 13:01
You are basing all this theory without knowing the full facts of the matter.
One fact is that he wasn't within earshot of his screen reader.And when he returned to his pc? Was he within earshot of it then?

How many times have you used a screen reader? Do you know how one works?

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent - just that he is in no way disadvantaged.

I'm not sure you understand that.

Paul H
09-05-2007, 13:03
And when he returned to his pc? Was he within earshot of it then?

How many times have you used a screen reader? Do you know how one works?

I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent - just that he is in no way disadvantaged.

I'm not sure you understand that.

I am not participating in this thread any longer.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 13:05
You were condescending.

I simply meant he was disadvantaged in terms of not being able to go about his business which, as a blind person keen on making a difference, involves handling a mailing list or something for the visually impaired as well as other organisations - a suspended account made the bloke's daily routine impossible.
However, as some one with relatively good vision, I'd consider being blind a disadvantage to someone. Sue me.
It is a disability, or am I wrong about that too?

Sorry, I refuse to argue with you Jefferson - you're impossible.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 13:08
I am not participating in this thread any longer.I had a feeling you'd say that.

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 ----------

You were condescending.

I simply meant he was disadvantaged in terms of not being able to go about his business which, as a blind person keen on making a difference, involves handling a mailing list or something for the visually impaired as well as other organisations - a suspended account made the bloke's daily routine impossible.
However, as some one with relatively good vision, I'd consider being blind a disadvantage to someone. Sue me.
It is a disability, or am I wrong about that too?

Sorry, I refuse to argue with you Jefferson - you're impossible.Yes it's a disabilty - but once adapted I don't see how he's any different. Or don't you see that?

I'm not trying to argue I don't understand what it is he can't do? If you actually told me that I may see what you mean.

edit - Think of it this way - would you say I was disadvantaged on this site?

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 13:25
In retrospect, I'd consider 'disadvantaged' to be a poor term of phrase. I guess I was meaning more 'without' than most - his online activities being deeply important to him. I'm sure you knew what I meant, though? Maybe not. I'm sorry you saw fit to presume I was implying 'the poor blind person'. I appreciate your want to prove a contrary viewpoint, but I'm sorry - I thought the comment was fair. Brian's reader was not quick enough to read the warnings, where a lesser impaired person would have been forewarned and able to cease, thereby not losing their ability to be online. The team are aware of his disability, I think they could quite easily have gone about this in a much more professional manner.

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 13:32
In retrospect, I'd consider 'disadvantaged' to be a poor term of phrase. I guess I was meaning more 'without' than most - his online activities being deeply important to him. I appreciate your want to prove a contrary viewpoint, but I'm sorry - I thought the comment was fair. Brian's reader was not quick enough to read the warnings. The team are aware of his disability, I think thery could quite easily have gone about this in a much more professional manner.Ok - again I'm not trying to argue this point. I can see that you'd think he was disadvantaged in that he can't do his normal day to day activities, but not rhrough any fault of virgin (IF and I'll that again IF he was guilty). Now either way he's got no 'excuse' with regards to his screen reader being slow. They go as quick or as slow as you want them, the more you use one the faster you turn it up - which is why they have to have a robotic voice. At any rate they can also repeat lines and pages of text. So if he was away from the cmoputer he could easily re-read what he has missed.

Again I'm not trying to argue about if he's guilty or not. I'm just concerned that people will think that he's blind that he should be treat differently when it's undeeded.

If it was me - and I know I'm a comp[letely seperate case here - and I'd been banned I'd be MORE smegged off if I'd been treat differently, which he wasn't.

I hope that makes my point better than I have been.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 13:48
Well, Brian I presume is totally blind. He feels he's been badly mis-treated, and I don't imagine he's the kind of person that would want to be treated different than anyone else, but maybe treated with his disability taken into consideration?
I don't know how screen readers work, or if he's able to see pre-download messages from a newsgroup- I'd imagine so as he's eventually caught up and seen the warnings. I've been reading his explanation in the group and I'd suggest you do too if you get chance - I'm not going to reproduce it here, there's bound to be a rule against it! But Brian is insistent that due to his disability, he wasn't able to read the warnings quick enough to stop/apologise before he had the plug pulled on him. I still think that's a fair point, and one that should have been thought about first. Surely someone must have/should have thought,"Hang on a mo, the fella's blind, let's give him chance to read these posts and cease posting off-topic before we shut him off. He's obviously not seen our first request to do so yet".

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 13:54
Well I hope he sorts it out anyway. And if, in future, they give people more time to respond to a request all the better.

helmutcheese
09-05-2007, 14:53
If he used his special software and knew what he was writing then he deserves a ban same as anyone else, you dont give special treament to handicap (I worked with them) you treat them as equals.
If its all a mistake and he can prove so than same as for anyone, lift the ban.
Next we will get somone saying they got banned because they are asian or gay.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 15:05
Next we will get somone saying they got banned because they are asian or gay.

Or cantankerous..

helmutcheese
09-05-2007, 15:16
There are plenty on here and I can get like that with lamers.

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 15:22
Great. Here's a biscuit.

helmutcheese
09-05-2007, 15:25
Give it to your dog :)

kryogenik
09-05-2007, 15:34
lol! :tu:
;)

dilli-theclaw
09-05-2007, 15:42
MMMmmm I just read through the threa on virginmedia