I must have lost the thread I thought this was regarding will Pierre Go before Monday....still us West Country Blues Fans are looking for a to putting one over the janners tomorrow.
I don't have enough information on the reasons for the ban to place my vote I'm afraid. For RichMayes being an annoying and occasionally righteous idiot - no grounds for a ban. If they were knowingly and seriously trying to suggest that they were actually another, identifiable, person, who could therefore by association be thought of as said idiot - yes, i do believe a ban would be justified.
My opinion: it is inappropriate - in some cases, illegal - to attempt to mislead people into believing that you are somebody else. "richmayes999" posted comments that claimed he/she was a person who, from the clues in those posts, would be easily identifiable to many Wycombe supporters. I don't know that person personally, so cannot be certain the poster "richmayes999" is not them, but suspect that they are not one and the same. On that basis, I support the ban.
For the record: I am very much against censorship and, up until the false identity claims, strongly in support of not banning "richmayes999" over the content of his/her posts.
Fully behind the ban as it does seem that richmayes was trying to falsely impersonate someone else in attempt to give them a bad reputation. I have an idea who the lady is that he/she was alluding to, and if it is her then there is a certain group of people on the Facebook group who seem to have an issue with her and have given her all manner of thinly-veiled abuse on there in the past. Wouldn't be at all surprised if it was one of them. There is one particular 'lad' who seems to only be on there to 'lol' at other people's comments and generally take the p!ss out of people - all in the name of 'banter' of course... He seems a prime candidate.
I'm all in favour of allowing these "I have insider knowledge" muppets to tie themselves in knots trying to explain why none of their predictions come true but if they cross the line they should get banned. Only problem is, how do we know for sure "she' isn't who she says she is?
Not that bothered about banning people as they'll be back under other names if they want.
If the posts made yesterday were worthy of banning though why are they still on the thread? Surely deleteing these posts and warning the poster would be a proper course of action. I hate the edit facility used before but just delete those posts. Why hasn't that happened?
So @Chris talk me through that logic. The posts aren't offensive but the poster was banned for posting them and pretending to be someone else. How does that work?
It's the posts that have got the person banned so how they are deemed ok to remain on the board is beyond me. If I was the persion being alluded to I'd be upset that the posts remained.
He can continue posting. Just get another email address and reregister
It's the posts not the poster that are the issue. Just delete them
If the posts were worthy of a banning surely the posts should get deleted. It's like letting a bank robber keep the money.
I have alot of admiration for people that give up time to monitor this site. It feel bad to critisise but on this occasion I disagree with what you have done.
Initially I was quite disturbed by this because although the poster was annoying it didn't cross my "that's unacceptable" line and /she could be easily dealt with with the ignore button however if they were trying to undermine someone by claiming to be them then so be it.
A proper question Chris. I may have missed this along the way, but how did you get to become a site moderator? Did you just volunteer and if that's the case I understand more where you're coming from, but reading and moderating posts is a very subjective art I'm sure you'd agree. Do you delete or moderate using your own personal views or do you go by other criteria?
DrCongo asked me if I'd like to a while ago, I guess because I spend too much time hanging about here.
I just do what I think is best, which is subjective - there are no criteria. I'm in favour of not banning people (and not ignoring them) and not deleting posts as far as possible.
I certainly don't think people should be banned for simply being annoying or for having a different opinion from me - but Rich was doing something bizarre and with potential real life consequences and I don't think this website should facilitate or tolerate such behaviour.
Sounds sensible to me. Until the strong suspicion arose very recently that the person concerned was attempting to implicate a third party, I had humoured them and even tried to be encouraging when signs of common sense briefly appeared but I think it's gone beyond a joke now.
For the record, I agree that a line was crossed. Impersonating another real life person will get you banned on most of the Internet. As for leaving the posts up, not fussed either way. It's not as though the posts are likely to offend anyone, and they at least give some context to the surrounding posts. Other than that, they're pretty devoid of purpose along with pretty much every other post he made.
Cmon all...admit it, this is the most fun you Gasroom fans have had in ages? If only we could get this much response to singing and supporting the team on the terraces from you Gasroom boys!....I say we get Mr or Mrs Mayes to lead the chants....He obviously has got a knack of getting people involved? People love the smell of blood! Now whilst Richie may not have a great track record of getting the predictions right...from what I remember this all started when he was reporting a Barnsley led comms that all of you seemed to have missed about Pierre. I am sure a lot of you will be reading your Daily Mails and Express ' s tomorrow morning and not questioning the fact that house prices are about to fall off the cliff or migrants about to evict every legitimate home owner in the UK? Cut Mayer some slack forums would be boring if everyone behaved like good model citizens. Keep taking the vitamin D apparently it increases life expectancy by 30 years....that's if the Forum scourge sweeping the nation doesn't get you first.
Late to this party but it's sad to see someone with the authority and the will to ban another poster. I'd be interested to know, @Chris, how you'd treat people with different opinions to yours in the advent of another ownership/relocation debate? How you react to those you find annoying or disagreeable when you're not behind a keyboard?
Perhaps you feel like this kid's impersonation (if that's what you want to call it) of someone else crossed a line, but you were clearly on a hair trigger. I loved the beautiful mania of Gasroom 1.0, and tho i understand that's what killed it in the end, i do wonder if we're just falling off the other side of the horse.
He is probably the guy that sat behind me at Villa Park and told me to stop supporting my team so much.....If you want banality I suggest moving to Prem league.....plenty of like minded individuals to impose your views of some mercenary footballer from a distant land on your work colleagues Monday morning.....you never know they may pretend to listen too and make you feel 10 feet tall?
@floyd : I think the moderators have taken a view that the 'impersonation' is inappropriate and presumably that warning the poster to desist was not appropriate. I understand your reservations, but perhaps to understand your position, it would be helpful to know what moderation if any you would personally apply. As the use of social media has developed, there has been greater recognition that it cannot beyond the reaches of the norms of behaviour/law.
Chuck him in a lake....see if he swims..? If he does he's a witch.....then we burn him....her....? You should know how to deal with people who pretend to be something they not.....with a user name like that...surely?
@floyd I'm not sure what part of my posts where I talk about people with different opinions was unclear. In the past I have argued that Rich Mayes should not be banned despite having plenty of disagreements with him. And as I've said to @bourne70 before, if I was in the habit of deleting/banning posts I disagreed with there would be a lot less posts around!
I also preferred gasroom 1.0 to here for what it's worth. But that's in the past. And there was plenty of posts being deleted there, and people were banned. It was just less transparent about it.
@cambblue Were you one of the people standing in front of children who therefore couldn't see? Although I suspect that's an argument for another thread.
Comments
I must have lost the thread I thought this was regarding will Pierre Go before Monday....still us West Country Blues Fans are looking for a to putting one over the janners tomorrow.
Having watch Ingram play his last game at the last away fixture, I fear to-morrow may be the last time I see Pierre in the quarters.
Would be interesting to have a vote on here as to whether the ban was justified or not?
I don't have enough information on the reasons for the ban to place my vote I'm afraid. For RichMayes being an annoying and occasionally righteous idiot - no grounds for a ban. If they were knowingly and seriously trying to suggest that they were actually another, identifiable, person, who could therefore by association be thought of as said idiot - yes, i do believe a ban would be justified.
The ban was deserved for his pathetic claims he was a lady we all know if only by sight.
My opinion: it is inappropriate - in some cases, illegal - to attempt to mislead people into believing that you are somebody else. "richmayes999" posted comments that claimed he/she was a person who, from the clues in those posts, would be easily identifiable to many Wycombe supporters. I don't know that person personally, so cannot be certain the poster "richmayes999" is not them, but suspect that they are not one and the same. On that basis, I support the ban.
For the record: I am very much against censorship and, up until the false identity claims, strongly in support of not banning "richmayes999" over the content of his/her posts.
Fully behind the ban as it does seem that richmayes was trying to falsely impersonate someone else in attempt to give them a bad reputation. I have an idea who the lady is that he/she was alluding to, and if it is her then there is a certain group of people on the Facebook group who seem to have an issue with her and have given her all manner of thinly-veiled abuse on there in the past. Wouldn't be at all surprised if it was one of them. There is one particular 'lad' who seems to only be on there to 'lol' at other people's comments and generally take the p!ss out of people - all in the name of 'banter' of course... He seems a prime candidate.
Agree that we can't have imposters on here. This place is a marked improvement from the idiots on the original Gasroom.
It certainly is.
I'm all in favour of allowing these "I have insider knowledge" muppets to tie themselves in knots trying to explain why none of their predictions come true but if they cross the line they should get banned. Only problem is, how do we know for sure "she' isn't who she says she is?
Not that bothered about banning people as they'll be back under other names if they want.
If the posts made yesterday were worthy of banning though why are they still on the thread? Surely deleteing these posts and warning the poster would be a proper course of action. I hate the edit facility used before but just delete those posts. Why hasn't that happened?
I don't think you need to warn someone that pretending to be someone else is unacceptable. That's just basic common sense.
The posts themselves aren't offensive, so I don't think there's any reason to delete them.
So @Chris talk me through that logic. The posts aren't offensive but the poster was banned for posting them and pretending to be someone else. How does that work?
It's the posts that have got the person banned so how they are deemed ok to remain on the board is beyond me. If I was the persion being alluded to I'd be upset that the posts remained.
Less upset than if Rich was warned and allowed to continue posting?
That's me done I'm afraid.
Not the gasroom I know.
Less upset? Yes I think I would be.
He can continue posting. Just get another email address and reregister
It's the posts not the poster that are the issue. Just delete them
If the posts were worthy of a banning surely the posts should get deleted. It's like letting a bank robber keep the money.
I have alot of admiration for people that give up time to monitor this site. It feel bad to critisise but on this occasion I disagree with what you have done.
Initially I was quite disturbed by this because although the poster was annoying it didn't cross my "that's unacceptable" line and /she could be easily dealt with with the ignore button however if they were trying to undermine someone by claiming to be them then so be it.
Peter parrot please think again about bowing out
If the person concerned sees this and would like the posts removed, please let DrCongo or me or any of the other mods know.
A proper question Chris. I may have missed this along the way, but how did you get to become a site moderator? Did you just volunteer and if that's the case I understand more where you're coming from, but reading and moderating posts is a very subjective art I'm sure you'd agree. Do you delete or moderate using your own personal views or do you go by other criteria?
DrCongo asked me if I'd like to a while ago, I guess because I spend too much time hanging about here.
I just do what I think is best, which is subjective - there are no criteria. I'm in favour of not banning people (and not ignoring them) and not deleting posts as far as possible.
I certainly don't think people should be banned for simply being annoying or for having a different opinion from me - but Rich was doing something bizarre and with potential real life consequences and I don't think this website should facilitate or tolerate such behaviour.
Sounds sensible to me. Until the strong suspicion arose very recently that the person concerned was attempting to implicate a third party, I had humoured them and even tried to be encouraging when signs of common sense briefly appeared but I think it's gone beyond a joke now.
For the record, I agree that a line was crossed. Impersonating another real life person will get you banned on most of the Internet. As for leaving the posts up, not fussed either way. It's not as though the posts are likely to offend anyone, and they at least give some context to the surrounding posts. Other than that, they're pretty devoid of purpose along with pretty much every other post he made.
Cmon all...admit it, this is the most fun you Gasroom fans have had in ages? If only we could get this much response to singing and supporting the team on the terraces from you Gasroom boys!....I say we get Mr or Mrs Mayes to lead the chants....He obviously has got a knack of getting people involved? People love the smell of blood! Now whilst Richie may not have a great track record of getting the predictions right...from what I remember this all started when he was reporting a Barnsley led comms that all of you seemed to have missed about Pierre. I am sure a lot of you will be reading your Daily Mails and Express ' s tomorrow morning and not questioning the fact that house prices are about to fall off the cliff or migrants about to evict every legitimate home owner in the UK? Cut Mayer some slack forums would be boring if everyone behaved like good model citizens. Keep taking the vitamin D apparently it increases life expectancy by 30 years....that's if the Forum scourge sweeping the nation doesn't get you first.
No need to ban. I just decided to ignore after ye olde Bendoverman fall-back (Gasroom circa 2011).
Late to this party but it's sad to see someone with the authority and the will to ban another poster. I'd be interested to know, @Chris, how you'd treat people with different opinions to yours in the advent of another ownership/relocation debate? How you react to those you find annoying or disagreeable when you're not behind a keyboard?
Perhaps you feel like this kid's impersonation (if that's what you want to call it) of someone else crossed a line, but you were clearly on a hair trigger. I loved the beautiful mania of Gasroom 1.0, and tho i understand that's what killed it in the end, i do wonder if we're just falling off the other side of the horse.
Man like Bendoverman is back
He is probably the guy that sat behind me at Villa Park and told me to stop supporting my team so much.....If you want banality I suggest moving to Prem league.....plenty of like minded individuals to impose your views of some mercenary footballer from a distant land on your work colleagues Monday morning.....you never know they may pretend to listen too and make you feel 10 feet tall?
@floyd : I think the moderators have taken a view that the 'impersonation' is inappropriate and presumably that warning the poster to desist was not appropriate. I understand your reservations, but perhaps to understand your position, it would be helpful to know what moderation if any you would personally apply. As the use of social media has developed, there has been greater recognition that it cannot beyond the reaches of the norms of behaviour/law.
Chuck him in a lake....see if he swims..? If he does he's a witch.....then we burn him....her....? You should know how to deal with people who pretend to be something they not.....with a user name like that...surely?
@floyd I'm not sure what part of my posts where I talk about people with different opinions was unclear. In the past I have argued that Rich Mayes should not be banned despite having plenty of disagreements with him. And as I've said to @bourne70 before, if I was in the habit of deleting/banning posts I disagreed with there would be a lot less posts around!
I also preferred gasroom 1.0 to here for what it's worth. But that's in the past. And there was plenty of posts being deleted there, and people were banned. It was just less transparent about it.
@cambblue Were you one of the people standing in front of children who therefore couldn't see? Although I suspect that's an argument for another thread.