@bourne70 are you @richmayes999 mum/guardian? You've driven yourself into a cul de sac, with no reverse gear. Entirely your choice of course but from a neutral pov, imho you've "died for a cause" that wasn't worth the sacrifice. Hay ho, cheerio then.
As I've said before @bourne70 professes to love freedom of speech but when it's used in a way he doesn't fancy, the toys come flying out of the pram.
To go out on such a length claiming of bans and edits all over the place when just two posters (Mayes & Argyle Phil) have been banned is ridiculous.
The odd thread will be closed when it's been created by someone who hasn't spotted the identical thread below. That's just housekeeping - if there's a discussion about possible Aaron Pierre transfer do we need three threads about it?
Is this all a sign of g facism? Is any of this more dangerous than denigrating entire areas of British towns based on their ethnic make up? I suspect not.
I've read many posters on here complain that the worst thing about gasroom 1.0 was that it was overrun by utter cretins posting garbage that didn't in any way contribute to a discussion / debate / argument. Mayes was allowed to do this for weeks without being banned and WAS NOT BANNED FOR DOING SO.
Well let's finally summarize then shall we? Cut to the chase about what all this was really about and probably why myself and Bourne 70 probably felt compelled to get involved. This was about a regular poster on here getting on a lot of the regulars nerves with his posts, said poster continued to offer his views despite being hounded and laughed at (entitled to his opinion)....when he was sufficiently provoked by the pack he tried to defend himself in a bit of a silly manner.....so called Moderators then find a reason to ban him ASAP because they haven't liked him for a while.....no warning....no second chance....classic group bullying mentality when the authority of that group was threatened....then we tried to get a proper democratic process going to see whether the general view was on giving him a second chance.....again pack mentality kicks in authority threatened discussion closed within 10 mins of posting.
I will always get involved where I say this group bullying mentality.....some of you should have a think about how you behaved here....let's hope you don't need support when a group rounds on you because you don't fit in.
@Cambblue are you sure you're not @richmayes999? Really don't get this bullying accusation. @richmayes999 was clearly an annoying prick, (deliberately or not, I suspect the former). Your posts are heading into a similar dark alley of just being annoying/antagonising. You really have a simple choice to make and let me sum it up for you. If you/Bourney/Richmayes feel you are being "bullied" on here then simply don't come on here. It really is as simple as that. Visiting here is not mandatory to your life support is it. If I can use an analogy, if you keep teasing a dog and it turns and bites you, ; a) don't be amazed and start screaming foul play, b) Stop teasing it c) Walk away and go another route to avoid the dog.
You really do not have to visit and post on here to be a supporter of WWFC and it will not stop you enjoying a match day experience will it. So just do one for the benefit of your cardio system if nothing else.
@Cambblue said:
I will always get involved where I say this group bullying mentality.....some of you should have a think about how you behaved here....let's hope you don't need support when a group rounds on you because you don't fit in.
Fuck me. We're talking about an annoying twat who overstepped the mark and is free to re-register at any time (and may have already done so eh @Cambblue?) Anyone would think this was Spycatcher or Lady Chatterly territory.
@Cambblue You are clearly not @richmayes999 because you write and think at a level he couldn't begin to aspire to. The mistake you make - possibly the one mistake - is in thinking this is or should be a democracy.
In the end the old Gasroom collapsed because the lack of moderation and of any barrier to posting made it unusable. Dr Congo has provided a service in replacing it with something better and he and the other moderators do a lot of work for no reward in keeping it so. That fully entitles them to make and exercise their own rules in terms of what it is acceptable to post and who should be banned from posting. Because they are wise and sensible, they have exercised those rules sparingly and with discretion. But the only sanction if that changes is that those who post on here decide that they don't like it any more and go and post somewhere else. At the moment I think most of us feel they are doing an excellent job and we are very happy to stay.
It really is the case that, if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or set up your own rival board.
@micra said:
Cambblue just doesn't get it, does he.
Yes and no. I've a little bit of sympathy with the view that it was a summary execution and that a warning to RM that he had now overstepped the mark with his impersonation of someone else is unacceptable behaviour and the right thing to do would be apologise and move on.
It did feel that there was an element of 'thank god we've now got an excuse to ban him'.
But the wider point about censorship is a little off the mark I think. Generally there is very little that I'm aware of and Bourne did come over as increasingly paranoid. The addition of the ignore option for those who chose to is a welcome feature and allowed those who wished to to ignore RM (and others) as they wished. Personally I liked the banter although he occasionally descended too much into abuse.
On the whole the moderators do a good job although I think the decision to ban RM, although defensible and reasonable, could have be tempered with a little more foregiveness as may have been the case if it had been one of the less contrary posters on here.
@EwanHoosaami said:
You really do not have to visit and post on here to be a supporter of WWFC
All very true but personally I'd rather have a more diverse range of regular posters than a less diverse range so I would rather not encourage too many people to leave
Have we considered the position of the person being impersonated here? Won't she be more than a tad upset about what's happened and been said on this forum? The ban is fully justified and if this idiot returns under another name I hope that he/she will be more considerate of others' feelings when posting again.
what a carry on.
Richie would have been banned from most other forums for continual WUM, and got a little arrogant, and thought he'd test how much extra he could get away with. Anyone so surprised he got hooked, should ask how far he'd get acting similarly using his real name on other platforms.
Bourne, a sensational flounce, and history shows us the flouncers always return.
Bourne you will be a big loss. DrC / Chris we need to apply some structure / rules or we are going to lose this super site you have built as our WWFC discussion platform and that would be a shame.
Either you, the owners and administrators, are going to get fed up with comments, or like Bourne, people are going to drop out leaving people of like opinion only and that would be terrible.
Sorry, don't agree. I've seen some pretty abusive posts on this forum, seen racist posts etc. Until Argyle Phil & now richmayes not seen anyone banned. Why should there be a list of rules & regs on how to behave? It surely doesn't need to be spelled out, how to behave in a reasonable manner does it. The forum can still flourish with differing povs, debates can still be had and tongue in cheek comments just don't have to be constant SUMs does there. It seems to me that the offenders have kept aggravating until they got a reaction and now that it's happened there is an outcry from a few. Tough, play with fire then expect to get burnt, simple.
Spot on! If you can't behave in a decent manner then piss off to another forum that's full of muppets where you'll fit in while leaving the rest of us to have serious and adult discussions.
@bookertease totally agree with you, I like a diverse range of views and opinions, it makes for an interesting place to be. That's why you need mods like we do have. I believe they have been extremely patient and only banned two. Let's be honest those two have persistently been WUMs and irksome. Bourney hasn't been banned just gone on a self imposed exile because he's got himself into a lather. You need to be mystic meg to see that @Cambblue is having a real go to replace the banned two.
@LordMandeville ... Have we considered the position of the person being impersonated here? Won't she be more than a tad upset about what's happened and been said on this forum? The ban is fully justified and if this idiot returns under another name I hope that he/she will be more considerate of others' feelings when posting again.
Well said m'lord. Yes, she is a bit upset; and who wouldn't be?
Ban therefore completely justified.
Ewan, I agree with the things you highlight as not acceptable and most people fully understand. However, some don't and laying down simple rules is not a negative.
You have already pointed out that there may have been racist remarks, so to confirm that any racist, sexist, foul and abusive references or misrepresentation will result in expulsion provides clear guidance that these things will not be tolerated.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
Bourne you will be a big loss. DrC / Chris we need to apply some structure / rules or we are going to lose this super site you have built as our WWFC discussion platform and that would be a shame.
Do you honestly think @drcongo has the time or inclination to sit around coming up with a list of do's and dont's? I don't think two fools being banned and a flounce out constitutes losing the site.
Ultimately people will decide whether or not this is the place to post about WWFC and if they decide there's somewhere better then fair play to them.
Comments
Not an opinion, a lie.
@bourne70 Bye. If it makes you feel any better I don't think you deliberately lied. I think you're just not very good at thinking
@bourne70 are you @richmayes999 mum/guardian? You've driven yourself into a cul de sac, with no reverse gear. Entirely your choice of course but from a neutral pov, imho you've "died for a cause" that wasn't worth the sacrifice. Hay ho, cheerio then.
this thread is ridiculous ....... never read so much rubbish ......
As I've said before @bourne70 professes to love freedom of speech but when it's used in a way he doesn't fancy, the toys come flying out of the pram.
To go out on such a length claiming of bans and edits all over the place when just two posters (Mayes & Argyle Phil) have been banned is ridiculous.
The odd thread will be closed when it's been created by someone who hasn't spotted the identical thread below. That's just housekeeping - if there's a discussion about possible Aaron Pierre transfer do we need three threads about it?
Is this all a sign of g facism? Is any of this more dangerous than denigrating entire areas of British towns based on their ethnic make up? I suspect not.
I've read many posters on here complain that the worst thing about gasroom 1.0 was that it was overrun by utter cretins posting garbage that didn't in any way contribute to a discussion / debate / argument. Mayes was allowed to do this for weeks without being banned and WAS NOT BANNED FOR DOING SO.
Read another one then son.
Shouldn't this thread be , as I can't see any link between Pierre going and Rich getting exorcised?
Well let's finally summarize then shall we? Cut to the chase about what all this was really about and probably why myself and Bourne 70 probably felt compelled to get involved. This was about a regular poster on here getting on a lot of the regulars nerves with his posts, said poster continued to offer his views despite being hounded and laughed at (entitled to his opinion)....when he was sufficiently provoked by the pack he tried to defend himself in a bit of a silly manner.....so called Moderators then find a reason to ban him ASAP because they haven't liked him for a while.....no warning....no second chance....classic group bullying mentality when the authority of that group was threatened....then we tried to get a proper democratic process going to see whether the general view was on giving him a second chance.....again pack mentality kicks in authority threatened discussion closed within 10 mins of posting.
I will always get involved where I say this group bullying mentality.....some of you should have a think about how you behaved here....let's hope you don't need support when a group rounds on you because you don't fit in.
@Cambblue just doesn't get it, does he.
@Cambblue are you sure you're not @richmayes999? Really don't get this bullying accusation. @richmayes999 was clearly an annoying prick, (deliberately or not, I suspect the former). Your posts are heading into a similar dark alley of just being annoying/antagonising. You really have a simple choice to make and let me sum it up for you. If you/Bourney/Richmayes feel you are being "bullied" on here then simply don't come on here. It really is as simple as that. Visiting here is not mandatory to your life support is it. If I can use an analogy, if you keep teasing a dog and it turns and bites you, ; a) don't be amazed and start screaming foul play, b) Stop teasing it c) Walk away and go another route to avoid the dog.
You really do not have to visit and post on here to be a supporter of WWFC and it will not stop you enjoying a match day experience will it. So just do one for the benefit of your cardio system if nothing else.
Fuck me. We're talking about an annoying twat who overstepped the mark and is free to re-register at any time (and may have already done so eh @Cambblue?) Anyone would think this was Spycatcher or Lady Chatterly territory.
Good. I won't miss you bourne70. That's one less irritating bore infesting this forum.
@Cambblue You are clearly not @richmayes999 because you write and think at a level he couldn't begin to aspire to. The mistake you make - possibly the one mistake - is in thinking this is or should be a democracy.
In the end the old Gasroom collapsed because the lack of moderation and of any barrier to posting made it unusable. Dr Congo has provided a service in replacing it with something better and he and the other moderators do a lot of work for no reward in keeping it so. That fully entitles them to make and exercise their own rules in terms of what it is acceptable to post and who should be banned from posting. Because they are wise and sensible, they have exercised those rules sparingly and with discretion. But the only sanction if that changes is that those who post on here decide that they don't like it any more and go and post somewhere else. At the moment I think most of us feel they are doing an excellent job and we are very happy to stay.
It really is the case that, if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or set up your own rival board.
Yes and no. I've a little bit of sympathy with the view that it was a summary execution and that a warning to RM that he had now overstepped the mark with his impersonation of someone else is unacceptable behaviour and the right thing to do would be apologise and move on.
It did feel that there was an element of 'thank god we've now got an excuse to ban him'.
But the wider point about censorship is a little off the mark I think. Generally there is very little that I'm aware of and Bourne did come over as increasingly paranoid. The addition of the ignore option for those who chose to is a welcome feature and allowed those who wished to to ignore RM (and others) as they wished. Personally I liked the banter although he occasionally descended too much into abuse.
On the whole the moderators do a good job although I think the decision to ban RM, although defensible and reasonable, could have be tempered with a little more foregiveness as may have been the case if it had been one of the less contrary posters on here.
All very true but personally I'd rather have a more diverse range of regular posters than a less diverse range so I would rather not encourage too many people to leave
At last someone with a bit of common sense. Well done Booker.
Have we considered the position of the person being impersonated here? Won't she be more than a tad upset about what's happened and been said on this forum? The ban is fully justified and if this idiot returns under another name I hope that he/she will be more considerate of others' feelings when posting again.
what a carry on.
Richie would have been banned from most other forums for continual WUM, and got a little arrogant, and thought he'd test how much extra he could get away with. Anyone so surprised he got hooked, should ask how far he'd get acting similarly using his real name on other platforms.
Bourne, a sensational flounce, and history shows us the flouncers always return.
Hear, hear.
Bourne you will be a big loss. DrC / Chris we need to apply some structure / rules or we are going to lose this super site you have built as our WWFC discussion platform and that would be a shame.
Either you, the owners and administrators, are going to get fed up with comments, or like Bourne, people are going to drop out leaving people of like opinion only and that would be terrible.
Sorry, don't agree. I've seen some pretty abusive posts on this forum, seen racist posts etc. Until Argyle Phil & now richmayes not seen anyone banned. Why should there be a list of rules & regs on how to behave? It surely doesn't need to be spelled out, how to behave in a reasonable manner does it. The forum can still flourish with differing povs, debates can still be had and tongue in cheek comments just don't have to be constant SUMs does there. It seems to me that the offenders have kept aggravating until they got a reaction and now that it's happened there is an outcry from a few. Tough, play with fire then expect to get burnt, simple.
Spot on! If you can't behave in a decent manner then piss off to another forum that's full of muppets where you'll fit in while leaving the rest of us to have serious and adult discussions.
@bookertease totally agree with you, I like a diverse range of views and opinions, it makes for an interesting place to be. That's why you need mods like we do have. I believe they have been extremely patient and only banned two. Let's be honest those two have persistently been WUMs and irksome. Bourney hasn't been banned just gone on a self imposed exile because he's got himself into a lather. You need to be mystic meg to see that @Cambblue is having a real go to replace the banned two.
Sorry last line should start with "you don't"!
@LordMandeville ... Have we considered the position of the person being impersonated here? Won't she be more than a tad upset about what's happened and been said on this forum? The ban is fully justified and if this idiot returns under another name I hope that he/she will be more considerate of others' feelings when posting again.
Well said m'lord. Yes, she is a bit upset; and who wouldn't be?
Ban therefore completely justified.
Ewan, I agree with the things you highlight as not acceptable and most people fully understand. However, some don't and laying down simple rules is not a negative.
You have already pointed out that there may have been racist remarks, so to confirm that any racist, sexist, foul and abusive references or misrepresentation will result in expulsion provides clear guidance that these things will not be tolerated.
Do you honestly think @drcongo has the time or inclination to sit around coming up with a list of do's and dont's? I don't think two fools being banned and a flounce out constitutes losing the site.
Ultimately people will decide whether or not this is the place to post about WWFC and if they decide there's somewhere better then fair play to them.
The idea of needing a list of rules does make me chuckle!
Is pierre going
Oh yes. I remember. I have the horrible feeling that someone will be in for him tomorrow. Brentford?