Moderators

[the sceptic]

Youre not allowed to tell people they are being stupid if they are being stupid. you have to run to the mods and tell them so they can take care of it without anyones feelings getting hurt.

 

[red_flanders]

Youre not allowed to tell people they are being stupid if they are being stupid. you have to run to the mods and tell them so they can take care of it without anyones feelings getting hurt.

You forgot the first two options. Actually address their argument or ignore them if you think they're being stupid.

Really pretty simple stuff and makes for a better forum for everyone.

 

[sittingbison]

So if i ever want a thread closed i should just launch some personal attacks. Then the people who actually want to take part in the discussion wont be allowed to do so, and the people who want to see it closed get their wish.

Punishing the victims.

What a great policy

Yep terrible way to moderate a forum.

Youre not allowed to tell people they are being stupid if they are being stupid. you have to run to the mods and tell them so they can take care of it without anyones feelings getting hurt.

Complete and utter juvenile BS

BTW if you want to launch some personal attacks feel free, on your own head be it. I closed the thread rather than banning Hitch and sceptic et al

 

[The Hitch]

I closed the thread rather than banning Hitch and sceptic et al

Thats strange.

I don't recall receiving any warnings. I didn't recieving any warnings in the thread. I sure as hell didn't recieve any pm's.


My last post in that thread was 1 week ago. The thread went another 5 days after that post without anything.

Yet you are telling me that you could have banned me for my postings in that thread.

If that is the case would you be kind enough to show me which posts of mine in that thread could have gotten me a ban. Which rules did they break?

Why haven't i been notified in anyway that my behaviour was unacceptable.

 

[Amsterhammer]

The picture I just posted in the US politics topic has turned out to be humongous. Can some friendly mod/admin please do something to it?

Thanks.

EDIT:
done!

cheers
bison

 

[sittingbison]

Thats strange....Yet you are telling me that you could have banned me for my postings in that thread....

Sorry if I wasn't clear Hitch, no I was not telling you that. I quoted both your good self and sceptic above talking about disruptive behaviour with particular reference to the windy mountain thread. And then used both your names - along with et al ie the usual suspects - as examples that would close that thread.

So to be clear my intention was:
The thread would be closed if Hitch (purposely derailing a thread with personal attacks) or sceptic (calling people stupid because he thinks they are stupid) did what they mentioned above , along with the usual suspects (ie the et al)

All good?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Cheers Bison.

 

[Christian]

How long is Airstream's ban? It is not indicated in the Banned Members thread

 

[ElChingon]

Here you go Mods, you demand it or attempt to smell it yet have mixed results now an app:

Anti-Trolling Software Launched in UK

From a UK based company/programmer(s) so your mother company can't be too offended or think they're being "trolled"

Chances it will be used, zero. Because if it was they couldn't randomly ban people. You'd think they could post test the past troll bans, wonder who, who wasn't banned and a mod, would set it off.

 

[King Boonen]

I've spotted the post and your reply that were deleted by a mod. The first was completely irrelevant and off topic, and given the posters history I'm sure the mod had a word to him and is watching. Your reply was also deleted as it becomes redundant when the offending one was dealt with.

This happens frequently, in fact it's a pain in three neck trying to spot responses and quote's etc down the timeline which need either modification or deletion because of the fate of the original offending post. Sometimes up to a dozen subsequent comments have to be modified. It's why it's preferable to simply report offending posts and not reply.

Fair enough, but as you say, based on the persons history that post deserved a ban at the very least. people do seem to get banned for a lot less.

 

[BroDeal]

Making jokes in the Armstrong thread now a bannable offense. Way to go, mods. Soon the plan to destroy what's left of the forum will be complete. Something, something, something, dark side.

 

[Alphabet]

Banned for a month! What did Hog do?

 

[sittingbison]

Making jokes in the Armstrong thread now a bannable offense....

che?

 

[Eshnar]

Banned for a month! What did Hog do?

he's been stalking another member despite three warnings in 4 days, the last two of which labelled as "final warning".
We couldn't have been clearer than that. Maybe he just wanted an off month.

 

[darwin553]

Banned for a month! What did Hog do?

Not a big loss. There is nearly a whole site to take his place

 

[aphronesis]

he's been stalking another member despite three warnings in 4 days, the last two of which labelled as "final warning".
We couldn't have been clearer than that. Maybe he just wanted an off month.

By stalking you mean posting counter to another member rather than take their word as gospel truth? Gosh that's super scary. Hope the delicate flower can recover and continue a productive and meaningful life.

 

[the sceptic]

Kind of hard to avoid stalking someone when there are like 3 active threads in the clinic.

And wasnt it Race Radio that brought twitter into the forum bragging about how Ross Tucker agreed with him and disagreed with Hog? yet hog is the guy that gets banned for "trolling" because Race Radio is embarrassed about the 12% behind Mayo tweet. Well done mods

 

[Eshnar]

By stalking you mean posting counter to another member rather than take their word as gospel truth? Gosh that's super scary. Hope the delicate flower can recover and continue a productive and meaningful life.

Before being scared you should first wait for the answer....
No, by stalking I mean systematically bashing another user in unrelated posts.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Agree with aphronesis & the sceptic. The sniping between those two posters was contributed to by both sides, IMO.

Free the Hog!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Hoggie is a flower? ..and this is not the hogster
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6cMXVpLmKM

edit: in before the delete action thing struck.

 

[Eshnar]

Hoggie is a flower? ..and this is not the hogster

edit: in before the delete action this struck.

I can't decide if this needs to be deleted if the link doesn't work
edit: alright now I see it... deleted

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Making jokes in the Armstrong thread now a bannable offense. Way to go, mods. Soon the plan to destroy what's left of the forum will be complete. Something, something, something, dark side.

No - there were a pile of his posts deleted.
You know the way TheHog trolled away right under the radar? Well he went sailing past it yesterday.

Kind of hard to avoid stalking someone when there are like 3 active threads in the clinic.

And wasnt it Race Radio that brought twitter into the forum bragging about how Ross Tucker agreed with him and disagreed with Hog? yet hog is the guy that gets banned for "trolling" because Race Radio is embarrassed about the 12% behind Mayo tweet. Well done mods

If Ross Tucker (& RR) is wrong, then anyone who disagrees should be able to show where they are wrong.

What was/is happening has nothing to do with the merits of any argument -TheHog claims insider info, but RR who does actually have insider info (and points out that it can often be meaningless) - thats why Hoggies nose is out of joint.

 

[aphronesis]

Before being scared you should first wait for the answer....
No, by stalking I mean systematically bashing another user in unrelated posts.

Stalking implies threat. No need to wait for the answer-- unless you were using borrowed vernacular and misspoke.

 

[Eshnar]

Stalking implies threat. No need to wait for the answer-- unless you were using borrowed vernacular and misspoke.

no, stalking does not imply any threat.

Stalking
Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Stalking implies threat. No need to wait for the answer-- unless you were using borrowed vernacular and misspoke.

Implies? Thats vague and at best subjective.

Of course it does not imply a threat - here is a dictionary definition:

v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.