Political correctness gone mad. He was constantly judged on reputation. He was just a young cheeky chappy. The benefits of Perma banning him are minuscule in comparison to losing the off topic poster of the year.
|
|
Appalling Decision Perma Banning Smeg
Political correctness gone mad. He was constantly judged on reputation. He was just a young cheeky chappy. The benefits of Perma banning him are minuscule in comparison to losing the off topic poster of the year.
Actually I have a feeling Smeg might have been confused by the boxing day closing times. So try again Smeg.
Nope, he's perma'd.Originally Posted by Cumbrian
Banned for what?
Hello Smeg.
Shh, do you want him on hear or not?h34r:
Poor form Kriz. Especially as you had a second account yourself while you were banned.
It's not fair to discuss other posters when they're not here to defend themselves and of course you don't have all the info but this:
is simply incorrect. Posters are judged on the content of their posts, nothing else.
Of course if you repeatedly ignore polite warnings, private emails from admin, 1 point infractions and even temporary bans whilst incurring multiple reports from offended users and thus wasting vast swathes of moderator time you should expect to have this taken into consideration.
I just want to make a point about Matt saying Smegs was not judged on reputation at all.
I recall recently a post in which a poster posted a link in OT to a picture with a man on his knees with his penis in the exhaust of the car, for humour. It was fairly graphic and you could see pretty much everything there is to see. Said poster has always been a good poster and as far as I know never been on the wrong side of the mods. The mod who dealt with the post used a common sense approach and simply deleted the offending post. An infraction/warning may have been issued but the poster was able to post again and was not banned. Smegs would simply say something which could be construed as rude and would be threatened with a ban which was sometimes carried out. If he'd posted that picture I have very little doubt that he would have been banned on the spot, quite possibly with his account referred.
I'm not saying whether its right or wrong to judge posters on reputation (its a natural reaction) and if you claim not to do it then I'd question why mods sometimes bring up people's infraction histories, but to say that posters are judged solely on each individual post is blatantly incorrect and effectively a lie, regardless of what the intention is.
Sorry for making a new thread but I just wanted to clarify things and the original thread was locked.
I agree. I can understand that after numerous warnings and infractions mods come down harder on repeat offenders but it's not fair when that poster has no leeway whatsover.I just want to make a point about Matt saying Smegs was not judged on reputation at all.
I recall recently a post in which a poster posted a link in OT to a picture with a man on his knees with his penis in the exhaust of the car, for humour. It was fairly graphic and you could see pretty much everything there is to see. Said poster has always been a good poster and as far as I know never been on the wrong side of the mods. The mod who dealt with the post used a common sense approach and simply deleted the offending post. An infraction/warning may have been issued but the poster was able to post again and was not banned. Smegs would simply say something which could be construed as rude and would be threatened with a ban which was sometimes carried out. If he'd posted that picture I have very little doubt that he would have been banned on the spot, quite possibly with his account referred.
I'm not saying whether its right or wrong to judge posters on reputation (its a natural reaction) and if you claim not to do it then I'd question why mods sometimes bring up people's infraction histories, but to say that posters are judged solely on each individual post is blatantly incorrect and effectively a lie, regardless of what the intention is.
Sorry for making a new thread but I just wanted to clarify things and the original thread was locked.
And by the way I didn't receive an infraction for that picture.
RM the point we have made all along and folk have still not grasped is that it's not about any one individual inappropriate post you can name compared to another. Its about a cumulative posting history where a poster is wilfully and continually ignoring requests to stop breaking the rules. That's what Matt means. The poster who does it once or twice just gets a deletion, as said poster did a long time ago. But anybody taking it that far goes beyond just getting deletions and warnings.I just want to make a point about Matt saying Smegs was not judged on reputation at all.
I recall recently a post in which a poster posted a link in OT to a picture with a man on his knees with his penis in the exhaust of the car, for humour. It was fairly graphic and you could see pretty much everything there is to see. Said poster has always been a good poster and as far as I know never been on the wrong side of the mods. The mod who dealt with the post used a common sense approach and simply deleted the offending post. An infraction/warning may have been issued but the poster was able to post again and was not banned. Smegs would simply say something which could be construed as rude and would be threatened with a ban which was sometimes carried out. If he'd posted that picture I have very little doubt that he would have been banned on the spot, quite possibly with his account referred.
I'm not saying whether its right or wrong to judge posters on reputation (its a natural reaction) and if you claim not to do it then I'd question why mods sometimes bring up people's infraction histories, but to say that posters are judged solely on each individual post is blatantly incorrect and effectively a lie, regardless of what the intention is.
Sorry for making a new thread but I just wanted to clarify things and the original thread was locked.
It really surprises me - just speaking personally of course, that apparent fans of a banned poster don't direct their pleas to the poster to change their posting style if his posting on the forums is so important to them, likewise for the poster himself. After so many warnings its a choice to not comply. You're entitled to your opinion on whether that's worth a permaban of course, but accusations of lying are way out of line.
Last edited by Jannno; 28-12-11 at 19:28.
I direct you to this post by Matt:
Clearly some communication is needed between Matt and the mods on what to judge posters on....is simply incorrect. Posters are judged on the content of their posts, nothing else.Originally Posted by Cumbrian
He was constantly judged on reputation.
No. Read my post again, and this edit I added after you read it.
Not any individual post.
The poster you quote who only got a deletion would also get more than that if they carried on.The poster who does it once or twice just gets a deletion, as said poster did a long time ago. But any poster taking it that far goes beyond just getting deletions and warnings.
Like I say, that involves judging posters on more than simply each individual posts. I'm not even commenting on whether that is the correct way to deal with things or not, but it just irritates me when people claim that the only criteria for moderation of posts is the content of the post itself, as though mods cant even see the username of the poster (which actually mightn't be a horrendous idea
Smegs was treated in a different way to other posters because of his history. Matt claimed that wasn't the case, which is blatantly untrue. I'm not being unfair or unreasonable in anything I'm saying, just pointing out an obvious fact.
It's just barmy political correctness though. He never posted porn, he never swore constantly, he never purposely wound people up. He was sexist in some people's eyes. Big deal.
It is not about individual posts as you are persisting to claim. That is not what Matt said or meant.Like I say, that involves judging posters on more than simply each individual posts. I'm not even commenting on whether that is the correct way to deal with things or not, but it just irritates me when people claim that the only criteria for moderation of posts is the content of the post itself, as though mods cant even see the username of the poster (which actually mightn't be a horrendous idea
Smegs was treated in a different way to other posters because of his history. Matt claimed that wasn't the case no he didn't, which is blatantly untrue. I'm not being unfair or unreasonable in anything I'm saying, just pointing out an obvious fact.
I really can't explain it any other way and I'm about to give up trying now. The explanation has been given and this thread will be closed again after you have a chance to reply.
Horrendous call to ban him.
It's a bit like referees knowing the rules but not knowing how to play the game.
I can't go into any more detail but you vastly understate the situation there.
Well if people take offence to a certain individual's views on the internet maybe they should unplug it for their own sanity.
Let's start a petition to get him back :tongue2::laugh:
Come on Cumbrian you understand it better than this. You know the audience for the forums is global, all ages and has to remain closer to the mainstream than forums you might prefer personally. It's a representation of the club more than any other LFC forum out there and as such has a certain profile to maintain.
as much as I oddly wanted Kriz back, he says worse stuff and was allowed to return.
Didnt realise we were Puritan FC.
Matt said 'posters are judged on the content of their posts. Nothing else'. Those were his exact words. You'll probably say something along the lines of him meaning that that incorporates every post they've ever made but I'm not entirely sure I buy that.
The truth of the matter is that Smegs was treated differently due to the way he has posted in the past. I find it quite amusing that the posts he had deleted and eventually got banned for very rarely actually caused any sort of offence to anybody and no-one except mods pulled him up on it and even then only for the reason that it potentially could offend someone. I agree that in certain scenario's he did cross the line but they were actually rare occasions, he was always clearly only joking.
I just dont understand why the mods feel it necessary to delete/punish posts from an individual user which are bordering on overstepping the mark yet would not carry out a similar action had another poster posted exactly the same post. If a post needs deletion it needs deletion, but too often I felt Smegs' posts were deleted partly because of what he said, and partly because of who said it.
Also, this whole locking of threads is irritating at times. If the thread is going off-topic fair enough, but we're not here.
Anyway, I've said my bit. Doubt there's much point in saying much else.
And the "hundreds of people who reported his posts"
Report post is ********.
I report an insulting post and nothing happens. But something rude gets picked up on straight away. How does that work?
This poster has been kind enough to acknowledge that he was mistaken in saying this, and in fact something was done after the report.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
