Read The Rules

  Joyrex said:

if anyone creates a "Why was so-and-so banned?" thread willfully to mock the rules, etc. I will ban them - no ifs, ands or buts about it.[/b] It's that kind of willful disregard for the rules that have kept this place a somewhat orderly and pleasant place to be for so long in jeopardy.

That sentence doesn't really make sense - does it mean some "Why was so-and-so banned?" threads are ok, if they don't "willfully mock the rules"? What even qualifies as "willfully mocking the rules?" I'm having trouble adjusting to your newspeak.

can we nominate you for douche-of-the-year awards or is that also against the rules?

sorry man, but asking what happened to so-and-so is completely natural and healthy. If you had good reasons for banning someone, you wouldn't feel threatened by these sorts of threads - you'd let them blow over and die down naturally. Which in the case of Beneboi they already have (though some feelings may still be simmering). The funny thing is you don't seem to realize that this latest edict comes from the same reflex that leads you to ban people instead of just chilling and letting whatever provoked you naturally dissipate. In both cases the best solution (imo) would be to take a deep breath and do...nothing. That's right, just let things pass.

In my experience forums tend to self-correct without the need for heavy-handed bullying.

For a while we could say to ourselves "there goes Joyrex again" and just roll our eyes, but this is starting to get out of hand...

The reason so many people make threads like that is because it takes like 5 or 6 threads before Joyrex gives any answer at all. And that's only because one of the moderators will keep locking the threads previous to it before any of them get an answer... even though those threads don't break any rules, it just "annoys" certain moderators despite the fact they can choose to simply not click on those topics.

i just updated my nuts in your mouth!

What does any of this have to do with your love of sports?

if you divide the rules by 2012 you get 23.idm metric

  pantsonmyhead said:

if you divide the rules by 2012 you get 23.idm metric

NSFW

ohhhh snap

I'm European

I thought your post was funny

stupid americans (yeah that's right, closet racist)

It sort of is an implicit judgement though.

'WATTM in Sandy Knicker-Twist Tornado'

  lumpenprol said:

  Joyrex said:

if anyone creates a "Why was so-and-so banned?" thread willfully to mock the rules, etc. I will ban them - no ifs, ands or buts about it.[/b] It's that kind of willful disregard for the rules that have kept this place a somewhat orderly and pleasant place to be for so long in jeopardy.

That sentence doesn't really make sense - does it mean some "Why was so-and-so banned?" threads are ok, if they don't "willfully mock the rules"? What even qualifies as "willfully mocking the rules?" I'm having trouble adjusting to your newspeak.

 

can we nominate you for douche-of-the-year awards or is that also against the rules?

 

sorry man, but asking what happened to so-and-so is completely natural and healthy. If you had good reasons for banning someone, you wouldn't feel threatened by these sorts of threads - you'd let them blow over and die down naturally. Which in the case of Beneboi they already have (though some feelings may still be simmering). The funny thing is you don't seem to realize that this latest edict comes from the same reflex that leads you to ban people instead of just chilling and letting whatever provoked you naturally dissipate. In both cases the best solution (imo) would be to take a deep breath and do...nothing. That's right, just let things pass.

 

In my experience forums tend to self-correct without the need for heavy-handed bullying.

 

For a while we could say to ourselves "there goes Joyrex again" and just roll our eyes, but this is starting to get out of hand...

Agreed.

I find this new rule a bit odd too. I don't generally keep up to date on the latest in general banter, but when someone is banned I like to read who and why, otherwise its just like friends disappearing out of your life without mention.

Its almost like if the judicial system has the ability to give people the chair, and not have to tell anyone about it.

Not that I have ever got involved in these "who got banned" threads but banning someone for asking a question... that rule seems a bit draconian, Joyrex.

Americans tend to argue (just for the sake of it they'll threaten to kill or beat up someone but then later say it was a joke) amongst themselves, ever noticed that? it's weird when they start on the peaceful Europeans.

  tauboo said:

Americans tend to argue (just for the sake of it they'll threaten to kill or beat up someone but then later say it was a joke) amongst themselves, ever noticed that? it's weird when they start on the peaceful Europeans.

lol, too dry for me, but are you suggesting I'm 'American' for threatening to 'shank' Iain C. It was a reference to Greenwich/Deptford/New Cross where I'm guessing he's from, where its getting increasingly difficult to walk the streets without someone threatening to 'shank' you. See the lad who got stabbed to death outside his local Greggs. Or the two french students who were tortured to death. Or the random drive-bys. Last time I was there I was threatened with getting shanked in the head because I asked someone if the cashpoint was working. They don't put that in the tourist brochures. I'm sure he got the 'joke'.

hmmm is asking why someone got banned really a bannable offense? This is getting a bit silly now.

  Lady kakapo said:

  tauboo said:

Americans tend to argue (just for the sake of it they'll threaten to kill or beat up someone but then later say it was a joke) amongst themselves, ever noticed that? it's weird when they start on the peaceful Europeans.

 

lol, too dry for me, but are you suggesting I'm 'American' for threatening to 'shank' Iain C. It was a reference to Greenwich/Deptford/New Cross where I'm guessing he's from, where its getting increasingly difficult to walk the streets without someone threatening to 'shank' you. See the lad who got stabbed to death outside his local Greggs. Or the two french students who were tortured to death. Or the random drive-bys. Last time I was there I was threatened with getting shanked in the head because I asked someone if the cashpoint was working. They don't put that in the tourist brochures. I'm sure he got the 'joke'.

giving me too much credit. it was an aimless observation

  Lady kakapo said:

  tauboo said:

Americans tend to argue (just for the sake of it they'll threaten to kill or beat up someone but then later say it was a joke) amongst themselves, ever noticed that? it's weird when they start on the peaceful Europeans.

 

lol, too dry for me, but are you suggesting I'm 'American' for threatening to 'shank' Iain C. It was a reference to Greenwich/Deptford/New Cross where I'm guessing he's from, where its getting increasingly difficult to walk the streets without someone threatening to 'shank' you. See the lad who got stabbed to death outside his local Greggs. Or the two french students who were tortured to death. Or the random drive-bys. Last time I was there I was threatened with getting shanked in the head because I asked someone if the cashpoint was working. They don't put that in the tourist brochures. I'm sure he got the 'joke'.

Yes, live here (Charlton actually), originally from Peterborough. Still feel safe around here - only been mugged once in the past year.

I've not actually been back to Greggs since the murder... I walk past it a lot and all the flowers and notes and what have you there make me want to cry

a bit like how people aren't insulting joyrex when they ask why someone was banned

edit: that was meant to add on to my other post

Sorry Taubs

  my usernames always really suck said:

Asking why someone was banned = mocking the rules? Are you high?

You obviously did not read what I wrote...

  lumpenprol said:

  Joyrex said:

if anyone creates a "Why was so-and-so banned?" thread willfully to mock the rules, etc. I will ban them - no ifs, ands or buts about it.[/b] It's that kind of willful disregard for the rules that have kept this place a somewhat orderly and pleasant place to be for so long in jeopardy.

That sentence doesn't really make sense - does it mean some "Why was so-and-so banned?" threads are ok, if they don't "willfully mock the rules"? What even qualifies as "willfully mocking the rules?" I'm having trouble adjusting to your newspeak.

 

can we nominate you for douche-of-the-year awards or is that also against the rules?

 

sorry man, but asking what happened to so-and-so is completely natural and healthy. If you had good reasons for banning someone, you wouldn't feel threatened by these sorts of threads - you'd let them blow over and die down naturally. Which in the case of Beneboi they already have (though some feelings may still be simmering). The funny thing is you don't seem to realize that this latest edict comes from the same reflex that leads you to ban people instead of just chilling and letting whatever provoked you naturally dissipate. In both cases the best solution (imo) would be to take a deep breath and do...nothing. That's right, just let things pass.

 

In my experience forums tend to self-correct without the need for heavy-handed bullying.

 

For a while we could say to ourselves "there goes Joyrex again" and just roll our eyes, but this is starting to get out of hand...

I will gladly accept your douche of the year nomination if you agree to correctly quote me when making a point. Re-read what I fucking wrote; If people willfully create "why was so-and-so banned" threads in an attempt to be "funny" or whatever, there will be consequences - of course it's natural and perfectly fine to create a thread asking as such, but the copycat/inflammatory threads that usually follow are what we do NOT need. THAT was what I was addressing with this, not trying to be some dictator. You also think that when I ban someone, it's always because they provoked me; not the case (especially in the case of bannedboi - he was just being a right cunt, anybody would agree, and his 80% warn for similar infractions put him over the edge). I don't like banning anybody - but as I've said before, I will NOT let that kind of behaviour slip, because it promotes gradualism, and eventually, things that normally should be frowned upon on a messageboard (in terms of bad behaviour) are the norm and the majority of people won't put up with it and go elsewhere. This leads to the collapse of the community, and then everybody loses out by not having a place they enjoy coming to rather than a place they have trepidation visiting.

If you think things are getting out of hand, then by all means, find a place online where you feel comfortable, and spend more time there, for your own self-preservation.

  acid1 said:

I find this new rule a bit odd too. I don't generally keep up to date on the latest in general banter, but when someone is banned I like to read who and why, otherwise its just like friends disappearing out of your life without mention.

 

Its almost like if the judicial system has the ability to give people the chair, and not have to tell anyone about it.

 

Not that I have ever got involved in these "who got banned" threads but banning someone for asking a question... that rule seems a bit draconian, Joyrex.

Re-read the rule again; nowhere did I say such threads were verboten, but multiple instances of said threads, and repostings in an attempt to be inflammatory.

  Rambo said:

hmmm is asking why someone got banned really a bannable offense? This is getting a bit silly now.

Re-read the rule.

  tauboo said:

a bit like how people aren't insulting joyrex when they ask why someone was banned

 

edit: that was meant to add on to my other post

You're right; they're not insulting me in the slightest. However, re-read the rule and you'll find out what I really meant instead of piggybacking on the assumptions of the posters before you.

I also had to delete 9 off-topic posts here that had nothing to do with the topic. Please keep things to this discussion so others can follow along instead of having to wade through shite just to get basic information or participate in the discussion.

re-reading the rules

*re-reads*

  Iain C said:

Yes, live here (Charlton actually), originally from Peterborough. Still feel safe around here - only been mugged once in the past year.

 

I've not actually been back to Greggs since the murder... I walk past it a lot and all the flowers and notes and what have you there make me want to cry

Sorry, don't mean to derail the thread, but I know Greenwich too. It's the violence against women that gets me. Saw some poor chinese student get mugged. Was up in friends flat about 300m away at the time, so there was nothing we could do other than call the police. She put up a proper good fight though. And a friend got mugged up on Shooter's Hill Road. The worse thing was she's asian and they wrenched her piercings out of spite. I've seen a 40 man brawl outside the wetherspoons, but that's to be expected.

  Tauboo said:

giving me too much credit. it was an aimless observation

She's just paranoid cos she keeps sending pms to ET threatening to have him killed.

i think i understand that multiple threads on a banned member is causing an offence, but there were no threads about beneboi, so someone made one, and it got closed, so someone made another one, and that got closed. where was the proper moderator endorsed official discussion thread?

the reading comprehension on this forums is...questionable.