| Banning 10:45 - Jan 2 with 10332 views | Sirjohnalot |
Just had to give someone a ban for abusing another poster.
Again, please to echo Keith, stop it, whether you instigate or abuse back, it’ll be a ban. Again, haven’t got time to trawl through to see who started it. Report and block, and the nonsense ends. It’s boring for anyone trying to read a post when it’s hi jacked by constant back and forth.
If you think someone is being a prat either ignore or respond in a way that’s not abusive. |  | | |  |
| Banning on 22:30 - Jan 2 with 1734 views | Sirjohnalot |
It’s like dealing with kids. Everyone. Grow up. | | | |
| Banning on 22:38 - Jan 2 with 1723 views | Luther27 |
| Banning on 22:30 - Jan 2 by Sirjohnalot |
It’s like dealing with kids. Everyone. Grow up. |
I’m on my second box of popcorn tonight 😂 |  |
| |
| Banning on 22:41 - Jan 2 with 1711 views | swan65split |
| Banning on 22:38 - Jan 2 by Luther27 |
I’m on my second box of popcorn tonight 😂 |
I m on a diet, so off junk!!!! |  | | |
| Banning on 22:42 - Jan 2 with 1701 views | Luther27 |
| Banning on 22:41 - Jan 2 by swan65split |
I m on a diet, so off junk!!!! |
I was as well….until I sobered up! | |
| |
| Banning on 12:06 - Jan 3 with 1561 views | Minesapint |
So in the interests of clarity, I understand the target faces a ban for not blocking the perpetrator for an abusive post under the new rules. I get that.
Can I just ask what measures are taken against the abuser? I assume there will be as otherwise this place is going to become even more of a free for all. Abusers will run riot knowing that a) their target will either not report the post as they would then have to block the culprit thus leaving the abuser a free rein to post god knows what without the victim being aware or b) the victim will not report abuse and the exchange between both parties run on and on. Doesn't this make the Report function pointless?
I am not the sharpest so hopefully I have misread the situation. Surely the way to stop things is to take action against the initial abuse not the other way round? | | | |
| Banning on 12:15 - Jan 3 with 1552 views | pencoedjack |
I find it hard to believe that posters message John and/or Keith complaining about posts.
Thought the majority who posted on here were grown men which obviously cant be the case.
I have Dr P on ignore not because he offends me but he just clogs everything up with loads of recycled gush, other than that I have DYSS on ignore. |  | | |
| Banning on 13:17 - Jan 3 with 1504 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
This is a completely hypothetical situation but if some silly idiot somehow manages to report his own post as abuse does that mean that they have to block themselves? |  |
| |
| Banning on 13:27 - Jan 3 with 1494 views | Gwyn737 |
| Banning on 13:17 - Jan 3 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
This is a completely hypothetical situation but if some silly idiot somehow manages to report his own post as abuse does that mean that they have to block themselves? |
Are you asking 'for a friend?'  | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Banning on 13:55 - Jan 3 with 1454 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Banning on 13:17 - Jan 3 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
This is a completely hypothetical situation but if some silly idiot somehow manages to report his own post as abuse does that mean that they have to block themselves? |
Yes, I did this by accident 3 years ago and have no idea what I've been posting ever since | | | |
| Banning on 13:58 - Jan 3 with 1446 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Banning on 12:06 - Jan 3 by Minesapint |
So in the interests of clarity, I understand the target faces a ban for not blocking the perpetrator for an abusive post under the new rules. I get that.
Can I just ask what measures are taken against the abuser? I assume there will be as otherwise this place is going to become even more of a free for all. Abusers will run riot knowing that a) their target will either not report the post as they would then have to block the culprit thus leaving the abuser a free rein to post god knows what without the victim being aware or b) the victim will not report abuse and the exchange between both parties run on and on. Doesn't this make the Report function pointless?
I am not the sharpest so hopefully I have misread the situation. Surely the way to stop things is to take action against the initial abuse not the other way round? |
If anyone posts something genuinely abusive, they'll be banned. I'm not talkng about proper debate and in the heat of a decent back and forth calling someone a plonker. It's all about context and I think it's obvious what's abuse and not.
But yes, they will go, the only reason for this is to avoid escalation. Simply responding with eg 'I don't appreciate that, I'm out of the conversation'; then blocking, is all that needs to be done to stop the back and forth which, if anything, has escalated since Keith's message | | | |
| Banning on 14:21 - Jan 3 with 1413 views | Lorax |
| Banning on 13:55 - Jan 3 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes, I did this by accident 3 years ago and have no idea what I've been posting ever since |
Yourenot the only one. I also have no idea how I logged in and switched from Catullus to Lorax?
Wtflipping heck is going on? | | | |
| Banning on 15:10 - Jan 3 with 1377 views | controversial_jack |
I'm a bit scared to post anything on here now. | | | |
| Banning on 16:07 - Jan 3 with 1338 views | onehunglow |
| Banning on 13:58 - Jan 3 by Sirjohnalot |
If anyone posts something genuinely abusive, they'll be banned. I'm not talkng about proper debate and in the heat of a decent back and forth calling someone a plonker. It's all about context and I think it's obvious what's abuse and not.
But yes, they will go, the only reason for this is to avoid escalation. Simply responding with eg 'I don't appreciate that, I'm out of the conversation'; then blocking, is all that needs to be done to stop the back and forth which, if anything, has escalated since Keith's message |
Nobody should accept abuse
It’s a shame matters can’t be sorted Mano a Mano | |
| |
| Banning on 20:53 - Jan 3 with 1257 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 13:58 - Jan 3 by Sirjohnalot |
If anyone posts something genuinely abusive, they'll be banned. I'm not talkng about proper debate and in the heat of a decent back and forth calling someone a plonker. It's all about context and I think it's obvious what's abuse and not.
But yes, they will go, the only reason for this is to avoid escalation. Simply responding with eg 'I don't appreciate that, I'm out of the conversation'; then blocking, is all that needs to be done to stop the back and forth which, if anything, has escalated since Keith's message |
I think it’s come from a good place and a desire to solve the issues seen since the POTY vote.
But with the kind of abuse that has been seen, it would be impossible to then put the person on ignore because of the nature of the accusations being made. They have to be seen in order to respond and defend yourself against mistruths, otherwise they can get away will saying all sorts about you.
Let’s say for example I report abuse, then block the abuser. He gets banned for a couple of days and then comes back. He is then in a position to say what he likes completely unopposed and nobody will report it as it isn’t to do with them, it’s a green light to spread all sorts of lies - to them, that’s a superpower and worth the 3 day ban.
It also leaves it open to seeing abuse (after blocking) when you are not logged in. Let’s say I blocked someone, then one day I see them abusing me and lying about me while I’m not logged in, in order to have the right of reply I would need to take them off ignore and risk a banning simply for defending myself. That surely can’t be right?
While I understand why it was brought in, in reality it’s extremely flawed and defeats the object.
THE BEST solution that involves the ignore function is that the banned party is made to block the victim, and if they don’t then they get a further ban.
Being abused should not impact on your right to see and respond to the abuse. But if someone is abusive then they should have their right to see their victims posts removed. Far less impact or repercussions on the victim if done the other way round.
The report function should be encouraged not deterred. Because there is not a chance I am ever using the ignore button as it takes away my basic right of reply against people I know will continue to spread lies about me after their short ban is up. I will not be giving anyone the power to abuse me unopposed.
I hope I have explained that well enough? PM me if I haven’t and we can discuss the concerns. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 21:00]
|  |
| |
| Banning on 22:48 - Jan 3 with 1201 views | onehunglow |
| Banning on 20:53 - Jan 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
I think it’s come from a good place and a desire to solve the issues seen since the POTY vote.
But with the kind of abuse that has been seen, it would be impossible to then put the person on ignore because of the nature of the accusations being made. They have to be seen in order to respond and defend yourself against mistruths, otherwise they can get away will saying all sorts about you.
Let’s say for example I report abuse, then block the abuser. He gets banned for a couple of days and then comes back. He is then in a position to say what he likes completely unopposed and nobody will report it as it isn’t to do with them, it’s a green light to spread all sorts of lies - to them, that’s a superpower and worth the 3 day ban.
It also leaves it open to seeing abuse (after blocking) when you are not logged in. Let’s say I blocked someone, then one day I see them abusing me and lying about me while I’m not logged in, in order to have the right of reply I would need to take them off ignore and risk a banning simply for defending myself. That surely can’t be right?
While I understand why it was brought in, in reality it’s extremely flawed and defeats the object.
THE BEST solution that involves the ignore function is that the banned party is made to block the victim, and if they don’t then they get a further ban.
Being abused should not impact on your right to see and respond to the abuse. But if someone is abusive then they should have their right to see their victims posts removed. Far less impact or repercussions on the victim if done the other way round.
The report function should be encouraged not deterred. Because there is not a chance I am ever using the ignore button as it takes away my basic right of reply against people I know will continue to spread lies about me after their short ban is up. I will not be giving anyone the power to abuse me unopposed.
I hope I have explained that well enough? PM me if I haven’t and we can discuss the concerns. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 21:00]
|
That’s an expanded version of my uttering
I’m more succinct than you but you’re consideeerbly richer than me
OHL …POTY ,Vox Populae and pro bono publico | |
| |
| Banning on 22:58 - Jan 3 with 1179 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 22:48 - Jan 3 by onehunglow |
That’s an expanded version of my uttering
I’m more succinct than you but you’re consideeerbly richer than me
OHL …POTY ,Vox Populae and pro bono publico |
Just perfect common sense surely.
As I’ve told John, the outcome of that rule is that nobody reports anything ever again. Nobody is going to throw away their right of reply for their abuser to get a short term ban.
The only sensible iteration of that rule is for the abuser to be made to ignore his victim. That way the victim still gets a right of reply to any future abuse/fake allegations and the abuser has the temptation of abuse taken away by not being able to see his victims posts.
As it stands all I see is a scenario where arguments continue but just unchecked and unreported, which has just made the situation worse.
The abuser needs to be made to ignore the victim, the opposite makes no sense at all.
This is why restraining orders are put on offenders rather than victims. A victim of an attack shouldn’t be liable for arrest as the result of being attacked and a restraining order being placed on THEM.
Same goes for this forum, there should be no risk of a banning for the victim of the attacks simply because they want to keep their future right of reply, which a forced “block” of course does. [Post edited 3 Jan 2023 23:05]
| |
| |
| Banning on 23:15 - Jan 3 with 1154 views | Sirjohnalot |
This is a general reply to all,
Can people please try to work with us, block those you don’t like and don’t get involved in spats. The other person if they abuse someone will be banned,
This is taking up so much time I haven’t got, especially as I’m back in work and today am starting a 10 week trial.
Cannot understand why adults can’t just behave | | | |
| Banning on 23:29 - Jan 3 with 1135 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 23:15 - Jan 3 by Sirjohnalot |
This is a general reply to all,
Can people please try to work with us, block those you don’t like and don’t get involved in spats. The other person if they abuse someone will be banned,
This is taking up so much time I haven’t got, especially as I’m back in work and today am starting a 10 week trial.
Cannot understand why adults can’t just behave |
But John, you have to listen to those who are the victims of this abuse and work together to solve it.
Blocking isn’t an option because the right of reply is diminished, that’s coming from someone who has lies about them said constantly on here. It’s imperative that I am able to see and respond to them.
All that needs to happen is the abusers get banned. That’s it.
It doesn’t have to be any more difficult than that. | |
| |
| Banning on 07:41 - Jan 4 with 1050 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Banning on 23:29 - Jan 3 by Dr_Parnassus |
But John, you have to listen to those who are the victims of this abuse and work together to solve it.
Blocking isn’t an option because the right of reply is diminished, that’s coming from someone who has lies about them said constantly on here. It’s imperative that I am able to see and respond to them.
All that needs to happen is the abusers get banned. That’s it.
It doesn’t have to be any more difficult than that. |
This is the decision that has been made by the admins. | | | |
| Banning on 08:06 - Jan 4 with 1037 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 07:41 - Jan 4 by Sirjohnalot |
This is the decision that has been made by the admins. |
I understand that, but it serves no purpose to solve anything. It makes zero sense, and I’m sure you know that by now.
It just protects the regular abusers (we all know who they are) against future bans, because nobody will report anything anymore.
If you could make a perfect rule to ensure arguments not only continue but ramp up to levels never before seen, then this rule would be it.
Nothing changes as a result of its implementation- except now nobody will report anything, meaning arguments rumble on away from the eyes of moderators who may only act if they just so happen to stumble upon it. It will drive people away.
Nobody is going to exchange their right of reply in order to click the report button. Would be sheer madness to give the abusers that power to then abuse unopposed.
Ban abusers, ensure they don’t continue to once they return - it’s really not that difficult.
You are making work for yourself. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 8:13]
| |
| |
| Banning on 08:11 - Jan 4 with 1025 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Banning on 08:06 - Jan 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
I understand that, but it serves no purpose to solve anything. It makes zero sense, and I’m sure you know that by now.
It just protects the regular abusers (we all know who they are) against future bans, because nobody will report anything anymore.
If you could make a perfect rule to ensure arguments not only continue but ramp up to levels never before seen, then this rule would be it.
Nothing changes as a result of its implementation- except now nobody will report anything, meaning arguments rumble on away from the eyes of moderators who may only act if they just so happen to stumble upon it. It will drive people away.
Nobody is going to exchange their right of reply in order to click the report button. Would be sheer madness to give the abusers that power to then abuse unopposed.
Ban abusers, ensure they don’t continue to once they return - it’s really not that difficult.
You are making work for yourself. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 8:13]
|
I disagree with you, I certainly ‘don’t know that by now ‘ but I’m off to work. We are simply trying to make the site better. We need everyone to help us. | | | |
| Banning on 08:19 - Jan 4 with 1006 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 08:11 - Jan 4 by Sirjohnalot |
I disagree with you, I certainly ‘don’t know that by now ‘ but I’m off to work. We are simply trying to make the site better. We need everyone to help us. |
It’s not an opinion to agree to disagree with.
I’m telling you for a fact, that if someone abuses you constantly then it is not worth losing your future right of reply in order to click a report button once.
Upon their return they can then continue their nonsense and you lose your right of reply.
How on earth can you say that isn’t the case? It’s literally the outcome of that rule.
I’m also telling you as a fact as the main victim of abuse on here, that I’m never going to report anything under these bizarre conditions as right of reply is imperative.
Meaning your work load is going to increase as I’ll now be replying to the guaranteed future abuse without it being reported to you guys to do anything about it, meaning by the time you see it the argument will be 10 times longer than it needs to be.
This isn’t an opinion, it’s literally the outcome of the rule.
I just don’t understand why you see that outcome as a good thing?
It would be far more productive to recognise the idea is a bad one and adapt it, if your genuine goal is to stamp out abuse as opposed to give them an easier ride upon their return. | |
| |
| Banning on 08:25 - Jan 4 with 994 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Banning on 08:19 - Jan 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
It’s not an opinion to agree to disagree with.
I’m telling you for a fact, that if someone abuses you constantly then it is not worth losing your future right of reply in order to click a report button once.
Upon their return they can then continue their nonsense and you lose your right of reply.
How on earth can you say that isn’t the case? It’s literally the outcome of that rule.
I’m also telling you as a fact as the main victim of abuse on here, that I’m never going to report anything under these bizarre conditions as right of reply is imperative.
Meaning your work load is going to increase as I’ll now be replying to the guaranteed future abuse without it being reported to you guys to do anything about it, meaning by the time you see it the argument will be 10 times longer than it needs to be.
This isn’t an opinion, it’s literally the outcome of the rule.
I just don’t understand why you see that outcome as a good thing?
It would be far more productive to recognise the idea is a bad one and adapt it, if your genuine goal is to stamp out abuse as opposed to give them an easier ride upon their return. |
Have a great day | | | |
| Banning on 08:34 - Jan 4 with 977 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Banning on 08:25 - Jan 4 by Sirjohnalot |
Have a great day |
I will, but it would be far more fruitful to have a discussion and put forward why you think I’m incorrect with what I (and others) are saying.
You appear to want to solve the issue but ignoring the very real and obvious things I (and others) are highlighting.
I assume you won’t discuss it though because the flaws cannot be denied. The report button is being made redundant because we all know these abusers will continue and you don’t want to continue to ban them as they are friends with moderation.
Usually their behaviour is conveniently ignored, this time I reported every single bit of abuse and forced your hand to ban them…. there was no other option, the abuse was disgusting.
As a result, you are now taking away the report button (essentially).
Your job as mod is easy. Ban abusers, when they return, ensure they don’t continue. That simple, it’s literally all you have to do.
I never want to hear you moaning about having to deal with arguments on here again, because you are doing nothing to listen to the people of the forum who are literally telling you how to stop it.
You are bringing the workload on yourself as I and others aren’t going to be reporting anything now but will still ensure we reply to all their abuse, as of course we should. | |
| |
| Banning on 08:40 - Jan 4 with 957 views | Whiterockin |
| Banning on 08:34 - Jan 4 by Dr_Parnassus |
I will, but it would be far more fruitful to have a discussion and put forward why you think I’m incorrect with what I (and others) are saying.
You appear to want to solve the issue but ignoring the very real and obvious things I (and others) are highlighting.
I assume you won’t discuss it though because the flaws cannot be denied. The report button is being made redundant because we all know these abusers will continue and you don’t want to continue to ban them as they are friends with moderation.
Usually their behaviour is conveniently ignored, this time I reported every single bit of abuse and forced your hand to ban them…. there was no other option, the abuse was disgusting.
As a result, you are now taking away the report button (essentially).
Your job as mod is easy. Ban abusers, when they return, ensure they don’t continue. That simple, it’s literally all you have to do.
I never want to hear you moaning about having to deal with arguments on here again, because you are doing nothing to listen to the people of the forum who are literally telling you how to stop it.
You are bringing the workload on yourself as I and others aren’t going to be reporting anything now but will still ensure we reply to all their abuse, as of course we should. |
Give the guy a break and let him go to work in peace, instead of having to deal with petty disputes on a football forum. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
