Printable View
Damn your eyes, Smiles - I preferred the irony of deeming him 'esteemed' whilst knowing that the direct opposite is true :D
Incidentally, I'd advise Arsenal that the thing about kicking a yappy dog is he's likely to find its teeth ripping his balls off - especially when his attempted kicks keep missing by a country mile
Meanwhile I noticed this, which I of course offer without comment:
Attachment 6714
I'm glad you seem happy - you and your boss/sidekicks seem to have succeeded in banning or pissing off probably about 5 out of 6 of the most prolific posters (excluding yourselves of course)
Attachment 6714Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanwhile I noticed this, which I [B
Not quite fair to toss that in without comment. Not something that should be glossed over. I must have missed the post(s) that led up to it.
:unknw_mini:
Why you expect any comment? Frequent got comment. Are you board owner to expect report?Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Can you name even 2?Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Yeah, sure. You're doing a good job of pissing off people by fucking around with their threads in this manner.
This was from my thread. Why did you split it into a seperate thread?
Don't do that. Threads go off topic all the time, that's the nature of conversation. Let it happen.
You seem to be equating prolific with admirable. Hardly the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaigon2
Bob, you're not ALLOWED to comment on moderation decisions these days - where have you been?
I don't expect any comment Moses - I'm highlighting that I am making no comment. I forgive you for not understanding English - my Russian is a bit rusty tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Moses
Newallan and SmilesQuote:
Originally Posted by Moses
Next question?
To hide it, Matt - to shovel any criticism away into a corner where hardly anyone will see itQuote:
Originally Posted by cdnmatt
It makes no sense to measure the number of posts made when considering if someone should be banned.
If the most Frequent posters happen to spam the board with crap and take every single thread off topic, they should be banned.
That will then allow some interesting and civilized debate to occasionally break out. I suspect we may be one or two more bans away from that possibility just yet.
The other way to play it is to allow the boorish trolls to take over & drive all the interesting people away. Not so good for civilization.
Moses challenged me to name 2 worthwhile posters who had been pissed off or banned under the current regime - I have identified Newallan (for whom I hold no brief) who has been banned, and Smiles who has been pissed off.
So my challenge to you Goji, is to name 2 of these alleged "interesting people" who have been driven away by the alleged "trolls"
I don't actually go around counting who is driven away.
However, it took all of 5 seconds to figure out that Fountainhall seems to be posting his excellent material on a different forum now. One of his posts would contain more of interest than a thousand written by some people.
Anyway, you're also trying to fork the argument into 2 separate issues. Kicking out the spammers who NEVER write anything worth reading is one matter. Cannot happen fast enough in my view.
Pissing off people who do add something is a completely different issue, if it happens. Let's not confuse the two.
You should check their profiles and to find there "Banned". For now forum has 7 banned accounts, 3 of them are spammers, 2 clones and 2 members one of which returned under another nickname after apologies and my confirmation.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Attachment 6715
ABout "pissed off": we lost about 150 members at past year and got about 600 new. I count it as a good job.
You again talking too much without knowledges and proof of your words. Could you please next time to make simple check first?
Goji - have you ever considered that your opinion of "whats worth reading" may be radically different from others?
Fountainhall (whom I like) changes boards as often as Arsenal changes his knickers
Sorry Moses - never mind your screenshots - are you saying you did NOT ban Newallan?
Temp. suspension isn't ban. It ended already (I don't remember how far ago, since it is robot's job to switch account back to normal mode after suspension). You can easy check his profile here https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/member.php?426-newalaan2 do you see there "Banned"? I expect what next time you will make simple check before to write wrong things. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
OMFG you are now splitting hairs so finely you'd need a razor blade - you banned Newalaan2 from posting for a month as from January 30th and his status was marked as BANNED the same as Frequent's is now.
In either of those 2 members cases their status is altered to BANNED not "Temporarily Suspended"
Now that the ban has expired, of course Newalaan2's status no longer says BANNED - just as in 30/60/90 days (whatever you've dished out to Frequent), his status will cease to display "BANNED"
Do you think we are thick?
Sorry, I used wrong button and posted my reply into your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
I repeat here:
Should I teach you English? You wrote "banned". not "has been banned". For now only 7 account cant write here. Suspension isn't ban. Me and mods will continue to suspend users who broke rules. Everyone has been warned few months ago: tolerance to acidic-negative posts, to accusing new members in cloning of accounts, to derailing threads is now low.
A little bird tells me that when a member is "temporarily suspended" (as I have been corrected about) and tries to log-in, a dialog box opens and declares the member to be (wait for it..) banned
Tweet Tweet
"Temporarily suspended" is in any case a tautology. "Suspended" in this context already infers that the status is only temporary.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
I'm only quoting the Dear Leader
As an infartion expert I can advise Newalaan that the Rules are being interpreted in such a way that his mere mention of his previous “temporary suspension” is an offence - hence the new penalty he has posted about.
Of course, having now posted about the new penalty, he has compounded the matter and logically that’ll be another offence attracting yet another penalty
Note to Dear Leader:
(keeping topical) Cambridge Analytica CEO is "suspended" not "temporarily suspended"!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43480048
What's wrong with Ukrainian boys I want to know if they want to spring a honey trap?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad the Impala
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Just want to acknowledge I did in fact note your attempt to get a straight answer on my 'status' when I was finally able to access all areas to read it, and while I agree there is no love lost between us, there are areas of common ground ( yes....not only The Tarntawan!) that go far above the odd dispute we have here-and-there, owners and moderators unreasonable actions, attitudes and hypocrisy being such an example. You might be surprised to note I fully support your ongoing stance on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottish-guy
Moses as you rightly predicted has indeed been along to point 'something' out to me......though the vagueness of, and lack of detail in, his message means I have absolutely no idea what that 'something' actually is. Unfortunately, while i would like to post my full views on it which I most definitely will, in the short term I have a few posts on recent gay Thailand Pattaya/Bkk events/experiences to get 'out of my system' first for the benefit of forum readers before addressing this issue, as goodness knows what my status will be thereafter. Not that I give a shit. You might say my interest in this subject is 'temporarily suspended' to be re-visited.