Bangkok report April 2018

[Brad the Impala]

Brad wants conclusive proof, so let's give it to him.

Sglad, you were banned from this site when the robot noticed a new member - you - had also logged on with the name Sugargrandpa. The post was made using your IP address. Obviously, you were using 2 handles, when only 1 is permitted.

You made the following post on November 12th, 2016, 20:03, using your handle, Sugargrandpa :

Thai lessons in Pattaya ...........

https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showt...t=sugargrandpa

The link is to a post from Sugargrandpa, who continued to post for three months after this(total four posts). At which point Surfcrest announced that both Sglad and Sugargrandpa were the same person posting under two different handles and would therefore both be banned.

https://sawatdeenetwork.com/v4/showt...051#post214051

There is no mention that this conclusion was reached as a result of two posts from the same IP address as you assert(perhaps that's why you chose to link to an earlier post). In fact in a subsequent post in the same thread Fountainhall boasts of the fact that Sglad, who had contradicted Fountainhall several times, was "flushed out" as a result of a trap that he had set. That is the decision was nothing to with IP addresses. It was simply a subjective decision from Surfcrest, under pressure from Fountainhall, that may or may not have been correct.

Even a poster called a447(any relation?), writing in the same thread, seems to be suggesting that IPs are not being used to identify multiple handles :

And does said technology not allow you to see what posters at the moment are using multiple handles?

This isn't therefore "conclusive proof" that Sglad used the same IP as Sugargrandpa, as you asserted, or even that they are the same person. As I recall you were both untrusting and critical of Surfcrest's judgment and moderation, so it would be bizarre if you now want to quote his judgment in support of your case against Sglad.

[a447]

There is no mention that this conclusion was reached as a result of two posts from the same IP address as you assert

What's the board software for?

It was simply a subjective decision from Surfcrest, under pressure from Fountainhall, that may or may not have been correct.

WTF?? So you're saying that someone was banned because another member simply asked for him to be banned?

Surely that "subjective decision" was made after careful consideration was given to the evidence provided by the member requesting the ban. You don't just ban someone simply because a member asks you to so. Wouldn't any decision hsve to be made based on what was considered beyond reasonable doubt?

You would be aware that admin has access to information not availabke to other members. I'll leave you to guess what that information is.

And how strange that you would come to sglad's defence, when he has said nothing himself. It's even stranger that you are implying the previous owner did not apply due diligence when making his decision to ban a member from this board.

Sorry, but I trust the much-vaunted software to do its job. So I have nothing further to say, unless you can show that the software isn't working.

Good luck with that!

[scottish-guy]

..Wouldn't any (Admin) decision have to be made based on what was considered beyond reasonable doubt?

Yeah that's maybe how it worked when Surfy was in charge - but it's long since gone by the wayside

...You would be aware that admin has access to information not available to other members...

Arsenal's date of birth? I'd guess sometime in the early-mid '40s