| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Feedback >> rules for banning http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421786491 Message started by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 6:41am |
|
|
Title: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 6:41am
I do know the rules about banning I am wondering FD how they come about..
do you only ban if someone is reported by another member??..and the mod believes they have a case? a thread has been locked.... and some of the abuse on that thread which must have been read by a mod.... and it was I am told very BAN worthy.....yet the person was not banned... so just what is the criteria does the offender have to be [/b[b]reported?..for a mod to even consider a ban?.. thank you. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:01am
Calling someone a twit several times worked for me.
Although I can only speculate that was the reason, as I received no advice /warning etc. ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:15am
I hope you don't mind me replying, Cods, but as I'm the one who locked the thread I feel like I should. FD can come in and give his own reply.
Abuse doesn't need to be reported for the moderators to take action, but it helps if members let us know because we won't always see it. There are many, many posts on this board and we're always going to miss some. Obviously that isn't the case with the thread you're referring to. I made a decision to give a warning in that thread and not to ban because I would've have had to ban almost every member who posted in there. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:37am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:15am:
I am fine with that.. I have history regarding Freedom of speech with fd..and I havent worked out how his idea works... this was posted on the locked thread by neferti.. about myself.. Quote:
I found it rather confronting..and said so....however didnt report it.. does this type of thing come under fds version of Freedom of speech?.. I prefer not to report it depends how bad it affects my day if you get my drift....and I am not happy when I find myself dropping to their level...it really isnt what I come on here to do..[abuse people].. aussie pulled me up for using "idiot"....which to me seemed a bit much... when others can allude to a person having a drinking/drug problem which I think is far worse...and theres no problem with it.... and even being told "you would be put away" seems ok... I know that has nothing to do with gm.... anyway its just to get it straightened out maybe I will draw a mods attention to a thread in future not that I want them locked for sure...but some folks do push their luck...thanks for clearing it up anyway... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:39am Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:01am:
aussie warned me about the idiot word....twit seems pretty mild as well...I think some folks go overboard....I mean if twit or idiot leads to a slanging match.. then so be it.. but a ban really??? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:46am
Cods, that's an ugly and hurtful comment and reflects far more on whoever posted it than on who it was intended for.
That being said, I'd prefer not to go into specific details about the thread because it just invites people to come in and accuse and defend and the whole cycle starts again. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by John Smith on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:48am cods wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:37am:
allude? It wasn't clear enough perhaps? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:54am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:46am:
I understand that... and I dont want to gang up on people I accuse of ganging up... I think I will do what I said in future and PM the thread..and see what happens.. I am well aware what bother me doesnt bother others.. even with drink.drugs hints... I feel sorry for people who do that actually...it shows how limited they are..in every dept. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 21st, 2015 at 9:20am
Annie - wouldn't it be easier to just say briefly that you will close the thread rather than abuse the members and threaten them with a ban?
I was a bit surprised that you view so many people here with contempt. Of course you have your own personal reasons for this, but if moderating is too much for you - then give it up. It's only a voluntary position - not a high pressure paid job. The Feedback board has been out of control for quite a while now and is mostly off topic - so nothing new there. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 21st, 2015 at 9:41am mantra wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 9:20am:
Thank you for the advice, Mantra, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you again what you can do with it. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:25am
If the topics in FB get so out of hand so often (and they do) then lock the thread immediatley- that would soon resolve the problem.No one would bother starting another. So locking as soon as a mod sees flaming is the way to go.
Some times these flame threads are allowed to go on for many pages-- either some mods are enjoying the laughs/don't care or other. It takes one second to lock a thread. If there is no abuse and no harm is being done then I don't see the problem. :) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:31am
Locking the thread is unfair to the people who want to post on topic so it's generally a last resort. Banning people who continually drag Feedback threads off topic with personal bickering seems a fair way to go.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:33am
Cods I have been accused by that certain person of being a prostitute for years. I have only just recently started saying said person has a drink problem, as have many others here- I cant think of any other reason for such nastiness to myself and others here for no good reason, she has attacked you too. This person knows not a single one of us.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:43am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:31am:
That seems a fair way to go - agreed. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Kat on Jan 21st, 2015 at 12:55pm The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:43am:
Works for me... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:22pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:31am:
Absolutely |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:48pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:22pm:
I assume that doesn't just apply to those people from PA and that it also covers all the other members here who go off topic on Feedback. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:54pm mantra wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:48pm:
If your speaking for yourself Mantra and I assume you are, then I don't think you have to be concerned. You are mostly very polite...some of us ( me) can get a bit carried away though 8-) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Jan 21st, 2015 at 3:29pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 3:49pm Neferti wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 3:29pm:
You just assume I was talking about you Nef.? ;) ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Jan 21st, 2015 at 3:56pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:05pm Ok I couldn't resist.. you started your insults like years ago..so you are trying to rewrite history by saying I called you a drunk first- no that's not the way it was, sorry.iiiii Let's see how long it takes for you to break rank's on this one-- I mean all of a sudden after all these year's I get a flower ? forgive my cynicism, but I will play ? ::)iii Cods would like some peace as well.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:25pm The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:33am:
I gather that....from what is said about PA...and of course they do get away with it.. however back to the locking....as a last resort.. I get that.. however shouldnt those who are being UNBELIEVABLY RUDE maybe be given a public warning... aussie does it from time to time....and ban those that bring it all on in the first place.... can some be banned just from a thread???. I dont know if anyone cares but someone on here only has to mention PA...and bingo out it all comes... I dont like getting someone banned... but a good talking too wouldnt hurt,... ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:05pm:
is it just me????? why dont I believe a word of that??>.. good luck with that flower you can always wave it when the going gets tough again.. ;) ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:37pm
!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 4:41pm
Here is YOUR flower Cods :)
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm
is that all the GUILT on me now??>.. :'( :'(
a love in... thanks for sharing ag |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Jan 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm
::)
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 5:49pm
I think you deserve a flower Cods. :)
No guilt from me..not likely ? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 21st, 2015 at 7:48pm The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 1:54pm:
I'm speaking for everyone AG. Obviously these PA arguments are extremely annoying to a lot of people and disrupt the Feedback threads at times, but then there are plenty of non-PA members who do the same with other trivial irrelevant comments which take the thread way off topic too. Hopefully bannings will be equally apportioned. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:24pm The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 5:49pm:
I have to admit I am a little bruised I have taken a beating on the terrorist threads as well even though me and Pope Frances are both on the same page.... I dont understand.. what it is about me... I think I am just misunderstood.. :'( |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:14pm mantra wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 7:48pm:
They can be I guess- I don't remember anyone saying that it was just PA members Mantra ? Do you think they would be unfairly targetted ? I have seen some very shabby behaviour from some of them! The admin being one of the worst. Seriously you seem to be very defensive and I don't know why? As members here and there have all shared boards at one time or another -it's not worth you getting your knickers in a twist- one minute we are loved and then, sometimes, not so much, your time between these boards should show you that one minute your liked by a certain group and then on the outer . Yet you are here making a plea on their behalf , yes it is on their behalf ! ? The mind just boggles a bit Mantra, for more reasons than you might care to hear. The next admin elect at PA may not be to your liking, and the dynamic will change again at PA and here too, no doubt. Nothing ever stays the same for very long ! The mods here know whats going on..and if your friend's at PA behave, they should be just fine. I have been banned , sometimes we deserve it, at other times, not so much--thats life ! My last post on this topic. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:17pm cods wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 8:24pm:
You and me both Cods. You put up a good fight, you get your teeth in, it's a good life if you don't weaken. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 5:51am The Mole wrote on Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:14pm:
You read too much into my posts. I'm just advocating for fair treatment all around. I've made pleas on behalf of a lot of people over the years, regardless of what board I'm posting on. Whether they like me or not is not the issue. Feedback should be kept on topic, but if people are going to be banned - don't target just a select group. All those members who get carried away in off topic arguing should be included. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:04am mantra wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 5:51am:
So, in short you mean apply the rules even evenhandedly, consistently and fairly? Is that right? Novel idea really. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:13am Phemanderac wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:04am:
That's exactly what I was trying to say. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:34am
what I was trying to say through this thread. was...
do the members have to report the abuse to get any action...if any...going by AAs comments... she could or should have banned everyone on that thread.. what good would that do.?.. my version of abuse and who should be banned, is not that same as someone elses.. I have had a discussion with aussie about the word 'idiot' ...to him it is abuse to me its common everyday talk and not ABUSE....however he is the mod in that case... so I lose... if I report someone it doesnt mean I want them banned for it.....just maybe watched or warned... lets face it a few never learn.. the ban solves nothing they come back worse....some folks need showing up in public...we should after all be adult enough to monitor ourselves....I can be just as caustic and I cringe later... but the damage is done isnt it?.... lets move on folks.. we will never agree what is right and what is wrong...thats what debate is all about. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 12:12pm mantra wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:13am:
I don't know what made you think they wouldn't be treated just as everyone else is here, that is what I was trying to say-- those over there can be responsible for their own behaviour surely? :) We don't have biased Mods on this board. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 12:25pm The Mole wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 12:12pm:
There are a few people here who aren't treated the "same" as everyone else, but it can't be helped. We can only hope they at least try to adhere to the same standards they set for the members. Quote:
You're entitled to your opinion. Some would agree - others wouldn't. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Grappler Hebdo (je suis) on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 12:42pm
Is there an offence of being a schill for a party?
There's the sound of laughter, For policies we'll hate For a thousand years..... Footnote:- I report nobody.... ever.. period... not interested.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 4:51pm
Is Aussie banned and if so why and for how long? I didn’t see a bannable offence?
If the person banned cannot see why/till when he is banned these questions will be raised even if not answered! Just what are the rules? What governs GenMod action? Nothing and nothing in my experience. Nor is there any consistency in rulings, no accountability of Mods! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:20pm
Ok, Aussie contacted me and wants to know:
Quote:
Later: Quote:
So, Andrea, AA—what do you have to say? I wouldn’t give Aussie’s complaints airtime except I have been the subject of massively biased and unfair GModding. I would like to know WTF is going on! 1. Who banned Aussie and why? 2. What got deleted and by who? 3. Why is AA on holiday from modding all of a sudden? I don’t expect anything to happen bar me being banned too! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A goat called Honeybuns on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:29pm
Christ, you're a bunch of sooks.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:38pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:20pm:
So, Andrea, AA—what do you have to say? I wouldn’t give Aussie’s complaints airtime except I have been the subject of massively biased and unfair GModding. I would like to know WTF is going on! 1. Who banned Aussie and why? 2. What got deleted and by who? 3. Why is AA on holiday from modding all of a sudden? I don’t expect anything to happen bar me being banned too![/quote] and me I guess what the heck is going on this forum is sinking faster than a manly ferry.... the language and abuse is almost main stream now...on top of that its okay to put up naked pictures...now we have a Mod who has only been a mod for a short time having to take a break.. you dont do that if you are enjoying the job do you??...what has she been putting up with thats what I ask.... and now aussie gone.for a trip.. unbelievable...I will ask andrei..see if he cares..do you know how long he is gone for geo?.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:40pm Quote:
I deleted that post as inappropriate, dont know anything about your banning Aussie. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:49pm mantra wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 12:25pm:
I am not going to engage you again-- why should anyone here ( esp me Monk and Aussie) give a flying **** about anyone over there? We were banned for NOTHING from PA and then you have old Nefart coming over here laying down more threats of bannings for nothing ( ie Lisa yesterday!!)- Lisa's CRIME- so you want to know what her crime was Mantra? She dared come to Monks and talked to him through the sandpit, WTF!!! Now that is pathetic., and you support these nutters.? You lost have lost the plot - you never did actually get it right- the whole DT saga with you was, I was hoping , a long distant memory- you could not have been more one eyed and turned your back on pp who gave a damn about you at that time, but you haven't changed. Your still over there cosying up to the creep who told you to go mutilate yourself with a broken beer bottle and here hoping he will be treated fairly lest he be picked on here, cry me a river. Get a brain :'( :'( |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:00pm
Mantra, some people really like you and do not put conditions on you. skippy is out of his depth and going berserk. Do yourself a favor and leave that cesspit (not saying you can’t post there sometimes) and post where all are equal (sort off anyway.)
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:02pm
Redneck, to make it 100% clear, you deleted a post by the troll AiA? Not a post by Aussie?
If you deleted AiA’s post then WHY did Aussie get banned? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:34pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:
can redneck ban already??.. seems to me someone has made a mistake and if someone post has been deleted then they are the one that needs the lesson in respect... this whole forum has sunk to a new level as far as I am concerned....you can only put the blame on the members..sorry that how I see it...I mean some just do not care about what they say who they upset or how many times they get banned they know they can get around it... as we can see the name changes all the time...whos kidding who.... personally I think its about time those who change their id must have to put the last id they used on this forum....that way we will have some idea who has been banned.....and can do our best to ignore them completely it shouldnt be hard....I find aussie very mild and what I and pansi have put up with over the past few days.. in nothing short of appalling... but it keeps happening with it appears with fds blessing.. >:( >:( |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:46pm The Mole wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 6:49pm:
I think mantra thinks the skippy she knew on these boards for years is still the same. I think skippy is way out of his depth as Admin on PA and listening to AiA who tells him what will give AiA the most amusement. Heh, AiA told me here a few weeks ago that “youdon’tlisten” which is the best sort of compliment because AiA is a troll and troublemaker. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:35pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:46pm:
Mods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:36pm
Got your period, AiA? Tampons are the thing these days, right? Not that I would know, leave it to you.
BTW, see the filth IQ had to spew up in the Sand Pit? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:38pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:36pm:
Mods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:38pm
That your preferred brand?
You might get advice here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=women |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:39pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:38pm:
Mods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 8:44pm
I am not having a sook George. I didn't get banned but your mate did for trolling me. Just like you are doing.
Mods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 9:27pm
did aussie get unbanned geo????
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 9:31pm
I am trolling? Bulldust, just having a bit of fun.
Aussie may have gotten banned but Redneck deleted your post as “inappropriate.” Would like to know why Aussie got banned. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 9:32pm
No, cods, maybe tomorrow morning early or it might take 4 days. I do wonder why he got banned.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 11:25pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 9:31pm:
I am all for a bit o' fun George/Jovial Monk/Maxine/Whateveryourcurrentnameis. That you know. This is a chance for Cods to get the clarity she seeks regarding "rules for banning." You have lied about me, put words in my mouth and said I use tampons ... all in this single thread - unprovoked. Had my name not been mentioned I would not be posting here in this thread now. I don't care what the rules for banning are exactly - I will leave that to the mods. Cods seems to want the rules for banning codified :) Well, this is her chance but she has gone strangely silent regarding your most recent posts ... If I had said that about her she would have already reported me and I would be suspended. Indeed, if I had said that to another and Cods saw it she would have quickly reported me so I could be quickly suspended. How do I know this? She has done it before. It is how she rolls. Can we say that lying about another member, putting untrue words in members's mouths and stating a male uses tampons not grounds for suspension? Mods? Cods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:02am
Unprovoked?
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:05am
Sounds like a serious humor deficit.
Mods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:15am AiA wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 11:25pm:
Watch a frightened and panicked George try to hide my post from the eyes of mods by posting more nonsense :) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 5:46am
Like I said, serious humor deficit.
And why do you and Naffy list the various nicks I have used at different times at different forums? A need to sound important and knowledgeable? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 6:19am AiA wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 11:25pm:
are we to assume you are innocent of any abuse whatever??????????is that what you are claiming? but I will be fair and stick to this thread and not drag up anything else.......unlike others... first of all AiA reason for thread. AA closed a thread without banning anyone..take a good look at locked thread if you are that interested in reasons for being banned... I find more than enough what is said on these threads beyond disgusting I am disappointed geo stoops to the level of the worst on here... I HAVE ONLY ONCE REPORTED SOMEONE FOR ABUSE OF ANOTHER PERSON.. and that was a long time ago... in the mean time if you are offended I am sure you are big enough to do your own reporting...do not expect someone whom you abuse on a regular basis to look after your welfare... sorry I do a lot for others... but you are on you own with this.. so when did I get you banned AiA are you going to be brave enough to substantiate that equally DISGUSTING comment we know you are not good with coming up with the goods.... you have been howling for the mods....try andrei... for someone whom I have been told has dished out some appalling stuff on other forums.. you surely are proving to be a bit of a baby... why you have seen fit to drag me into this sorry sage I will never know... ::) ::) maybe its time to grow up.. and stand on your own two feet....or maybe call on your skippy mate for more support |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 7:54am
Come on cods, just a bit of fun is all.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:44pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 9:31pm:
Why is it any of your business? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:57pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2015 at 7:02pm:
Quote:
Posted to keep cods happy...Banning Aussie...not me darling! Just to make it clear 100%, I deleted an inappropriate post, I know nothing about Aussies banning and I dont think I have the ability to ban anyone if I wanted to. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 6:44pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:44pm:
Aussie is completely puzzled as to why he is banned, wishes a reason and time could be placed on the ban notice and could I convey the reason for the ban to him. The post Redneck deleted was most unsuitable—but it was not Aussie who made it. If you wish to put Aussie out of his misery re reason/time I can convey the info privately to him. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 6:48pm
I can explain it George: Aussie baited me and got suspended for it.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 6:55pm
Your name andrei?
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:11pm
My 'ban' has now elapsed. I can't work out what its length was, but it was more than 24 hours and less than 48. I've learned a few things, and if this Thread is for Members to genuinely discuss the rules around bannings, then I have a few, hopefully helpful, comments I'd like to make. So, FD, GMods.......am I free to do so?
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by perceptions_now on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:21pm Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:
If you (redneck) deleted a post, it would seem you are referring to another forums board. And, you are not a GM on this forum, so you could not ban anyone on this forum. Therefore, why is something that clearly happened on another forum being discussed here??? Can I suggest that discussions on issues relevant to other boards, should be raised on that board, not here & not on a thread which has no relevance! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:23pm
No, he is referring to this Forum's Board, the one he Moderates called The Shed.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:47pm
Of course you're free to make comments.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by perceptions_now on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:49pm Aussie wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:23pm:
My apology to Redneck, I wasn't aware of that! Apparently, I have not kept up with some developments. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 9:12pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:47pm:
Thanks. I'll wait. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 6:38am
It may depend on whether or not you partake in Fromage.
Failing that, the "rules" would be somewhat fluid depending on who is attempting to apply them, how the problem is interpreted and, in some cases, who is friends with whom.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:02am
I am fortunate enough to have been at a talk here in the US this morning by a born leader and a modern day hero - 4 star General Stanley McChrystal. Former commander of US forces Afghanistan.
He talked to us on a leadership - but something else RESPONSIBILITY. You people are responsible for your own actions, you make your own destiny, but importantly stand up and own your actions. You can easily push this back to here - people need to behave, act responsibly and then there would be no need for banning.  image_01-22-14.jpeg (102 KB | 59
) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:32am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:02am:
That's nice. I wonder, did he also mention consistency? Or perhaps clarity? Or even diligence? Tell me, what did he have to say about TRANSPARENCY? Anything... To be frank, I don't disagree with you there regarding people taking responsibility for their own actions, however, in terms of "rules for banning" the point is fairly obvious. The forum guidelines are basically not applied with due dilligence or consistency. That is NOT the RESPONSIBILITY of the posters I might add, respectfully. In your (and AA's favour) this is not about how either of you do the job of modding to be honest, it is more to do with the sloppy framework you have to work with. The bottom line is, as the current frame work is set up quite a wide range of posters (no doubt myself included), including mods and the site owner, would be banned at some point or another - except for a distinct lack of diligence, consistency and transparency. I guess the only positive in this is that it is accidentally a partial win for free speech, well at least the free speech of a few... Nice level of responsibility there. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by perceptions_now on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:59am perceptions_now wrote on Jan 23rd, 2015 at 8:49pm:
Redneck, On accessing this forum this morning, I realized what may have contributed to my not picking up your roll here. It seems that before logging in as a member, The Tool Shed section dosen't appear on the main page. However, after logging in as a member it does, between the Women's Issues & Fermentations board setions Odd, but there you go! Spirituality Spirituality Moderators: Freedumb, Sprintcyclist Last Post Yesterday at 5:50am In: Re: Enhance DNA By: it_is_the_light 669 19890 Relationships Relationships Moderator: Mod. Last Post Today at 7:08am In: Re: Who are the current G... By: Phemanderac 578 21670 Islam Islam Moderator: gandalf Last Post Today at 9:32am In: Re: Is Islam against free... By: Soren 1178 52454 Extremism Exposed Extremism Exposed Moderator: Gaybriel Last Post Today at 12:04am In: Re: Pegida bows to the cr... By: Yadda 1655 35364 Environment Environment Moderator: # Last Post Yesterday at 9:13pm In: Re: Earth to enter Ice Ag... By: Sir Bobby 764 21532 Hunting and Fishing Hunting and Fishing Moderator: merou Last Post Today at 6:49am In: Re: Why are people agains... By: Dnarever 172 4425 Sport Sport Moderator: philperth2010 Last Post Today at 9:15am In: Re: Steve Smiff By: A goat called Honeybuns 214 3537 Drug Policy Drug Policy Moderator: zoso Last Post Jan 13th, 2015 at 1:30am In: Re: Hard Drugs By: The Stunt-free Horse 95 2506 The Tavern The Tavern Moderator: A.G Last Post Jan 21st, 2015 at 10:38am In: Re: Mens Overture For Wom... By: A.G 200 5109 Fringe Fringe Moderator: tallowood Last Post Jan 20th, 2015 at 10:12pm In: Re: UFO Disclosure By: Sir Bobby 156 3927 Travel Travel Last Post Jan 20th, 2015 at 11:17am In: Re: Camping By: Black Orchid 67 793 Multiculturalism and Race Multiculturalism and Race Moderators: ex-member DonaldTrump, DILLIGAF Last Post Jan 22nd, 2015 at 4:07pm In: Re: Multiculturalism is a... By: Honky 410 13963 Finance and Economics Finance and Economics Moderator: perceptions_now Last Post Yesterday at 8:12pm In: Re: For the Record By: perceptions_now 157 4865 Film, Television and Radio Film, Television and Radio Moderator: Grey Last Post Today at 9:25am In: Re: Human Universe With B... By: Sir Bobby 210 2994 Philosophy Philosophy Moderator: locutius Last Post Yesterday at 5:10am In: Re: The Search for the Me... By: The Grappler Hebdo (je suis) 99 2550 Atheism Atheism Moderator: Sappho Last Post Jan 5th, 2015 at 2:22pm In: Re: Any God @ all By: bogarde73 61 3627 Real Estate Real Estate Moderator: Lisa Jones Last Post Dec 31st, 2014 at 7:59am In: Re: New Moderator needed... By: Lisa Jones 20 773 Health and Welfare Health and Welfare Moderator: Kat Last Post Jan 20th, 2015 at 10:51pm In: Re: Is Abbott a liar re h... By: Dnarever 93 1351 Cats and Critters Cats and Critters Moderator: Lord Herbert Last Post Jan 17th, 2015 at 1:14pm In: Re: A natural wonder ... By: Yadda 97 2528 Books Books Moderator: bogarde73 Last Post Yesterday at 12:58pm In: Re: W. Somerset Maugham By: Hot Breath 30 770 Defence Defence Moderator: Ahovking Last Post Jan 20th, 2015 at 3:51pm In: Veteran's Entitlements By: Lord Sir BigVic VSD and Bar 72 1930 Food Food Moderators: Mattywisk, Black Orchid Last Post Yesterday at 12:34pm In: Re: What are you having f... By: Black Orchid 42 745 Women's Issues Women's Issues Moderator: Annie Anthrax Last Post Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm In: Re: Clothes, shoes, perfu... By: A.G 13 251 Fermentations Fermentations Moderator: St George of the Puissant HLT Last Post Yesterday at 3:44pm In: Re: What’s for dinner ton... By: St George of the Puissant HLT 17 168 |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:05am
That's because only male members are able to access it, Perce.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Grappler Hebdo (je suis) on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:22am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:05am:
Fair enough - I wanted to see the ladies' room thing, but not allowed.... start a sock? Call it La Grappleure and say 'female'? ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:26am Phemanderac wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:32am:
The framework isn't sloppy. A fair bit of thought went into the creation of the rules. They are simplistic if anything, but that's so the majority of members can understand them. If the moderators deviate from the rules to suit themselves, then it seems they have that freedom. They're only volunteers, so some action from them is better than none even if they don't completely understand their job spec. It's like going into a charity op shop. The server might perform some services, but overall you don't expect competence, because he/she is doing it for nothing. Quote:
It is up to the individual moderator as to how they choose to interpret the rules. As long as the power doesn't go to their head or they become abusive - then it's tolerable. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:28am
Transparency and accountability are missing.
I searched on “Idiot” here when banned (4 days!) for saying Armpit was an idiot. Personally, I don’t think the word “idiot” deserves a ban. I got 690 pages of hits on the word idiot! Did each use result in a suspension? Bet they didn’t, and there goes consistency. Longy was abusive for a whole freaking day, had to drag my family into it—*I* got a ban, not Longy! Stop fussing over small words, concentrate on viler or more violent language and usages and consistency and clarity are improved. That just leaves accountability. Any ban message should say briefly what offence is being published and how long the ban is for. If the YABB software allows this then that should always be done. JohnS got banned for months and doesn’t know why—that is not right! You email FD and never get a reply. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:29am
Grap, there's no board on the forum that men can't access anymore. The Tavern used to be, but it's changed now. That being said, if you're really keen you can always just change the setting on your profile to say whichever gender you're feeling at that moment.
The moderator of the sub-forum has the right to ask members not to post. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:39am mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:26am:
People volunteer to do many things for all sorts of reasons. They don't do it for nothing. Have you ever dealt with volunteers in a charity store? I have and I must say I'm a bit incredulous that you're putting them down like that. The people there work very hard and its very rewarding in ways that financial gain can't touch. You seem incapable of posting anything that isn't a passive aggressive dig at the moderators of this board. A bit of charity work might do you some good. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:40am mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:26am:
Now that is totally because the guidelines are in fact sloppy. There is no "open to interpretation" if rules are to be consistently applied. Needs to be fairly basic and black and white. Then, if they are basic and straight forward in how they're stated, the next hurdle becomes consistent application. Further, if the framework is well constructed then there is no risk of "power going to their heads"... Oh and if the "power does go to their heads?" What exactly is there in the rules to protect you from this? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:42am
Phem, moderators are accountable for bannings.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:42am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:39am:
Good point. I grew up "volunteering" in surf life saving. Then my very first professional job was as a beach life guard. ALL of my professional skills were learnt in my amateur and volunteered years.... As a life guard I was always aware that, apart from my off sider, my absolute best and most reliable back up was the volunteers from the surf club at the beach I worked on. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:55am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:39am:
It's an analogy and you are taking this personally. You shouldn't be. I am not putting down volunteer workers - they deserve respect regardless of their performance. There are regular complaints about the moderation here and there always have been and long before you became a member. You wouldn't abuse an elderly person struggling with the cash register at St. Vinnies simply because he/she's a volunteer, so my point is that we should give the same consideration to the moderators here. Quote:
And you come across as rude and defensive Annie. We have to handle your abuse when you are angry, but remain silent when you jump down someone's throat if you even slightly suspect a little criticism. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:57am St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:28am:
You'll find George that you'll find more to do with your rants and calling other members a bitch was more likely a cause of your exit than idiot. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:59am
I think we aren't reflecting on the fact I hung out with a respected 4 star US General today...
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by perceptions_now on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:02am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:05am:
Really? And, would you & the other females, find such an arrangement acceptable? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:04am mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:55am:
I have yet to be angry, abusive or defensive despite your best provocation, Mantra. I'm generally amused at how repetitively transparent and overly dramatic your posts about moderators are. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:05am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:59am:
I'm sorry. I'm just jealous. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:05am
But very impressed!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:07am mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:55am:
That is absolute nonsense. Annie is as fair as the day is long and never jumps down the throat of anyone, despite several times it probably being warranted... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:08am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:04am:
You fooled me. People are scared of responding to you honestly when you're angry and they shouldn't be. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by perceptions_now on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:14am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:02am:
I would agree Responsibility is or should be, one of the major requirements and not just for leadership and not just for Politicians! There is a far wider application & a need for it to spread far wider across all sectors, including the General, the general Public, Business, Politicians & TPTB! Because, at present, it is "absent without leave", in many, if not most instances! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Annie Anthrax on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:15am mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:08am:
You're projecting again. Anybody who is scared of responding to me because they think I'm angry is paranoid and delusional. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:23am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:57am:
The lady in question earned that tag. But Longy was alright, calling me a blithering idiot and much worse, dragging my Mum into his abusive rants that was OK? Or was it my 6-7 PMs reporting Longy’s personal abuse that caused you to ban me. Four days was it? If AA didn’t ban me when I told her that, why did you have to do it? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:41am Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:42am:
Annie, that accountability is somewhat limited to be fair. Given that, for the main part, most are not aware who is banned or when, then the lack of transparency alone would indicate only limited accountability at best. Further, and in the main, I do want to make perfectly clear that it is not my intention to be "having a go" at either you or Andrei with regard to individual moderating. That is not an issue of concern to me personally (not withstanding others may want to push that barrow, that is not where I am coming from). I have consistently said I think the "system" is a wee bit flawed, I also acknowledge that the framework may be well intended, but, I do not shrink from pointing out that intent and practice are two different things, in this case that would seem palpable. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:46am St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:23am:
A couple of things stand out here... Firstly, Andrei, I think it far more credible to either say it for what it is, i.e. George you were banned for..... Rather than what it "might" have been for. As such, either exercise integrity and tell it like it is, or, as per the idea that "no discussion will be entered into..." do not engage. You are kind of having an each way bet with that comment and, presumably, you know EXACTLY what the ban was for. Secondly, George, NO ONE ever "earns" being verbally abused, yep even you. That is not a defense or justification for you choosing to make an abusive post. Otherwise, Longy may well (and, based on your comment here with some justification) merely deflect his comments back to you saying you "earned" them.... Would that be apt? Bottom line, abuse is either an appropriate way to respond or it is not. I understand that concept is particularly muddy on this particular forum, but, none the less, that is how this stuff works. If you justify, excuse or dismiss your own verbal abuse, then others will respond in kind. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 12:17pm
Well it would seem from all the threads on banning of late, the only rule is, there are no rules. YAY!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Jan 24th, 2015 at 12:36pm Phemanderac wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 11:46am:
If others responded in kind, they would be banned. You can't complain to a global moderator about another one or even to FD for that matter because he needs people to moderate Ozpolitic. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:04pm
Whatever Andrei—you haven’t said why you ban people who insult another GMod when the GMod insulted does not? You won’t answer this—Longy not only was abusive the whole day he had to drag my family into his abuse despite being warned and banned for that earlier by you. Seems biased to me.
Just putting that up for discussion since we are having a discussion on banning, rules and accountability. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:10pm
See we live in a lawless community- ^^^^ all rules to be applied fairly I say-- I just come off a one day ban- I knew why and I knew I deserved it -so get a life get a job- get some sex--- SOMETHING!
As in Tombstone- I suggest we all get behind Wyatt Earp and his band of immortals--eerrmm I want to be Doc Holliday.? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by John Smith on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:15pm mantra wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:26am:
I've noticed a few times lately where Andrei has started threatening people with a holiday, even when NONE of the rules are being broken .. he just doesn't like the topic or the conversation. I used to like and defend Andrei's modding, not anymore. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:23pm Quote:
Really John? I don't think we can know what they are thinking do you? As the mother of kids who both drive me insane at times- I imagine modding some pp here would be a very similiar feeling- mods are human, are they not. I get the feeling it wouldnt matter who was mod you would always find something wrong. I have been suspended a couple of times for what I don't even know- maybe some "snitch" dobbed on me but it won't effect my life-- its just no big deal seriously. get behind your mods and treat them as pp not as your enemy. I was banned from Monks for some silly reason- I was out for quite a few weeks...but we got over it. I think if you haven't been banned at least once, maybe you cant be trusted. ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:41pm
I think I was supposed to say something like "GRRRRRR crappy freaking mods, why are they such Nazi's GGGRRRR"
Hope some of you feel better now.? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:42pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 10:42am:
To whom? It is certainly not the Members....and I would have thought they (the Members) were the only people who the Mods should be accountable to. [I have a few suggestions and comments following my recent ban.....but I am waiting for 'feedback' in another part of this Forum.] |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:20pm Phemanderac wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 9:32am:
you know the old saying phem.. that applies to everyone but myself.... ::) ::) hi everybody... well anyone that may have missed me.. I have had 24 hour ban....a FIRST FOR CODS... courtesy of andrei...now I know what everyone complains about.....not the banning as such...but the fact their is no time given...first up...then basically I was told sentence is over dont do it again..well not in those words.. if I was given a clue.....sort of a responsible clue... I would maybe be able to avoid... what got me suspended.... aussie did warm me idiot is not a word to use on relationships... now I am stumbling around in the dark...maybe that isnt what the general was talking about though..... ::) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by John Smith on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:22pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
I'm very trustworthy then .. it seems like I get banned at least once a month ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:24pm
Yep me too...I think this is about 6-7 for me. :D
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:25pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:20pm:
At least you received some information about your ban. I received nothing at all. I read the Rules about this, and I have complied with them. I am now waiting for a response in another part of the Forum. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:26pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:20pm:
I am surpised you were banned Cods, but I knew you must have been- I did miss you even though I was banned too~ welcome back and try not to think too hard about anything regards rules. Maybe FD has to step in and explain a few things to all of us~ :-/ |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:28pm Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:25pm:
I was told why. I think that is a first. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:34pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:24pm:
so much for FREEDOM OF SPEECH...hilarious.. was it by andrei as well...oh gawd thats probably a no no as well. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:34pm
A.G......who did you get that advice/information from?
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:38pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:26pm:
no more so than myself.. I have been abused for days on the terrorist thread ..and I mean abused... what I try to avoid ag is doing some thing personal.....it really has to ping me off big to drag up someones history The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:28pm:
can you tell us what is was you did.. or said... just a hypothetical would do...lolol I do think mods are entitled to midlife crisis moments.. now and then.. :D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:39pm Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:34pm:
The person who banned me Aussie ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:41pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:39pm:
I'm just trying to understand the process. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:41pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:34pm:
I don't know-- I received no advice upon my return. Today was different. Relax Cods. I expect I will be banned many times more before I am finished. :D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:44pm Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:41pm:
I just received a pm saying why . I think it is up to the discretion of the mod Aussie ~ don't stress, calm blue waters. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:49pm Aussie wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:41pm:
aussie if we understood what goes on in the minds of the mods.. we would all be so bloody good there would be no need for mods... please try and understand that...they are more than mere mortals.. and we are just like being .."pets"for them to train... .with a naughty corner attached.. its power mate pure power in the wrong hands who knows what would happen |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:52pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:44pm:
I am calmer than that cucumber in your fridge. These things never stress me. I do like to understand them, however. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:57pm
After a bit of research Aussie, I did find another comment I made to on the day I got banned which may have been more the reason I got banned than calling you a twit!
Note freediver Red is a good apologetic guy that appologises if he has done wrong. (Hint...Global Mod Elections.....PS I also take my beer fridge on fishing trips) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:17pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 2:38pm:
I think I said something along the lines of "Mantra blaaahhh blahhh.." in other words I broke a warning from a mod, maybe we both broke the same one Cods ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Puissant HLT on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:27pm
Welcome back codsy. . .nice holiday? ;)
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:28pm The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:17pm:
mantra wouldnt have dobbed on you thats for sure.... I am presuming you had a PM warning that you were being watched...I didnt get anything like that... maybe you are a fravourite.... :P |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:30pm St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:27pm:
I got lot done..lol.. even got the sewing machine out and started some quilting that has been on hold for far too long.... so some good came out of it... and everyone got a good rest from moi... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:34pm
its amazing how the forum has gone to the dogs since my forced break...there is now a thread on men standing up to pee... I could have swore that was a mens shed subject... ::) ::) ::)
what with naked bodies..and now debates on hit and miss... I am wondering where next? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:38pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:34pm:
I suspect a topic about some gay guy getting married to his boyfriend posted by Herb! Oops!! ... Already have that one! Thank god its not in the tools shed, we are real men in there! ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:41pm Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:38pm:
so do real men stand up or sit down red??? ;) ;) lets have a poll.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:46pm
A man of my standing cods (read: Potential candidate for the election) does not get into posting silly stuff as I am sure you have noticed.
Cheers your friend Red. xx |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:49pm cods wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:28pm:
We all got a warning in a prior thread..so we were all being watched, nothing by pm. I am hardly a favourite especially if I was given a holiday but make what you want out of it Cods |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Jan 25th, 2015 at 6:41am The Mole wrote on Jan 24th, 2015 at 3:49pm:
I thin k life should be full of mystery..we are not meant to know everything....and thats good for us...fd know this I am thinking of the temptations the mods must resist and what exercises they do to stop them telling us to freaking ping off and get a life..lol I am sure that would be me...so no modding for moi! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Jan 25th, 2015 at 2:58pm cods wrote on Jan 25th, 2015 at 6:41am:
Me either cods ~ |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by bias_2012 on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:36am
How come the word "morons" is automatically changed to "nice people"? So if I call politicians "morons" (stupid people, according to dictionary) too often, then I'm setting myself up to get banned, is that correct ?
"nice people" .... phooey! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Outrage Bus on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:12pm
Does this come under the rules?
Re: An endless avalanche of Bad Islam news stories Reply #27 - Today at 11:57am Quote The Outrage Bus wrote Today at 11:50am: Lord Herbert wrote Today at 11:49am: No, it's a bunch of bearded Mohammedan's taunting the sheep and laughing at their suffering. No it was a batch of bearded people. The religion is irrelevant. bugger off you moro*. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:15pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:12pm:
Unfortunately, Aunt Herbie is a protected troll on this forum. Not sure why, but that's just the way it is. He trolls with new threads promoting racism, bigotry and hatred every day and nothing is ever done. The ironic thing is, he reports everybody else and tries to have them banned. Funny old fella. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Dame Pansi on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:17pm Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:36am:
I have called people "nice people" too. I never thought that the mods would presume you called them the naughty word and it was altered to "nice people" by the swear filter though. I thought it would be a good idea to use the 'replacement' word in the first place. Not sure, now you mention it. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Rhino on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:21pm
There is no moderating on this site, only bullying by Andrei. Thats just a fact.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:01pm greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:15pm:
Racism, bigotry and hatred aren't against the rules here. People aren't banned because you don't like their attitude. Herbert understands the language boundaries here and that's why he's never banned. Those who continually get banned usually don't understand the boundaries, have no self control or think that abusing someone who irritates them is worth a suspension. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Rhino on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:05pm
thats just incorrect. heres how the banning system operates. Andrei logs in once a week, if he sees anything he disagrees with he bans the poster.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:09pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:01pm:
He's a troll, fueled by irrational hatred. He abuses me (and others) all the time. As soon as Bindi's Bootcamp comes back on TV, the better it will be for all of us. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by bias_2012 on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:10pm Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:17pm:
Oh ok, so there's a Swear Filter working overtime, even in Feedback thread, thanks, I wasn't sure Too bad the word I used wasn't a swear word, just an average word in the dictionary to describe some people of low moral character |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:10pm rhino wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:05pm:
Actually, that's about right. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Outrage Bus on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:14pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:01pm:
So what does the term "f**k off moro*" come under? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:18pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:14pm:
Expletives and personal abuse which is against the rules. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:25pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:14pm:
Did Herbie say that? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:25pm rhino wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:05pm:
Moderators don't have to be fair if it's too difficult for them, but I assume it would depend on how many complaints FD gets about a GM as to whether he/she stays or goes. Andrei's positive attributes would have to outweigh his negative ones. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Outrage Bus on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:31pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:18pm:
Cheers. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:40pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:31pm:
I should have read back a little further in this thread. Obviously all suspensions are up to the moderator's discretion, but from what I've seen here over the years, if a member mostly sticks to the rules - an occasional slip can be overlooked. Some members do get taunted mercilessly and if they snap, then surely that can be forgiven. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:41pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:25pm:
complaining about the mods... is pathetic.....I agree some of the rules are weird... I was told by someone they got a warning before being banned.. but that didnt happen to me...no such thing as a fair trial on here.. ;) ;). how ever most of us thankfully know right from wrong...and calling people names is so immature... and calling someone an Idiot or the M word is name calling and immature. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Outrage Bus on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:46pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:40pm:
What do you mean by taunted? E.g. if we count Herbie, because he constantly posts things which I think are wrong or biased, I will continue to challenge them. I don't consider that taunting, I consider that answering. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:51pm Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:46pm:
did you not read gregs comment about Bindy???? ::) that has been going on for so long.. its one big yawwwwwwwwwwwwwn |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Rhino on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 2:57pm mantra wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:25pm:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:43pm cods wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:51pm:
Herbie's love for Bindi may have been going on for a long time, however, it's certainly not a "big yawn". Don't you remember what true love was like, cods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:08pm
greg how about a greg and herb thread then you can both insult each other to your hearts content..
sorry to say this.. but from where I sit you are the worst of the pair of you...and now why you insist on bringing this child into your bizarre behaviour I hav e no idea. you ruin the threads with this.. its got nothing to do with an ything...and you know it.. keep it up and so help me I am reporting you .. how about debating a topic for a change.... now that would be a change. >:( |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:14pm cods wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:08pm:
How am I insulting Herbie? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:15pm cods wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:08pm:
I know why. And that is because I read the most active Threads. It was none other than Mr. W. Mitty (aka Herbert) who introduced us to his very personal salivation for Bindi Irwin. Mr Peccary is simply referring to what Walter himself brought to us. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:29pm Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:15pm:
I am aware of that thanks aussie but it dear gweg who keeps bringing her i nto it just to torment herb..... herb lusts after all the ladies on here as do a few others...in their dreams.. why try to deprive them...its all they have,.. however to turn it into a serial like greg does is beyond the pall.. and from memory you ae the first to whinge if someone dare start a thread on a topic that ws started 3 weeks before... so who are you to take sides..???>.. the whole thing is as boring as cold porridge if you like it good luck... and greg take it back to the threads that both you and aussie enjoy dont screw up every thread.. theres a dear boy.if you cant remember them I am sure aussie can. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:34pm cods wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:
Why don't you ever complain about Herbie's hate-fueled troll threads? Taking sides? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:37pm Quote:
1. Your memory sucks. 2. Sorry, everyone should have realised that it was only you who was credentialled to take sides. I don't 'take sides.' I do attempt to keep it honest. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:10pm
I think the error is assuming there are some mythical guidelines or rules for when to, or when not to ban.
I am sure the mods do try to do their best, but, there is quite simply no clear frame work for them to demonstrate consistency or transparency. Basically, it all goes on behind a screen. We are not privy to all the goings on, and, arguably, that is just the way it is, we either suck it up or move on. Clearly, a ban is of little meaning to many posters anyway. Possibly internet forums are the last frontier for self regulation - i.e. if there is something you don't like, either rail and rant about it til you get banned, ignore it and move on or find (hmm, mayhap even start) another forum. I neither accept nor reject this notion by the way, just highlighting that is the way it seems to be. I have no gripe with Annie or Andrei regardless of any previous agreements/disagreements. They can only do their best with the tools (no I don't mean posters by that term ;D ;D ;D) they have at their disposal... So, in short, I do not make the assumption that there are, in fact, rules for banning! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:17pm
ABUSE.
In particular: Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse#Cyber_abuse_or_cyber_bullying |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 6:31pm Aussie wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:37pm:
baloney you make more noises than anyone...about two many threads on the one subject,,,, and complaining about mod.. andrei in particular...of late... come on and you talk about HONEST..ha! |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 6:35pm
not a lot of point worrying about something you in fact have no control over...
all you can control is yourself....no one else.. although some think they have special privilege when it comes to abusing others.... . greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 4:34pm:
I do.... take a look at his whinge about the new show on 10....if you dont believe me which obviously you dont... :P.. I dont read most of the trash you guys read.....maybe you can eat each other on your new men only board.... maybe that where you should take it and then we wouldnt have these conversations would we? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 6:48pm Quote:
You are making mountains out of mole hills while ignoring your own activity. Just to prove how incorrect you are.....would you mind posting all the comments I have made which are critical of Mr. Hicks? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Grappler Hebdo (je suis) on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 9:25pm
I call for a vote on the proposition that we all have the right to ban someone, but not the juice to actually do it... thus preserving the rights of all while perpetuating the free flow of abuse and insult and denigration that is so much a part of any forum.
If Stan can have babies, or the right to anyway.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by The Grappler Hebdo (je suis) on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 9:27pm Neferti wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:17pm:
Does that include ripping into a newcomer on AP as some kind of Aussie schill, and in terms unbecoming an alleged lady? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 10:20pm Neferti wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:17pm:
::) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Feb 4th, 2015 at 2:32am
What this board needs is a fact-finding committee.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm AiA wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 2:32am:
Or else a dedicated Moderator to DELETE most of the sludge in Feedback and who has no other Moderating abilities, especially the banning button. ;) Personally, I can't see that happening. Freediver has scruples. Don't you, mate? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by AiA on Feb 4th, 2015 at 11:26pm
make that two fact-finding committees and six sub-committees and a board of directors overseen by three panels of global mods (four to each panel) who report only to freediver who in turn is driven by a chorus of chronic complainers ....
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 5th, 2015 at 4:36pm AiA wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 11:26pm:
Great idea. Meetings every morning at 10 sharp. Cods can bring in the coffee. ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Feb 6th, 2015 at 7:57am
All posters need is a reliable deadsh1t metre, I use my PM ignore list to record who they are...
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 6th, 2015 at 2:04pm Neferti wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 4:29pm:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 6th, 2015 at 2:05pm AiA wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 11:26pm:
::) ::) ::) ::) LOL anyone else see it? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 6th, 2015 at 8:39pm
Irony meter is off the scale!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 7th, 2015 at 7:49am Neferti wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 4:36pm:
if I am not banned I will do that ;) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 9th, 2015 at 2:54pm
Just to let people know the image of a monk in a red habit AiA is using as an avatar ATM is my copyrighted artwork stolen by AiA.
Can only think he is trying to stir trouble or something. Pretty low behavior in my book. I am going to leave it there. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 9th, 2015 at 2:57pm
*
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 3:03pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 2:54pm:
He is doing that to deliberately bait you, George, He has made several posts claiming that my recent ban was because (he alleged) I had baited him*, so if there is any truth in that claim, then consistency indicates he is about to get a holiday. You need to refer it to freediver. *I am still intending to deal with that later, when everyone relevant has had plenty of opportunity to explain what happened. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 9th, 2015 at 3:42pm
That is why I said “Leave it at that” so any GMod or FD can remove the avatar if they want to do the right thing but that I am not going to mention it again.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:07pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 2:54pm:
I am not sure how we are expected to know that geo or a mod would know it for that matter. I would think you would need to report it.. isnt stealing agin the law???... ::) ::)even on the web. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:14pm cods wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:07pm:
AiA knows it. Anyone/everyone who has been at PA knows it. It was the centre of controversy there for ages, and has now been lifted from there by AiA and brought here. It is a quite deliberate and specifically aimed bait, targetted straight at St George. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:19pm Aussie wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
so I gather... not sure what can be done about it other than to ignore AiA all together..can you copyright an avatar???.....I mean it isnt as if you pay to use them is it???...ignore him geo....dont bring yourself down to his level..he must be looking for attention maybe he isnt getting any over at PA. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:26pm Quote:
It is a 'trade mark' used by St George when he was conducting his business. AiA knows that, and he is using it to deliberately bait. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:32pm Aussie wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:26pm:
I see... but if he put it up on a website...isnt that a bit like music....I mean its hard to monitor I would think... I dunno.. but maybe fd would think it isnt right.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:33pm
I copyrighted the image, cods, AiA knows that, FD knows it. It is an image I paid someone to create for the website of my home brew shop.
A theft to be provocative. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:40pm
~
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 9th, 2015 at 5:45pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:33pm:
I get it I really do.. its pretty low...doesnt say much about his character does it?... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 9th, 2015 at 5:45pm Aussie wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:26pm:
He is trying to bait and troll- there is no hope for this person. Ignore and rise above it George. No oxygen at all. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 9th, 2015 at 6:56pm The Mole wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 5:45pm:
Yes AG. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:14pm Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:40pm:
In this Post.....now editted, as you can see, made by Neferti, she originally posted the real name, real address and telephone number of St. George. She allowed it to stay up for 31 minutes, plenty of time for all to see, before she made the edit. 'Rules for banning.' Quote:
GMods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:22pm
ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. I did NOT post anything. Should anyone want to know who
George/Jovial Monk is, all they have to do is Google "Jovial Monk". Please join me in the Women's Area. ONLY rules. NO POLITICS. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:30pm Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:22pm:
Captured. Firstly, you are lying. I have what you originally posted, and lying about it only exacerbates your problem. Secondly. You have again breached the Privacy Rules in that Post. You have just informed everyone, in breach of the Rule, how they can stalk St George. Quote:
Fact is.....it was the product of exactly that search you originally posted ~ and then 31 minutes later, deleted. GMods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:45pm
Go Away..
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:46pm
You look like an OLD MAN with nothing to live for but arguing with ANYONE who can speak. Like being a Cabbie. Get a REAL LIFE.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:53pm Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:45pm:
Again....captured before you try yet another delete. No, Neferti, you posted the full details of St George quite deliberately. Name, address, phone number, the lot. You waited 31 minutes, and then deleted (by edit) the Post. Your problem is I and many others saw it, and I have retained it. That is the issue. That, in itself, ought earn you a life time ban. If that doesn't, what does around here? If Members' privacy is not regarded as sacrosanct on any Forum, what is? GMods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by it_is_the_light on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:54pm
try forgiveness
namaste - : ) = |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Neferti on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:14pm
I want it to be known to ALL Members that I have NOT divulged anybody's details, as Aussie is alluding to. Aussie is a man with a mission and will LIE his head off to attain that.
PLEASE check my last 25 posts. I have NOT mentioned anybody's name, email address, web site or anything else. Aussie is a LIAR and trying to get me banned. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:35pm Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:14pm:
No. I am trying to see the most fundamental of all Rules enforced. It is incidental you are the Member who breached that most basic Rule. You have to go, if the Rule means anything at all. I don't care if it is okay here that people may post the name, address and phone number of Members, even though the Rules preclude it as they should. If you can do it, and not be banned forever, so can everyone. No-one is 'safe' here, and if anyone values their privacy, well...time to move on. It is fact that you posted, at 3.40pm today, the full private and personal details of St George, and then, at 4.11pm, 31 minutes later, you deleted by way of edit. The evidence of your cover-up is right there for all to see. But, it gets worse. This time, and I captured it as everyone can see, you informed all how to Google and get to discover who St George is, again in flagrant disregard of the Privacy Rule. An outrageous aggravation of your original breach, and it was almost as though you were inviting Members to conclude St George asked for his privacy to be violated. Even then, you continued your rampage of Rule abuse with your (gee.....again editted post) containing abuse of me. Neferti, you did it, as you have many times before, you tried to cover up as you have a zillion times before..............why are you still here? GMods? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:55pm Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:14pm:
* |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Super Nova on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:41pm Aussie wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 8:30pm:
Gee aussie, I guess we will have to take you word for it. Anyone can type text in a quote box and say "I captured it". Can you share a screenshot so we know it is for real. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:42pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
You ought to know better than this SN and why bother, Aussie only needs to show it to a mod so he is also not in breach of forum rules.? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 7:17am
its a bit daft to ask people to look at their past 25 posts.. when we have been told they have been edited or deleted...already... weird..
wouldnt you only delete /edit something you are embarrassed about???.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by greggerypeccary on Feb 10th, 2015 at 8:11am Super Nova wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
I saw that post too. It was up for about 3 or 4 minutes, and then it was changed to 'Go Away'. Aussie is telling the truth. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 8:53am Neferti wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 9:14pm:
we cannot check something you have altered.... but the point is neferti..you should not go down this road in the first place.. >:( >:(.. I am shocked at the way you speak to people on here yep myself included if you ever want respect... then I will tell you this is not the way to earn it..shame.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 9:46am
Neferti has form for posting details of a personal nature and we have all seen that - I have no doubt at all that Aussie is being truthful.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 10th, 2015 at 9:55am
She denies that the Nefertiti sock was hers.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 10:11am
I cant see the point of doing it??...I mean the internet is way out of line for some of these people...they just have no line they cannot cross....she would be better to ignore the person who upsets her the most..its what I try to do...if you cannot talk reasonable then dont talk at all..
if you have to edit yourself.. then you have a problem thats for sure... :o :o |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 10:29am mantra wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 9:55am:
Nef is a big bloke and has an awful big mouth so I'm sure he can tell us-this was posted under the Neferti account-not a sock. Deletion of facts and denial does not a truth teller make, |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 10:30am cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 10:11am:
Good advice Cods. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 11:55am
When I get upset I sometimes write an abusive post ripping the troll who upset me to shreds. . .I then hit back arrow. Very therapeutic with some of the trolls about these days.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 1:00pm
This is a method I have used in the past, to get rid of negative stuff-- you write on a piece of paper what ever it was that upset you-- you then burn that piece of paper outside preferably, watch the smoke rise from the paper as it burns , your problem is lifted away by the breeze ..to be gone forever- sounds a bit silly but it works.. no don't thank me [smiley=dankk2.gif]
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 1:41pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
The person that Aussie pays for screen shots is busy. :) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 2:44pm
AiA still has the stolen artwork as his avatar. That should be removed.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:01pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 2:44pm:
I havent seen him today maybe he is drawing one of his own..lolol.. does he do pencils? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Super Nova on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 1:41pm:
Yes. Aussie has an issue with screenshots and evidence. He will deny sending me a PM on this day. This is an example for all at Ozpol how reliable screenshots are. This is a PM from Aussie. Disclaimer: the PM below is a real PM that has been altered and is provided to demonstrate that evidence of any kind that is electronically presented on the web cannot be trusted. Aussie_Ozpol_PM_1.png (18 KB | 41
) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:17pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm:
I do worry about self editing.... aussie has someone else who has seen said posts.. and to put something like that up in ozpol is surely breaking the rules.... I did complain a while ago about someone being able to alter posts other than their own.. and was under the impression they couldnt do so... why did you use aussie for this show and tell??... why not one from skippy... or AiA....I am sure they would laugh themselves silly about it. >:( |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Super Nova on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:38pm cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:17pm:
" and to put something like that up in ozpol is surely breaking the rules...." That would be a surprise if a community service statement breaks the rules. "why did you use aussie for this show and tell??..." because that was the example I had at hand. Also aussie was the one lead the charge and accusations. BO denies it. We see no evidence. The rules here are such that it is for the mods to decide in the smoky back rooms so I raise a concern that they should not take electronic evidence as gospel. "why not one from skippy... or AiA....I am sure they would laugh themselves silly about it" I am sure they would. I wonder if Aussie will do the same. Have a nice day. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:40pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:38pm:
Are you alleging that is a real PM from me, containing words I actually typed, but to which you have added your own words? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:54pm
SN is a troll and loves to taunt posters..its a photoshop Aussie..forget it.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:18pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm:
That one of your many, many forged screen shots, SN? You have no credibility left at all. This SN character used a picture of one of Aussie’s properties as avatar, turned my artwork into something disgusting and offensive and routinely posted forged screenshots to “prove” something derogatory about Aussie. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:23pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:18pm:
Speaking of screen shots how about one of your own with your proof of copyright? All we have is your word, hardly convincing. ::) it hasn't expired has it? ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:27pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:18pm:
judging by this I doubt he ever had any... ::) sad really I am not sure what point he is trying to prove....but I am sure most on here take not the slightest notice of him...he just makes all those who come from PA look worse than we have been told.. so it kind of works against them... well for me anyway.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:32pm
Must admit, cods, that when I saw Naffy was Mod of Womens Issues I laughed hysterically!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:32pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:32pm:
That was a LOL moment. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:33pm Aussie wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 4:14pm:
Saved. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:33pm cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:27pm:
Saved. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:38pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:33pm:
Goodoh, wouldn’t want the truth to be lost, eh, Skippy the Dud Kangaroo? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm
mods could we have some clarification please Re the above posts. I was under the impression in order to stop the slanging match that was going on a rule was being enforced that posters were not to discuss or mention " that other forum" as it only incites arguments. Posters were to be suspended for doing so. It is clear both the above posters are trying to start more arguments yet again by referring to " that other forum". An equal playing field would be appreciated, thanks.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:45pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
You have that other forum so clearly visible in your signature..that is also against rules. 8-) 8-) 8-) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:46pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
Really? I have never seen any such Rule even discussed, let alone posted as operative. Let's see some proof, skippy. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:46pm
Hmmmm considering all the trolls from PA prevented me from taking over the modship of Food, belittled my effort to start the Fermentations board and now AiA and SN are dragging the crap from the septic tank into OzPol it would be good to have that rule applied!
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:48pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:46pm:
Definitely-- they only have 4 posters and they are all here. Trolling and flaming. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm The Mole wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:45pm:
FD owns the forum, speak to him. ;D ;D ;D Annie made it clear last time you were all banned discussing " that other place" you all keep trying to drag up was going to be a suspend-able offence. Playing the " doh I don't know card " will not get you far. Maybe I need to PM her with this , thanks for the help,AG. :o |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:50pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm:
it is still against the rules. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:52pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm:
Errrr no, FD hosts it. With any luck, not for much longer. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:53pm The Mole wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:50pm:
Yes dear, PM him and complain his own forum is not allowed to be advertised here. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:55pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm:
Good luck with that , its only in your sig. So you mention it everyday. What's a ban between friends- especially when you have "dobbers " like you who are here playing instead of earning some money for the wife and kids.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:55pm
skippy obviously does not know the difference between “hosting” and “owning” and that is about what I expected.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:58pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm:
Where? Link please. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:00pm The Mole wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:55pm:
I don't mention it in a derogatory way as you and Aussie and monk do most posts. The mods want the fighting to stop but you three continue to mention that other place even after being advised not to. Not to worry I'll let the mods sort it out AGAIN. Toodles. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:03pm Quote:
For the third time......a link to this please? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:07pm Quote:
Quote:
It's kicked off again, they ignored my heads up. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:10pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
what a tattletale you are .. did you dob in nova ?? didnt think so. you guys have a gang mentality and think people over here should back off..when the bully boys arrive... well not so.... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:11pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:07pm:
It's kicked off again, they ignored my heads up.[/quote] You seem to have a very serious issue with understanding basic concepts. 'PA rubbish' does not = PA per se. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by St George of the Fermenter on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:16pm
People that brought PA crap here: skippy, SN and AiA.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:16pm Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:11pm:
You seem to have a very serious issue with understanding basic concepts. 'PA rubbish' does not = PA per se. [/quote] It does to me. You and your gang think you can say what you like here even after being told not to. I am complying with the mods requests I expected you to all do the same. Clearly you're not. I have been very reasonable, I have even tried to give you all a heads up as I'm such a good fellow but you have ignored it and now want to insist you can carry on with your derogatory remarks. It's out of my hands. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:17pm
He is bored DOBBER who is here whining about being called a dunce- how stupid and petty- I see ban as an excuse to get on with a few things.. ::) But I am pretty sure that no one knows who started any inference about PA in the first place. But then what can one expect when the fingerpointer, thinks using your name as your password in an excercise in commonsense.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:18pm
why is discussion a No No??.. I dont get it.. what fighting are they talking about...to disagree is not what I call fighting...
who are the ones that turn to abuse and insults.....?? thats more the point.... if people are discussing others behavior isnt that what forums are for???... and shouldnt FD know about behavor??? he can read it for himself and therefore judge for himself who is the baddie...I am sure FD doesnt need another mod to protect him from all these naughty members of ozpol ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:20pm St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:16pm:
Thanks for clearing that up Geore..I think whoever kicked this off should be suspended first- and I will see you all when ever . |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:21pm cods wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:18pm:
You have a point. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:23pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
Bump, this got lost among gangs abuse. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:24pm
That would mean suspension for everyone on this thread..if you read through. Everyone is talking about PA.
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:26pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:28pm mantra wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 9:55am:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:28pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:23pm:
And you still have not provided the link which establishes that. In fact, you have produced a which establishes the exact opposite. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:28pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:23pm:
saved |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:29pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:49pm:
saved |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:33pm Super Nova wrote on Feb 9th, 2015 at 11:41pm:
saved |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:33pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 4:53pm:
saved |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by mantra on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:38pm The Mole wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:28pm:
I wasn't discussing the other board. Don't drag me into this crap. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:39pm
Now mods I hope that while your banning me, that you take a look at PA trolls who only come here to cause trouble and as you can see its sprung up again..the ADMIN of PA has a reference to PA in his sig ( against rules ) which I find offensive, he is dobbing like a child- AiA is using Georges avatar , a deliberate troll and is using the word c--t in his Sig, also against forum rules.
The new women's board kicked off today as just a place for the PA mod ( Neferti) to ridicule ( with impunity) anyone who comes near that board. So lets take a look at the broader picture here, PA trolls will always be trouble... |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:40pm mantra wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:38pm:
You mentioned Nef. She is from PA.You bought into her problem and she earned that one herself. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm
I've found the Thread in which AA made those comments. Utterly different to the discussion here (with some few exceptions.)
Link. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by skippy. on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:22pm
Look Aussie I'll let Annie deal with it.
I understand her to mean she does not want the other place discussed here in feedback, it's pretty simple. Every time you and your "gang" do that it invites discussion about it. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:31pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
thats right skippy DISCUSSION and thats all it is...you are the one talking about fighting...aussie asks for clarification and its never forthcoming... if you had a genuine complaint you would go direct to the mod and not waste time on here... .talking about PA is no different to talking about a Newpaper or TV channel..there is no law against it.. you are being very immature,,,, it all comes down to abuse.....abuse of the rules and abuse of members... perhaps if you had a chat with one of the members from PA who is stepping over the line...aka SN...then you may be taken seriously...as it is you only point the finger at ozpol members. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Aussie on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:32pm skippy. wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
Don't forget to fire off many PMs to freediver, and especially make sure you mention me. Oh, and of course, urge all the people elsewhere (you know, the 'gang,') to do the same. That'll ensure freediver concludes what Neferti posted (with the private details of St George) is all my doing. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by A.G on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:40pm The Mole wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 5:39pm:
|
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Andrei.Hicks on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:44pm
This entire squabble is beyond childish now.
I suggest it stops or I'm going to give people breaks from here. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Phemanderac on Feb 15th, 2015 at 7:16am Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 10th, 2015 at 6:44pm:
Sorry mate, but, Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for that. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 15th, 2015 at 8:01am Phemanderac wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 7:16am:
all I know phem.. is no one is paid to read any of the threads... its their choice... if you are upset PM the mods...or even say your piece on the thread.... telling people to shut up... wont make it go away... god only knows whats said on another forum about myself for instance....but god forbid I say anything about them when they come on here, with what looks to me.. to get rid of people....it would suit some to get rid of myself...why I dont know.. to me its as simple as looking the other way..dont read it isnt as if there isnt plenty of others to read and enjoy is it? I also feel if we all said the same boring things over and over.. how many would bother. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Feb 15th, 2015 at 9:19am cods wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 8:01am:
I have seen that statement used a few times and find it rather silly For example this topic is about rules for banning, so I open up the posts to read what been said and find they are way off topic so I complain only to be told the above "No one is forcing you to read it" or similar. Well please tell me how to follow a topic that I am interested in without reading the BS posts. :-? :-? :-? :-? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 15th, 2015 at 10:18am Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 9:19am:
but red it happens to every thread.... I tried very hard to get my freedom of speech back on track after it was highjacked by the gun lobby experts eventually fd came to the rescue .. but mainly because he has a vested interest in getting cods I have no doubt.. if you find that happens red complain on the thread and start a conversation about the op...its all you can do really...sh!t happens.. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:03am
Fair enough!
I think we do need an "Off Topic Nazi Mod" to delete the posts or split the topics. The annoying bit is when someone that is stuffing up the topic tell you to piss off and dont read etc |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:30am Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:03am:
do I do that???? sorry if thats the case....I am also guilty of taking things off topic...but some of them are like runaway trains....so I agree.. I am not sure but I do think the mods can change things when they are asked to do so..I mean they take threads out of one board into another dont they? |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by Redneck on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:37am cods wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:30am:
No you didnt do it to me, I think it was a topic I started and some one from the other forum started baiting someone (Aussie?) so I suggested they should stick to the topic and was virtually told to get stuffed etc. |
|
Title: Re: rules for banning Post by cods on Feb 15th, 2015 at 12:02pm Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 15th, 2015 at 11:37am:
well no good complaining about them red... its their normal behavior...no manners whatever...lol.. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |
