Banning of Principle of Q'uo

The place to discuss issues with administrators and moderators. Suggestions welcome. All bans will be posted here and the banning appeals process will be held in this forum.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby HitTheBoundary » Mon 18 Aug 2014 11:34am

I just looked at the posts that he was banned for.

WHAT A FRIGGING JOKE!

Technically it may be correct, but compared to some of the other stuff that gets written on here, these warnings seem WAY out of whack.

POQ's posts and subsequent warnings are listed below;

Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Wed 06 Aug 2014 1:51pm

"that's also my view"


the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule

No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings.>



Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: Jews and Arabs Refuse To Be Enemies
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Sat 09 Aug 2014 2:30pm

"...and that anti-semitism is on the rise here in australia.......plenty of evidence of it here on this site too....pure racist hatred i believe..."


a shrills bullsh1t , imo

wheres 'this' evidence ?

<warning for insulting a poster which is breach of new general forum rules>


Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: not much hope that sanity will prevail
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Mon 11 Aug 2014 7:19pm

... sanity prevail ... wtf.

so desperate for a mate ,
it resorts to calling itself mate.

is this funny , sad or just plain patheticness personified.
... who are you talking to ?
the organ grinder.

or did you think you were logged in as mr :D

<Clear abuse on this occasion. Warning issued, and as it's the third warning in a week, it will result in a two week ban>


Seriously?????
Whichever MODS were responsible for this need to get some perspective, or take a break from Moderating.
IMHO.
User avatar
HitTheBoundary
Club Player
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
Location: Walkabout

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby GrumpyOne » Mon 18 Aug 2014 11:50am

I think it is only because some stinker of a poster keeps hounding the Mods to ban him.

<this is completely false>
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
User avatar
GrumpyOne
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 8163
Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby st.byron » Mon 18 Aug 2014 12:57pm

HitTheBoundary wrote:I just looked at the posts that he was banned for.

WHAT A FRIGGING JOKE!

Technically it may be correct, but compared to some of the other stuff that gets written on here, these warnings seem WAY out of whack.

POQ's posts and subsequent warnings are listed below;

Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Wed 06 Aug 2014 1:51pm

"that's also my view"


the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule

No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings.>



Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: Jews and Arabs Refuse To Be Enemies
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Sat 09 Aug 2014 2:30pm

"...and that anti-semitism is on the rise here in australia.......plenty of evidence of it here on this site too....pure racist hatred i believe..."


a shrills bullsh1t , imo

wheres 'this' evidence ?

<warning for insulting a poster which is breach of new general forum rules>


Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: not much hope that sanity will prevail
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Mon 11 Aug 2014 7:19pm

... sanity prevail ... wtf.

so desperate for a mate ,
it resorts to calling itself mate.

is this funny , sad or just plain patheticness personified.
... who are you talking to ?
the organ grinder.

or did you think you were logged in as mr :D

<Clear abuse on this occasion. Warning issued, and as it's the third warning in a week, it will result in a two week ban>


Seriously?????
Whichever MODS were responsible for this need to get some perspective, or take a break from Moderating.
IMHO.



It was a unanimous and clear decision.
"Linda" is actually a not so obtuse way, if you know the history, of calling another poster a 'c***sucker'.

The other two posts are totally playing the man and not the topic. They're designed to belittle and insult the poster they're about. The mods also took into account the repeated insults and belittling of a particular poster by the banned poster. We felt it was time to draw the line. The rules are clear. Play the topic and not the man. We felt the banned poster had already been given a pretty long rope with regard to this issue.
User avatar
st.byron
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 7352
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
Location: Netanya

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby plugger66 » Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:12pm

st.byron wrote:
HitTheBoundary wrote:I just looked at the posts that he was banned for.

WHAT A FRIGGING JOKE!

Technically it may be correct, but compared to some of the other stuff that gets written on here, these warnings seem WAY out of whack.

POQ's posts and subsequent warnings are listed below;

Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Wed 06 Aug 2014 1:51pm

"that's also my view"


the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule

No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings.>



Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: Jews and Arabs Refuse To Be Enemies
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Sat 09 Aug 2014 2:30pm

"...and that anti-semitism is on the rise here in australia.......plenty of evidence of it here on this site too....pure racist hatred i believe..."


a shrills bullsh1t , imo

wheres 'this' evidence ?

<warning for insulting a poster which is breach of new general forum rules>


Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: not much hope that sanity will prevail
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Mon 11 Aug 2014 7:19pm

... sanity prevail ... wtf.

so desperate for a mate ,
it resorts to calling itself mate.

is this funny , sad or just plain patheticness personified.
... who are you talking to ?
the organ grinder.

or did you think you were logged in as mr :D

<Clear abuse on this occasion. Warning issued, and as it's the third warning in a week, it will result in a two week ban>


Seriously?????
Whichever MODS were responsible for this need to get some perspective, or take a break from Moderating.
IMHO.



It was a unanimous and clear decision.
"Linda" is actually a not so obtuse way, if you know the history, of calling another poster a 'c***sucker'.

The other two posts are totally playing the man and not the topic. They're designed to belittle and insult the poster they're about. The mods also took into account the repeated insults and belittling of a particular poster by the banned poster. We felt it was time to draw the line. The rules are clear. Play the topic and not the man. We felt the banned poster had already been given a pretty long rope with regard to this issue.



Got to say I disagree with the second warniong. Telling someone what they posted is bulls*** isnt belittling anyone. Its basically the same as saying crap and surely you wouldnt get warning for that otherwise we would have about 10 a day just for saying crap. Swearing is allowed so IMO bulls*** equals crap. I reckon a warning for saying that is bulls*** IMO of course. No idea about all the other stuff but I certainly cant see that as playing the man.
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 3:01pm

HitTheBoundary wrote:I just looked at the posts that he was banned for.

WHAT A FRIGGING JOKE!

Technically it may be correct, but compared to some of the other stuff that gets written on here, these warnings seem WAY out of whack.

POQ's posts and subsequent warnings are listed below;

Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: INPUT DESIRED ON 3RD PARTY ABUSE
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Wed 06 Aug 2014 1:51pm

"that's also my view"


the wind not blowing the moderators way today ?

... my view is that Linda make the best electric blankets
on the market.

<this post has been reviewed and a warning issued for baiting the poster based on the fact that the post has no reference at all to the issue being debated, it makes a clear assertion regarding the poster's character designed to aain a response, but also importantly referencing "linda" which is part of a previous "abuse and baiting" for which POQ received a previous warning. For the third time in 8 days (and thus just avoiding a ban), POQ has been warned under this rule

No matter how much you disagree, or dismiss the worth of any opinion posted, or dismiss the worth of the poster in your eyes, your response must be respectful. Argue the facts. Post an opposing opinion. Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings.>



Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: Jews and Arabs Refuse To Be Enemies
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Sat 09 Aug 2014 2:30pm

"...and that anti-semitism is on the rise here in australia.......plenty of evidence of it here on this site too....pure racist hatred i believe..."


a shrills bullsh1t , imo

wheres 'this' evidence ?

<warning for insulting a poster which is breach of new general forum rules>


Principle of Q'uo wrote:Re: not much hope that sanity will prevail
Postby Principle of Q'uo » Mon 11 Aug 2014 7:19pm

... sanity prevail ... wtf.

so desperate for a mate ,
it resorts to calling itself mate.

is this funny , sad or just plain patheticness personified.
... who are you talking to ?
the organ grinder.

or did you think you were logged in as mr :D

<Clear abuse on this occasion. Warning issued, and as it's the third warning in a week, it will result in a two week ban>


Seriously?????
Whichever MODS were responsible for this need to get some perspective, or take a break from Moderating.
IMHO.



you are a barrel of laughs...totally clueless.........swearing is not permitted....nor is trying to get around the swear filter........which..imho is a straight out provocation of the mods....everyone else gets a warning for using that word......why should that guy be any different .....

"There will be zero tolerance for baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic or threatening behaviour, or any personal attacks in this Fan Forum or in Private Messages. Such behaviour constitutes a breach of rules.

Swearing is not permitted. This includes abbreviations, or any form of alteration of the swear word, that may constitute the reader to understand that it is a swear word. Using acronyms WTF, FFS, BS etc are a breach of rules only if they are directed at another poster in an abusive manner, but otherwise acceptable as a way to emphasise or colour an opinion."
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby GrumpyOne » Mon 18 Aug 2014 3:18pm

Fertiliser.

Good on the roses.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
User avatar
GrumpyOne
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 8163
Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Bunk_Moreland » Mon 18 Aug 2014 3:32pm

If a poster abides by all the rules and the mods decisions, that poster will not get warnings or bans.

It is really not difficult. The mods have made a decision, abide by it.
You are garbage - Enough said
Bunk_Moreland
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 3:36pm

Bunk_Moreland wrote:If a poster abides by all the rules and the mods decisions, that poster will not get warnings or bans.

It is really not difficult. The mods have made a decision, abide by it.


+1
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby plugger66 » Mon 18 Aug 2014 4:15pm

stinger wrote:
Bunk_Moreland wrote:If a poster abides by all the rules and the mods decisions, that poster will not get warnings or bans.

It is really not difficult. The mods have made a decision, abide by it.


+1



Anyone got a camera? need a photo of this.
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby SENsei » Mon 18 Aug 2014 4:40pm

I can picture Bunk sitting back, sucking on his cigar, laughing at his little +1. The irony of cast changes where another actor plays the same character.....

Didn't work on Bewitched however. And anyone remember the first Pippa on Home & Away? And the first Morty Seinfeld??

Anyway, I digress and regress. Please progress as you wish.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
User avatar
SENsei
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006 8:25pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 4:50pm

SENsaintsational wrote:I can picture Bunk sitting back, sucking on his cigar, laughing at his little +1. The irony of cast changes where another actor plays the same character.....

Didn't work on Bewitched however. And anyone remember the first Pippa on Home & Away? And the first Morty Seinfeld??

Anyway, I digress and regress. Please progress as you wish.


he's right.. 100%....whatever name he signed on with...he isn't on my foe list....(yet)...so i can see his comments..and comment on them.....he's not giving anyone cause for concern.....so don't know what is wrong with agreeing with him when he makes obvious sensible comments....

.don't need you snide comments though....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby SENsei » Mon 18 Aug 2014 4:55pm

I wasn't addressing you at all.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
User avatar
SENsei
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 7126
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006 8:25pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 5:50pm

SENsaintsational wrote:I wasn't addressing you at all.


of course you weren't.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Cairnsman » Mon 18 Aug 2014 8:22pm

The reality is we need to be careful we don't kill this site completely.

I look at the number of registered posters online regularly and it barely gets into double figures most days.

Our match day threads struggle to get any longer than a few pages long these days.

The long time posters, some of which are labelled as the "toxic posters", are the bread and butter of this site and are the main attraction.

We need to ask ourselves if the the site is being taken in the wrong direction.

Is the "all ages" forum that was thrust upon us working in terms of generating new registered members that are willing to come and participate with the long term "toxic posters".

I just hope the "silent majority" are getting it right because clearly the "toxic posters" aren't going away and they should be marketed as the main game.

It makes us far more attractive than the sterilised, bland alternatives.
Image
User avatar
Cairnsman
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 6142
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 8:48pm

Cairnsman wrote:The reality is we need to be careful we don't kill this site completely.

I look at the number of registered posters online regularly and it barely gets into double figures most days.

Our match day threads struggle to get any longer than a few pages long these days.

The long time posters, some of which are labelled as the "toxic posters", are the bread and butter of this site and are the main attraction.

We need to ask ourselves if the the site is being taken in the wrong direction.

Is the "all ages" forum that was thrust upon us working in terms of generating new registered members that are willing to come and participate with the long term "toxic posters".

I just hope the "silent majority" are getting it right because clearly the "toxic posters" aren't going away and they should be marketed as the main game.

It makes us far more attractive than the sterilised, bland alternatives.




main attraction to whom...... ???....not me...

there are posters on here that do nothing but stalk, bait and insult other posters....the mods are trying to clean the site up....and are succeeding..imho....

so i guess the silent majority are slowly getting their forum back.....

toxic posters should be banned for good imho...it is laugable to suggest that they should "be marketed as the main game"......

such a comment just shows how out of touch with reality you really are....

if they were attacking you daily, you wouldn't be so against the alternative, which is a fun place to post without being abused.............. the words sterilized and bland don't come into it.....


yeah sure...i have done my share of damage to the overall peace of the forum in the past.......but i changed.....i no longer communicate with or respond to those likely to take offense to my posts.....about time others realized that the mods won't tolerate certain behaviour.....as pointed out by a reincarnated poster.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Bunk_Moreland » Mon 18 Aug 2014 8:57pm

stinger wrote:
SENsaintsational wrote:I can picture Bunk sitting back, sucking on his cigar, laughing at his little +1. The irony of cast changes where another actor plays the same character.....

Didn't work on Bewitched however. And anyone remember the first Pippa on Home & Away? And the first Morty Seinfeld??

Anyway, I digress and regress. Please progress as you wish.


he's right.. 100%....whatever name he signed on with...he isn't on my foe list....(yet)...so i can see his comments..and comment on them.....he's not giving anyone cause for concern.....so don't know what is wrong with agreeing with him when he makes obvious sensible comments....

.don't need you snide comments though....


What is wrong with stinger agreeing with Bunk_Moreland? Some people need to know that this is a new era at Saintsational.

BunK_Moreland have nobody on foe, Bunk_Moreland agrees with Stinger on this issue. Why is this so bad?

One thing. There are no multiple nics on Saiintsational Bunk_Moreland is signed in as Bunk_Moreland. No other nic is signed in.

Anyway not about BM or stinger, its about abiding with forum rules and abiding with mods decisions
You are garbage - Enough said
Bunk_Moreland
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby plugger66 » Mon 18 Aug 2014 8:59pm

stinger wrote:
Cairnsman wrote:The reality is we need to be careful we don't kill this site completely.

I look at the number of registered posters online regularly and it barely gets into double figures most days.

Our match day threads struggle to get any longer than a few pages long these days.

The long time posters, some of which are labelled as the "toxic posters", are the bread and butter of this site and are the main attraction.

We need to ask ourselves if the the site is being taken in the wrong direction.

Is the "all ages" forum that was thrust upon us working in terms of generating new registered members that are willing to come and participate with the long term "toxic posters".

I just hope the "silent majority" are getting it right because clearly the "toxic posters" aren't going away and they should be marketed as the main game.

It makes us far more attractive than the sterilised, bland alternatives.




main attraction to whom...... ???....not me...

there are posters on here that do nothing but stalk, bait and insult other posters....the mods are trying to clean the site up....and are succeeding..imho....

so i guess the silent majority are slowly getting their forum back.....

toxic posters should be banned for good imho...it is laugable to suggest that they should "be marketed as the main game"......

such a comment just shows how out of touch with reality you really are....

if they were attacking you daily, you wouldn't be so against the alternative, which is a fun place to post without being abused.............. the words sterilized and bland don't come into it.....


yeah sure...i have done my share of damage to the overall peace of the forum in the past.......but i changed.....i no longer communicate with or respond to those likely to take offense to my posts.....about time others realized that the mods won't tolerate certain behaviour.....as pointed out by a reincarnated poster.....



No you dont communicate with them anymore but those posters know exactly who you are aiming this at so instead of mentioning names you are just baiting in a different way.
Last edited by plugger66 on Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Bunk_Moreland » Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:01pm

who is the reincarnated poster?

reincarnated doesn't post here anymore
You are garbage - Enough said
Bunk_Moreland
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby GrumpyOne » Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:07pm

The trouble with the silent majority, is that they are silent.

The buggers don't post at all. :roll:
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
User avatar
GrumpyOne
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 8163
Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby stinger » Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:08pm

Bunk_Moreland wrote:who is the reincarnated poster?

reincarnated doesn't post here anymore


used the wrong word.... :oops: :oops: :oops: ..but you should get my drift.....wasn't meant to be insulting
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will

"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"

However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
User avatar
stinger
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 38126
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:06pm
Location: Australia.

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Bunk_Moreland » Mon 18 Aug 2014 9:44pm

stinger wrote:
Bunk_Moreland wrote:who is the reincarnated poster?

reincarnated doesn't post here anymore


used the wrong word.... :oops: :oops: :oops: ..but you should get my drift.....wasn't meant to be insulting


the reason Bunk_Moreland posts here and has nobody on foe is precisely the reason this thread exists.

A new era and therefore new attitude with a nic that abides by the rules and mod decisions and respects other posters excluding no nic, new or old.

BM cant see why two posters cant have common ground on this issue. BM agrees wholeheartedly with your opinion on this issue.

BM is also happy to converse with stinger. It is stingers right to converse or not to converse with BM and that decision is respected.
You are garbage - Enough said
Bunk_Moreland
SS Life Member
 
Posts: 3602
Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Cairnsman » Mon 18 Aug 2014 10:22pm

GrumpyOne wrote:The trouble with the silent majority, is that they are silent.

The buggers don't post at all. :roll:


maybe they do post, or maybe they just review submissions.
Image
User avatar
Cairnsman
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 6142
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby HitTheBoundary » Mon 18 Aug 2014 11:16pm

st.byron wrote:They're designed to belittle and insult the poster they're about. The mods also took into account the repeated insults and belittling of a particular poster by the banned poster. We felt it was time to draw the line. The rules are clear. Play the topic and not the man. We felt the banned poster had already been given a pretty long rope with regard to this issue.

Thanks for the reply. I suppose my concern is not so much with the rules being enforced, but whether this is being done in a consistent manner.

POQ's ban just strikes me as strange compared to what other things seem to be tolerated.

Some posters don't debate, they ONLY seem to bait, yet as they've been around a long time it's seemingly deemed to be just how they post, so is ignored.

stinger wrote:you are a barrel of laughs...totally clueless.........

I would've thought these two comments are intended to be belittling and insulting.

Which, as you so kindly pointed out, should be met with zero tolerance.

stinger wrote:"There will be zero tolerance for baiting, belittling, badgering, bullying or any insulting, abusive, sexist, racist, ageist, homophobic or threatening behaviour, or any personal attacks in this Fan Forum or in Private Messages. Such behaviour constitutes a breach of rules.

Although it may seem contrary to what I've said above, I'm quite happy for there to be a loose interpretation of the rules, as long as when they are enforced it is consistent. As St.Byron said, there may well have been a lot of history prior to POQ's ban which I am not aware of. But looking at the posts in isolation and the free for all that is the General forum, it just strikes me as incongruous.
User avatar
HitTheBoundary
Club Player
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
Location: Walkabout

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby st.byron » Mon 18 Aug 2014 11:59pm

HitTheBoundary wrote:[
Although it may seem contrary to what I've said above, I'm quite happy for there to be a loose interpretation of the rules, as long as when they are enforced it is consistent. As St.Byron said, there may well have been a lot of history prior to POQ's ban which I am not aware of. But looking at the posts in isolation and the free for all that is the General forum, it just strikes me as incongruous.


I certainly endeavour to be consistent and I reckon the other mods do as well. We each between us though do have differing interpretations or levels of tolerance and flexibility with the rules. We're humans and operating in a voluntary capacity. That's why issuing a warning is always cross-checked with another mod (unless it's a no brainer) and a ban must have at least 3 mods in agreeance.

I can see how some might find the second warning given to POQ as quoted above in this thread as 'tiggy-touchwood'. The point is however, after that the poster knew he was on two warnings within a week and nevertheless proceeded to post another insult. Copping a ban is his responsibility.

Context also plays a part in influencing decisions. Someone who has regularly been crossing or stepping on the line for example and flirting with warnings, might get a bit less tolerance than someone who hasn't been. Bottom line is no-one is banned unless they cop three warnings within 7 days or commit some kind of gross misdemeanour. Once a poster is on two warnings, if they don't pull their head in, they have no-one to blame but themselves for copping a ban.
User avatar
st.byron
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 7352
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 7:04pm
Location: Netanya

Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo

Postby Dave McNamara » Tue 19 Aug 2014 1:19am

Hey, HTB, CM and Pluggs. What're all whinging about? Gaz was given a fair trial.














Image

Chick it out. :P
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hArSps&feature=player_detailpage

Matt Finnis CEO wrote:"St Kilda is an iconic part of Melbourne which has an identifiable attitude and spirit that is really aligned with where we want to take the club. It is grounded but it is aspirational, it is eclectic, everyone belongs, and we say how do we capture that as an identity? It would be a good move on so many levels for the club."
User avatar
Dave McNamara
Saintsational Legend
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2011 2:44pm
Location: Slotting another one from 94.5m out. Opposition flood? Bring it on...! Keep the faith Saintas!

Next

Return to Administration Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest