Oh God Almighty...

[Smudge]

Richard was Precam all along.

And he would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky mods...

 

[morgieb]

Why was Dickinson banned anyway?

 

[Burgey]

Why was Dickinson banned anyway?

And for how long?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Banned for a week. Consistently ignoring the requests and warnings of moderators.

 

[Pratters]

What forum rules has Richard exactly broken?

The moderation has been steep strict in the recent past like Voltman said, then it settled down. in my personal case< not grudging< just letting every one aware Gingerfurball said to me I will have to spend time banned for saying Sir Alex is in my ignore list. I replied Brumby keeps mentioning Richard is in his ignore list and Brumby never gets threatened of being banned. It was the second instance Gingerfurball accused me so I said to him to stop picking on me. Those posts of mine were deleted I recieved a long email that given my recent disputes with forum members (I never broke any forum rule with sledger and the worst I did was to tell Sanz to STFU) and my ill treatment of Gingerfurball, I would be banned if this continues. I replied I am a constructive poster and don't give a **** if you ban me as I am not causing any troubles as far as I am concerned. I admit I made an unnecessary post regarding Sanz which Clapo deleted (rightfully) but that was after all this had happpened.

 

[Burgey]

You his lawyer? Best not to bring one's own hard luck story into it really.

 

[Pratters]

I am not his lawyer but I think it is important for people to stand up for each other. Else no one will stand for you if you are victimised (not saying Richard has essentially been victimised) I think Richard is a very decent member who insults no one and I never see him break forum rules tbh. I would like to know specifically which forum rules Richard broke repeatedly for a drastic step like a ban on him to take place.

 

[DIRK-NANNES]

I think Richard is a very decent member who insults no one and I never see him break forum rules tbh.

Ind33d.

Massive joke that he gets a ban for something so inconsequential and ambiguous, while the usual troll suspects rampage through CC without anything more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[GIMH]

What forum rules has Richard exactly broken?

The moderation has been steep strict in the recent past like Voltman said, then it settled down. in my personal case< not grudging< just letting every one aware Gingerfurball said to me I will have to spend time banned for saying Sir Alex is in my ignore list. I replied Brumby keeps mentioning Richard is in his ignore list and Brumby never gets threatened of being banned. It was the second instance Gingerfurball accused me so I said to him to stop picking on me. Those posts of mine were deleted I recieved a long email that given my recent disputes with forum members (I never broke any forum rule with sledger and the worst I did was to tell Sanz to STFU) and my ill treatment of Gingerfurball, I would be banned if this continues. I replied I am a constructive poster and don't give a **** if you ban me as I am not causing any troubles as far as I am concerned. I admit I made an unnecessary post regarding Sanz which Clapo deleted (rightfully) but that was after all this had happpened.

Brumby posted a couple of weeks back saying he received an email from the mods RE his attitude to Richard IIRC

 

[Sanz]

Brumby posted a couple of weeks back saying he received an email from the mods RE his attitude to Richard IIRC

Going to post this.

 

[Sanz]

. I admit I made an unnecessary post regarding Sanz which Clapo deleted

Just wanted to Thank Clapo for deleting the said post.

 

[Pratters]

Brumby getting a warning post just reinstates the strict moderation which is going on in recent times. There are two ways to look at it -

1. More moderation means a better controlled forum and is the need of the hour as members
increase and unruliness increases

The other -

2. The best moderation and moderators are the ones who go unnoticed and do their job without controversy. Guys like Andy C, Silent Striker, Liam, Neil.

I am strongly in the second category as I don't think we need such strict moderation even though I called for a bit more strict moderation a month back. I know people are always complaining one way or the other but it is important to strike a right balance and banning Richard is definitely on the wrong side of the coin as far as I am concerned. From what I have seen, he hasn't insulted any one or broken forum rules or attacked members.

 

[Pratters]

Just wanted to Thank Clapo for deleting the said post.

Sanz, I want to personally apologise to you for posting that. It is just that when I go into a hard core argument with you I get ruffled and even got traumatised the last time. After that you apologised and I removed you from my ignore list but I saw another comment by you which irritated me. It is not your fault. You post the way you do. It just affects me and I am not blaming you in avoiding you. I hope you don't mind this. I also want to say I have had my fair share of enjoyments arguing and discussing cricket with you and I am sure you are a top bloke and as discussed in an email a few months back, I would love to meet you when and if I come to Pittsburgh.

 

[GIMH]

Brumby getting a warning post just reinstates the strict moderation which is going on in recent times. There are two ways to look at it -

1. More moderation means a better controlled forum and is the need of the hour as members
increase and unruliness increases

The other -

2. The best moderation and moderators are the ones who go unnoticed and do their job without controversy. Guys like Andy C, Silent Striker, Liam, Neil.

I am strongly in the second category as I don't think we need such strict moderation even though I called for a bit more strict moderation a month back. I know people are always complaining one way or the other but it is important to strike a right balance and banning Richard is definitely on the wrong side of the coin as far as I am concerned. From what I have seen, he hasn't insulted any one or broken forum rules or attacked members.

It was about two weeks ago that you called for Liam & Neil to be sacked, so your whole argument is worthless afaic

 

[Pratters]

For their inactivity. When they moderate, they are top class. There is a difference. Let's not get into the sacking moderators argument again, please, I have had enough debates about it.

 

[Pratters]

And just for the record, I want to say I have nothing personal against a moderator like Gingerfurball with whom I have had a bit of a rough time. I hold no grudges or that sort of thing. It is petty to think on those lines. The moderation on the site is usually top class by all the moderators, just not happy with it in recent times.

 

[GIMH]

What exactly aren't you happy with? They are doing what the majority asked for. I don't really get it.

 

[Pratters]

As Andy C said, and I agree with him, they went a bit overboard when every one said to moderate more.

You are asking me a lot of questions. Why don't you answer me one. What is your view on the banning of Richard?

 

[GIMH]

How many members, regardless of being mods or not, have tried to explain to Richard lately he's best not doing certain things?

I get on well with Richard when I talk to him on msgr and he does more for the site behind the scenes than most. But he was asked by the mods, several times, to drop certain things, and didn't. It was kind of inevitable.

 

[Furball]

Richard's banning wasn't a quick over-reaction to a couple of posts. It has been discussed behind the scenes extensively and was a unanimous decision.