Ban announcements

[Prince EWS]

Is BruceCampbell on a perma?

Well if he wasn't before, the never-ending line of multiple accounts he's created since his ban would ensure he was now.

 

[NZTailender]

Sledger and PhoenixFire are banned for 2 weeks, and Matteh is banned for 2 months.

Haha, brutal. Why is Matteh out for so long? And how come GIMH has survived?

 

[GIMH]

I didn't do anything geg you horsemilker,stop bullying me

Out of interest though, how come mitchell's ban is so much longer?

 

[Burgey]

"You're being obtuse..."

Seriously? What kind of a reason is that to ban someone, anyone?

And can someone tell me, if you're not posting links to a site that sells cheap Nike Cross Trainers, how can you spam OT, that part of the site which is there to talk about "whatever is on your mind"?

Those threads were harmless fun FFS. Honestly, how are they any different to the "Fluffy eats vegetarian food" thread that's been around ages?

And I want to make it clear, I'm not having a shot at Pratters there, it's just the example that sprung to mind. I don't have the slightest problem with his thread, nor with the "horse-sized duck vs 100 duck-sized horses".

Why? Because they're fun, they're irreverant. Or maybe they're not. But here's the thing - who gives a ****? It's OT ffs. How is posting those things spamming in the true sense of it? How does it in anyway drag down "forum atmosphere" or whatever it gets called. How is it having a shot at anyone in particular?

I might be wrong about all this, but it would be nice to have an answer, frankly.

If Zaremba had posted another thread along similar lines, would it be closed and him banned? You'd want to bloody well hope not.

Honestly, this joint used to have a bloody sense of humour

 

[GIMH]

I think the bans are a bit silly too, not worth kicking up a stink over two weeks however. Given sledger hasn't been banned for over a year there's no reason why he couldn't have just had 3 or 7 but hey, you come to expect these things.

 

[Smudge]

I think the bans are a bit silly too, not worth kicking up a stink over two weeks however. Given sledger hasn't been banned for over a year there's no reason why he couldn't have just had 3 or 7 but hey, you come to expect these things.

Hang on, GIMH. You said just yesterday that:

...didn't see the threads last night

The threads yesterday morning (NZ time) were ****ing annoying, and that's regardless of my opinion of the behaviour from those three over the last couple of months.

That said, I thought a day or two's rest would have sufficed.

 

[Johnners]

Not sure what else you would call the creation of 6/7 threads rhyming with "site discussion" all of which contained basically the exact same intial post barring a "theme" change other than spamming. Add to that a couple clear attempts to annoy SS, a clear pisstake of another thread recently created in OT, a few rather obvious attempts to troll people in CC, and the fact that all 3 of them have been warned/banned recently for differing reasons to do with their individual posting habits, and you might see why we were kinda fed up.

The "just move it to Testing forum" argument doesn't really fly either before anyone tries to bring it up, each of them knew what they were doing, and given the fact that despite SS had initially locked/deleted some of the threads, yet they kept on creating them, it's kinda hard to see from our POV that they had any other intention other than being major pains in the arse.

The lengths of sledgers ban is still under discussion, but PF's & Matteh's won't be changing given their recent bannings.

 

[GIMH]

Hang on, GIMH. You said just yesterday that:



The threads yesterday morning (NZ time) were ****ing annoying, and that's regardless of my opinion of the behaviour from those three over the last couple of months.

That said, I thought a day or two's rest would have sufficed.

Yeah but a few people have told me what was posted, it's hardly a crime against humanity...seeing as you seemed to agree with what I said about the ban length I don't really know why you bothered to pick me up on that.

Not sure what else you would call the creation of 6/7 threads rhyming with "site discussion" all of which contained basically the exact same intial post barring a "theme" change other than spamming. Add to that a couple clear attempts to annoy SS, a clear pisstake of another thread recently created in OT, a few rather obvious attempts to troll people in CC, and the fact that all 3 of them have been warned/banned recently for differing reasons to do with their individual posting habits, and you might see why we were kinda fed up.

The "just move it to Testing forum" argument doesn't really fly either before anyone tries to bring it up, each of them knew what they were doing, and given the fact that despite SS had initially locked/deleted some of the threads, yet they kept on creating them, it's kinda hard to see from our POV that they had any other intention other than being major pains in the arse.

The lengths of sledgers ban is still under discussion, but PF's & Matteh's won't be changing given their recent bannings.

Have it from a very reliable source that SS actively encouraged the creation of the threads about himself

 

[Smudge]

Yeah but a few people have told me what was posted, it's hardly a crime against humanity...seeing as you seemed to agree with what I said about the ban length I don't really know why you bothered to pick me up on that.

Because it's relevant to the discussion when you claim the bans were a bit silly despite not even seeing the threads yourself.

Have it from a very reliable source that SS actively encouraged the creation of the threads about himself

If that's the case, SS should be reprimanded in some way. If that's the case.

 

[GIMH]

Well I spoke for about 3 hours yesterday with a member who saw it all and he told me what was done. I think it's reasonable enough to make a judgement based on that.

As for the SS bit, I'm sure he'll be up front enough about what was/wasn't discussed on messenger.

 

[Cevno]

There were a serious of site discussion,height discussion ,flight discussion and more rhyming threads in the OT all with no particular discussion points.

Then there was a thread titled with Silentstrikers real name and saying he was the most attractive.

There were a couple of threads in the CC too . One saying Darrell hair is the best umpire ever
and with claims that he makes the best decisions.

Clapo i think warned in one thread that if there is any more you will be banned and it yet continued.

And not too forget the series of ham/jam etc... rhyming threads started in the Site discussion forum and also the millstones thread.


Nothing particularly annoying individually for me,but as a collection they were pretty annoying.

 

[Burgey]

There were a serious of site discussion,height discussion ,flight discussion and more rhyming threads in the OT all with no particular discussion points.

Then there was a thread titled with Silentstrikers real name and saying he was the most attractive.

There were a couple of threads in the CC too . One saying Darrell hair is the best umpire ever
and with claims that he makes the best decisions.

Clapo i think warned in one thread that if there is any more you will be banned and it yet continued.

And not too forget the series of ham/jam etc... rhyming threads started in the Site discussion forum and also the millstones thread.


Nothing particularly annoying individually for me,but as a collection they were pretty annoying.

But how is something being annoying grounds to ban someone?

CC wouldn't exist if people were banned cos others find their posts subjectively annoying.

 

[Flem274*]

STFU Burgey.

 

[GIMH]

But how is something being annoying grounds to ban someone?

CC wouldn't exist if people were banned cos others find their posts subjectively annoying.

It's funny because it's true

 

[Cevno]

But how is something being annoying grounds to ban someone?

CC wouldn't exist if people were banned cos others find their posts subjectively annoying.

But then why were you asking for Sir alex to be banned?

And why was Satyam banned ?

Besides i think it wasn't for the fact that it was subjectively annoying but that they were deliberately trying to be annoying and opening these threads despite warnings that they could be banned.
And it was just not just one thread ,but a series of pointless threads all with relatively the same theme without any having a point to make.

The thread on SS also seemed a clear attempt to wind him up,and the threads in the CC were wind-ups too ,though they were less obvious and i though could be acceptable.

And the main point was they knew what they were doing as witnessed by Sledger's continuos references everywhere that he was due a ban and this post he made in GIMH'S PROFILE-

Had several threads locked tonight and several more deleted. Reckon I'll be taking an enforced absence, may even be on it by the time you read this. Will catch you around ****.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/members/geraintismyhero.html#vmessage6319

The threads in the site discussion forums were pointless too(which is supposed to be a serious forum for discussion),and there were a series of posts made ,specially by sledger to annoy some other posters like one too.

Ultimately if they went unpunished then so would those who do that in the future as it would set a dangerous precedent and there is no limit to the series of pointless and inciting threads we would get in all forums.
I think there are some words with whom there can be atleast 10 to 15 other rhyming words if not more

 

[Prince EWS]

Bruce Campbell was banned because he kept creating multiple accounts. He did this before he was banned the first time and continued to do so after he was banned. As far as I know he was never actually banned for the content of his posts.

 

[GIMH]

Don't post messages from my wall please.

But yes, he expected a ban after all, doesn't mean he should have landed 2 weeks.

And to compare it to Sir Alex is laughable. You really do make the most tenuous links to different things.

Finally, as I said earlier, the thread about SS was, I believe, encouraged by SS.

 

[Cevno]

Don't post messages from my wall please.

But yes, he expected a ban after all, doesn't mean he should have landed 2 weeks.

There are posts in other walls too ,he himself saying he was being stupid.

I posted it from your wall because you know he expected to be banned.

And to compare it to Sir Alex is laughable. You really do make the most tenuous links to different things.

Subjectively annoying as you claimed.
Sir alex was also subjectively annoying but sometimes went to the extent of trolling which is also how you could define the series of threads in the night and also the wind up threads started in the CC like darrell hair is the best umpire ever and what not.

Finally, as I said earlier, the thread about SS was, I believe, encouraged by SS.

As Voltman said-

If that's the case, SS should be reprimanded in some way. If that's the case.

Because he went on to close it himself i think.

 

[Cevno]

Bruce Campbell was banned because he kept creating multiple accounts. He did this before he was banned the first time and continued to do so after he was banned. As far as I know he was never actually banned for the content of his posts.

Edited. There are more examples too.

 

[Shri]

VMs are supposed to be private to the members concerned. Respect teh privacy.