• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ban announcements

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
There is a difference between creating pointless thread after pointless thread to create trouble and creating a random thread which is 'off topic' in off topic. My thread on my dog was after repeated requests by a few Australian members for a fair time and wasn't totally pointless ftr.
 
Last edited:

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Nobody was having a go at you Mr Defensive, just quoting the example Burgey used.

Point is there were a few of us having a mess about in the Ham thread, so it's no more pointless than your thread.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
There is a difference between creating pointless thread after pointless thread to create trouble and creating a random thread which is 'off topic' in off topic. My thread on my dog was after repeated requests by a few Australian members for a fair time and wasn't totally pointless ftr.
Yeah, I think that's what a few people are missing. There's a big difference between creating one thread that's a piss-take of another one or something like that in Off Topic, and having about ten of them started at once to basically spam the place.

Furthermore, there's absolutely no excuse for just ignoring a moderator's instructions. "I don't think I should have to do that" is certainly not a valid excuse. Clapo warned them to stop doing and they kept doing it anyway. From where I sit it'd be ban-worthy even if Clapo had told them to stop discussing cricket and they failed to do that - if a mod tells you to do stop doing something, you stop doing it.

Lets face it - they all knew they were going to get banned for it. They just thought it was worth it. No point complaining about it at all.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Nobody was having a go at you Mr Defensive, just quoting the example Burgey used.

Point is there were a few of us having a mess about in the Ham thread, so it's no more pointless than your thread.
Well if the Ham thread, like his thread, was posted in Off Topic and as one rather than four threads of the exact same ilk, it'd probably still be around too...
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
LOL @ everyone complaining about people protesting the ban when no-one has said they shouldn't have been banned, way to take an argument out of thin air

2 weeks is way excessive however, completely ridiculous
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Well if the Ham thread, like his thread, was posted in Off Topic and as one rather than four threads of the exact same ilk, it'd probably still be around too...
If I make a thread about my lovelife in CC, fairly sure it will just get moved to OT instead of deleted....

Point about the other threads may be fair enough Cribbage, haven't argued otherwise
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I think you should be given at least 2 months if you are purposely doing it to get yourself banned. With a track record like sledger, given the number of times he has been banned, it should be perma. He has been creating nonsense threads for a fair while now.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I think you should be given at least 2 months if you are purposely doing it to get yourself banned. With a track record like sledger, given the number of times he has been banned, it should be perma. He has been creating nonsense threads for a fair while now.
Hasn't been banned for over a year 8-)
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I think you should be given at least 2 months if you are purposely doing it to get yourself banned.
While I don't agree with the specific timeframe of two months at all, I again think you have a point here. If we have members doing things they know they'll get banned for but just elect to do anyway because they believe it'll be worth it, it shows that the ban lengths we typically deal in are too lenient for the members in question.

Essentially, we have to create a deterrent deterring enough to... deter.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
While I don't agree with the specific timeframe of two months at all, I again think you have a point here. If we have members doing things they know they'll get banned for but just elect to do anyway because they believe it'll be worth it, it shows that the ban lengths we typically deal in are too lenient for the members in question.

Essentially, we have to create a deterrent deterring enough to... deter.
Yeah 2 months is just a figure, can be longer or shorter. You put things the way I was thinking.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
While I don't agree with the specific timeframe of two months at all, I again think you have a point here. If we have members doing things they know they'll get banned for but just elect to do anyway because they believe it'll be worth it, it shows that the ban lengths we typically deal in are too lenient for the members in question.

Essentially, we have to create a deterrent deterring enough to... deter.
Honestly, I never realised how ****ed the priorities of the mod team were until I read this post. Creating idiot threads is clearly a capital offence. Much worse than 9 months of baiting two nationalities (that's what it took!!). He's just one such poster that it took months for you all to vote yes on. Honestly, what the **** is wrong with this place?
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, I think that's what a few people are missing. There's a big difference between creating one thread that's a piss-take of another one or something like that in Off Topic, and having about ten of them started at once to basically spam the place.

Furthermore, there's absolutely no excuse for just ignoring a moderator's instructions. "I don't think I should have to do that" is certainly not a valid excuse. Clapo warned them to stop doing and they kept doing it anyway. From where I sit it'd be ban-worthy even if Clapo had told them to stop discussing cricket and they failed to do that - if a mod tells you to do stop doing something, you stop doing it.

Lets face it - they all knew they were going to get banned for it. They just thought it was worth it. No point complaining about it at all.
Setting aside your point about being warned (which I accept), we await with interest the closure of the 60 nearly identical threads that pop up every fortnight in CC but which, for the moment at least, seem to at the very worst get merged rather than closed. Why didn't someone just merge what they did into one thread, for example? Look I'm not a moderator and maybe it's a hard job, but it's not like merging threads entails picking up four different piles of bricks and having to heave them together to produce a two storey mansion, is it?

I just fail to see the harm in what was done, frankly. Christ knows when I was pissed off about the turgid spate of "vs" threads in CC earlier this year, I was told to just ignore them. And please, spare us the "they offered the site something" argument. They offered the site a reduction in membership was about all.

It's off topic ffs.

Anyway, whatever. I suppose we agree to disagree.

Of course, if the approach of "you've had your say, I've had mine, let's agree to disagree" was actually something encouraged and/ or enforced in CC, then it wouldn't be the steaming pile of **** it mostly is now, and there would surely be a few less members.

Whether that would be a good thing or not isn't for me to say, but there's no shortage of irony that, as a staff member I hardly go into CC anymore to post because it's a cesspit, yet blokes throw a few silly things together in OT and get rissoled. Says something about where priorities lie I suppose.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Setting aside your point about being warned (which I accept), we await with interest the closure of the 60 nearly identical threads that pop up every fortnight in CC but which, for the moment at least, seem to at the very worst get merged rather than closed. Why didn't someone just merge what they did into one thread, for example? Look I'm not a moderator and maybe it's a hard job, but it's not like merging threads entails picking up four different piles of bricks and having to heave them together to produce a two storey mansion, is it?

I just fail to see the harm in what was done, frankly. Christ knows when I was pissed off about the turgid spate of "vs" threads in CC earlier this year, I was told to just ignore them. And please, spare us the "they offered the site something" argument. They offered the site a reduction in membership was about all.

It's off topic ffs.

Anyway, whatever. I suppose we agree to disagree.

Of course, if the approach of "you've had your say, I've had mine, let's agree to disagree" was actually something encouraged and/ or enforced in CC, then it wouldn't be the steaming pile of **** it mostly is now, and there would surely be a few less members.

Whether that would be a good thing or not isn't for me to say, but there's no shortage of irony that, as a staff member I hardly go into CC anymore to post because it's a cesspit, yet blokes throw a few silly things together in OT and get rissoled. Says something about where priorities lie I suppose.
Merging two threads takes about three seconds FTR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top