A plea for non-discrimination

[Cevno]

You missed the Greatest Ever Indian batsman thread,imo.

Clear discrimination to Bagapath.

 

[GotSpin]

Didn't know where else to put this, but there are a lot of "extreme" threads in CC at the mo.

Best 'keeper/ batsman
Best Australian quick
Worst ever umpiring decision
Best catch ever
Greatest ever ODI innings.
Best ever Ashes series

They've been made by a number of different usernames too, in recent times. What is the reason for this phenomenon? Anyone know?

What do you mean? We've never had these type of threads before

 

[Fusion]

I really don't get the complaints about these threads tbh. It's not like you're forced to open them and then read/reply. As new members sign on to the site, they will invariably start these type of threads, regardless of whether they've been discussed before or not. There are obviously some members that find them interesting enough to post in them. If you're not psyched about them, then just ignore them. What harm are they causing?

 

[Flem274*]

To expand on Fusion's point, I argue us posters who have seen it all before should use it as motivation to raise a new discussion, rather than expecting a completely new member to do so.

 

[Burgey]

To expand on Fusion's point, I argue us posters who have seen it all before should use it as motivation to raise a new discussion, rather than expecting a completely new member to do so.

I really don't get the complaints about these threads tbh. It's not like you're forced to open them and then read/reply. As new members sign on to the site, they will invariably start these type of threads, regardless of whether they've been discussed before or not. There are obviously some members that find them interesting enough to post in them. If you're not psyched about them, then just ignore them. What harm are they causing?

Sorry I have to spell this out, but since two mods have raised the same point, I feel obliged to clarify.

I don't mind people raising these things again, and I don't believe new members hould be put down for doing so either.

My point is a number of these threads are raised by members whom I suspect are not new at all, and in some cases (though by no means all) are in fact the same person.

The structure of the posts, the cadence of the language etc, make this apparent to me. I may well be mistaken, but there we go.

I had hoped my oblique reference to "different user names" might have twigged it, but tbf it was extremely oblique.

@ Cevno - Bagapath plainly not falling within those to which I'm referring.

 

[Spark]

You're all well within your rights to have suspicions and all, but we're not about to ban people on hunches. That's all I'm saying on the matter, and that's probably where it should end. You all know how we feel about multi discussions.

 

[Smudge]

You're all well within your rights to have suspicions and all, but we're not about to ban people on hunches. That's all I'm saying on the matter, and that's probably where it should end

So there won't be any IP checks?

 

[Spark]

There might, there might not, it's not your concern.

 

[GIMH]

Of course it's our concern!!!!!

 

[Smudge]

There might, there might not, it's not your concern.

Haha, need help climbing down from that pedestal?

If there aren't IP checks made, the moderators aren't doing their jobs. Which might be business as usual. Or it might not.

 

[Prince EWS]

I compare IPs regularly when I think someone is suspicious fwiw.

 

[Smudge]

I compare IPs regularly when I think someone is suspicious fwiw.

Excellent. That's all we're asking for.

 

[GIMH]

Odds on this thread being closed by the end of today? Site 'discussion' doesn't seem an appropriate name for this subforum anymore.

 

[GIMH]

IMO, posters should be banned as soon as they become suspicious. Nobody ever suspects anyone of being a BoyBrumby or Top_Cat multi; two random, excellent posters from the top of my head. Would make the forum a better place. Multis only become suspicious because of ****, anatagonising posting/trolling. Some might say Blaze18 is an example of the contrary but actually his posting was a lot like another famous multi.

 

[Spark]

Excellent. That's all we're asking for.

We're not about to tell you about specific checks, though.

 

[Smudge]

Didn't realise Burgey named names.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Didn't realise Burgey named names.

He named threads which, as a legal man, I'm sure he'd know is tantamount to the same thing.

However his point is well made, one suspects a particular recidivist has been riding roughshod over the "no multis" rule for a couple of years now.

The fact I don't need to name him is a damning indictment, etc, etc...

 

[GIMH]

I can name you four unbanned accounts that I would bet a bollock are all the same person, the person you are no doubt referring to. No doubt there are more as well. I won't name them of course, but Brumby's point is well made.

 

[Flem274*]

IMO, posters should be banned as soon as they become suspicious. Nobody ever suspects anyone of being a BoyBrumby or Top_Cat multi; two random, excellent posters from the top of my head. Would make the forum a better place. Multis only become suspicious because of ****, anatagonising posting/trolling. Some might say Blaze18 is an example of the contrary but actually his posting was a lot like another famous multi.

If we actually did that, CW would be Godwined by the entire internet within a fortnight.

Uppercut posts a lot like PEWS, especially when he first joined. By your logic, we could have banned him.

 

[Smudge]

Uppercut posts a lot like PEWS, especially when he first joined. By your logic, we could have banned him.

I fail to see a downside.