A plea for non-discrimination

[GIMH]

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.

No, they have similar opinions. When you read one of their posts, you don't think it's the other one. And you ignored the rest of my post in attempting to make that point.

 

[Cevno]

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.

Can include Teja too.

And they all 3 tend to support South Africa plus make bad predictions too in different measures.

 

[GIMH]

Yes, but none of them write anything like each other.

 

[Athlai]

No, they have similar opinions. When you read one of their posts, you don't think it's the other one. And you ignored the rest of my post in attempting to make that point.

I didn't ignore the rest of your post, I simply made my point clear that it leads us down a dangerous road.

Edit: **** wrong account

 

[GotSpin]

Hmm. Both Athlai and Flem joined in the same year. This is a shut case if you ask me

 

[centurymaker]

this thread will be closed soon IMO

why cant the mods check everyones IPs and move on

 

[BoyBrumby]

this thread will be closed soon IMO

why cant the mods check everyones IPs and move on

Oh, come on.

I'm a confused old man and even I know how to hide an IP.

 

[fredfertang]

Oh, come on.

I'm a confused old man and even I know how to hide an IP.

I dread to think what that makes me then - I'm not even sure what an IP address is let alone how to hide it

 

[fredfertang]

Ignore that - my eldest has just explained - piece of piss innit? - when Ginger_Furball starts posting you'll know who it is

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh, come on.

I'm a confused old man and even I know how to hide an IP.

We had measures beyond IP checking that we use but won't go into for obvious reasons, but we're not going to get into the business of banning new members just because they seem similar to old ones. I find it ridiculous, frankly, that people would call for the banning of a member without any sort of hard evidence of any kind. That Blaze_18 and Avada Kadavra were the same person clearly shows that our common villain is quite capable of posting in many different styles, so banning on suspicion would basically see me turf every new Indian-supporting member.

If you want these members gone, I think you should tackle it from a different angle than "we think they are multis" because it'll get you nowhere without evidence. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, FWIW, that the place could deal with some more common sense regarding the quality of posting from new members, but that would require us to be openly subjective and almost unfair in the interests of overall forum quality, which is something we'd have to have to utmost trust in the community to do. I'm sure we'd get accused of all sorts of biases if we just started banning members for posting what we believed to be provocative trash but short of trolling, as we already get accused of being pro-subcontinent AND anti-subcontinent on a daily basis.

The hardest thing about this place is finding a balance between keeping the quality of the discussion high and giving everyone a completely fair medium to have their say. We don't want to be the opinion police, but I've seen a growing trend of the infractions we've given out following a standard pattern of someone posting a biased or arguably ludicrous opinion (that's genuine, and not trolling) in a patronising way and then someone replying by insulting that poster (rather than the post itself). It frustrates me that some of our (IMO) better members either can't help themselves or don't quite know where to draw the line between attacking an opinion on a specific issue and attacking a member as a whole, particularly as our err less high-quality members seem to get it spot on. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.

 

[BoyBrumby]

We had measures beyond IP checking that we use but won't go into for obvious reasons, but we're not going to get into the business of banning new members just because they seem similar to old ones. I find it ridiculous, frankly, that people would call for the banning of a member without any sort of hard evidence of any kind. That Blaze_18 and Avada Kadavra were the same person clearly shows that our common villain is quite capable of posting in many different styles, so banning on suspicion would basically see me turf every new Indian-supporting member.

If you want these members gone, I think you should tackle it from a different angle than "we think they are multis" because it'll get you nowhere without evidence. I wouldn't necessarily disagree, FWIW, that the place could deal with some more common sense regarding the quality of posting from new members, but that would require us to be openly subjective and almost unfair in the interests of overall forum quality, which is something we'd have to have to utmost trust in the community to do. I'm sure we'd get accused of all sorts of biases if we just started banning members for posting what we believed to be provocative trash but short of trolling, as we already get accused of being pro-subcontinent AND anti-subcontinent on a daily basis.

The hardest thing about this place is finding a balance between keeping the quality of the discussion high and giving everyone a completely fair medium to have their say. We don't want to be the opinion police, but I've seen a growing trend of the infractions we've given out following a standard pattern of someone posting a biased or arguably ludicrous opinion (that's genuine, and not trolling) in a patronising way and then someone replying by insulting that poster (rather than the post itself). It frustrates me that some of our (IMO) better members either can't help themselves or don't quite know where to draw the line between attacking an opinion on a specific issue and attacking a member as a whole, particularly as our err less high-quality members seem to get it spot on. I just don't think I'll ever understand why people seem to get so much more satisfaction out of telling someone they're a **** member than saying a specific post they're replying to is ludicrous, remembering of course that one will get you banned and one won't.

I suppose one man's ludricrous opinion posted in a patronising way is another's blatant troll.

I'm not calling for McCarthyist measures, just a little common sense. When a poster's count is into four figures and it's all too painfully obvious who they are (the fact you'll know who I mean is proof of the pudding IMHO) I think bans should be forthcoming regardless of the lack of an IT papertrail. You aren't making a case for the DPP, just (hopefully) reducing the **** count.

Albeit on a probably temporary basis.

 

[Prince EWS]

I suppose one man's ludricrous opinion posted in a patronising way is another's blatant troll.

I'm not calling for McCarthyist measures, just a little common sense. When a poster's count is into four figures and it's all too painfully obvious who they are (the fact you'll know who I mean is proof of the pudding IMHO) I think bans should be forthcoming regardless of the lack of an IT papertrail. You aren't making a case for the DPP, just (hopefully) reducing the **** count.

Albeit on a probably temporary basis.

We're not going to ban members just because you think you know who they are. I really think the fact that you people think they're multis clouds the issue though. Hell, even I think they're multis, but we're not going to turf people for that unless we're sure.

The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great. "Reducing the **** count" can be done in different ways - as I said, if you want these members gone, press for more discretionary bannings based on post quality; I'll back the community up on that if that's what it wants. The multi thing isn't going to get anyone anywhere though as we're not going to start guessing in that department and it just clouds the fact that a lot of these members are making the forum worse, be they the same person or not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

We're not going to ban members just because you think you know who they are. I really think the fact that you people think they're multis clouds the issue though. Hell, even I think they're multis, but we're not going to turf people for that unless we're sure.

The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great. "Reducing the **** count" can be done in different ways - as I said, if you want these members gone, press for more discretionary bannings based on post quality; I'll back the community up on that if that's what it wants. The multi thing isn't going to get anyone anywhere though as we're not going to start guessing in that department and it just clouds the fact that a lot of these members are making the forum worse, be they the same person or not.

Well I don't want to argue in circles, but to my way of thinking creating multis once permanently excluded makes a mockery of the whole process.

I think CW is a better place for the presence of chaps like Benchy or GIMH and it'd be to its denegration if one of them ****ed the nark and left over this.

There's a whole heap of quality posters who barely visit anymore and still more who give CC a swerve because the atmosphere is more of a twatmosphere.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well I don't want to argue in circles, but to my way of thinking creating multis once permanently excluded makes a mockery of the whole process.

No doubt, but we're not going to do anything unless we're sure they're multis. We're not actively deciding to let multis go; we're just not going to do anything unless we're sure.

There's a whole heap of quality posters who barely visit anymore and still more who give CC a serwe because the atmosphere is more of a twatmosphere.

Indeed, and that's a far more pressing issue. If you want to argue that we have too many members posting garbage and that we should be more liberal with forum atmosphere bans I'll be all ears; in fact I'd personally love it if we had community support for such a thing. Clouding the issue with the fact that you think, but cannot prove, they are multis will just make it go nowhere though as you'll get multi-accusation-based replies from the mod team about a lack of proof, and the fact that they're problematic regardless of who they are at home will get lost in the middle. I'm trying to give you a hint here. There's a way to get stuck in an infinite loop like we just did and there's a way to get something done.

 

[Jarquis]

Forum atmosphere bans ftw (I am aware of the irony that some members will see in this <_<)

As for the multi issue, to me it seems as though the majority of the main forum are happy to run along the lines of "If it looks like a duck and it quacks..." whereas the Mods want DNA evidence..

 

[GIMH]

The fact that we've banned members for being consistently problematic and then new members seem enough like them to cause multi accusations is the crux of the issue, whether they're actually multis or not. Obviously, if you seem enough like a permanently banned member to have me check your IP, your posting probably isn't great.

Okay, and this is what I was getting at this morning, and I said it to the mods in an email, and I said it to you plenty too. I said it all the time about Sir Alex - if 95% of the forum think he's Precam, then what the **** does it even matter what proof there is when Precam was banned for being a **** **** anyway? If they are similar enough for anyone who browses here a lot to know they are the same then Sir Alex is obviously a **** **** who should be banned too.

I used Alex as he doesn't post under that username currently. But plenty of you know with absolute certainty who he is posting as at the moment.

I find it ridiculous that I tried to make this point without pushing too hard and a mod (one I like, btw) comes back by saying Prince EWS and Uppercut are similar. It misses the point, but now that a mod has made my point for me then it's all good.

And the reason I didn't say it more explicitly beforehand? One of the infractions that led to my demise was because I said, in a VM, to a certain member, "why don't you and your 47 multis leave this site." So there you go.

 

[Cevno]

No, they have similar opinions. When you read one of their posts, you don't think it's the other one. And you ignored the rest of my post in attempting to make that point.

Actually seriously Teja and Pews have made quite some similar posts.Probably uppercut too.

Infact i mentioned it in a thread i was disagreeing with both in a while back during the SA tour, i think. HB did too IIRC.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No doubt, but we're not going to do anything unless we're sure they're multis. We're not actively deciding to let multis go; we're just not going to do anything unless we're sure.



Indeed, and that's a far more pressing issue. If you want to argue that we have too many members posting garbage and that we should be more liberal with forum atmosphere bans I'll be all ears; in fact I'd personally love it if we had community support for such a thing. Clouding the issue with the fact that you think, but cannot prove, they are multis will just make it go nowhere though as you'll get multi-accusation-based replies from the mod team about a lack of proof, and the fact that they're problematic regardless of who they are at home will get lost in the middle. I'm trying to give you a hint here. There's a way to get stuck in an infinite loop like we just did and there's a way to get something done.

I ain't no grass, ya slag.

Nah, seriously I suppose it comes back to one's perception of posts and their intent. If you're advocating bans for know-nothing wuckfits who pollute CC then I'm onboard tho. Start a petition and I'll sign it.

 

[Cevno]

That Blaze_18 and Avada Kadavra were the same person clearly shows that our common villain is quite capable of posting in many different styles, so banning on suspicion would basically see me turf every new Indian-supporting member.

But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.

 

[GIMH]

But then i am sure that if he is capable of posting in several different styles as a Indian fans(really different to each other), he is capable of posting as a member supporting another country too. Infact he has apparently tried to do so in the past too.

Also then though this is regarding one specific member who is notorious for this, it's not like the other banned English/Aussie supporting members are not able to create multi's. Infact there have been quite a few new English/Aussie/other supporting members who would also then stand accused for being a multi then.

So what?