utility_ banned.

passive

- people who were overly abusive got banned

what most of us are saying are is that he wasn't being overly abusive and in the examples shown people were drawing him out/looking for an argument because they disliked the guy

- people came on here and defended them

well..technically its just him,utility, singular. it seems Dev started the threat to notify us that utility was banned. people just came on here to ask why and voice opinions on it.

- other people (the "Hugz" group according to your chum oeNeo) disagreed with the defense of blatant unpleasant behaviour and said so

hmm..i must have missed the hugz thing, but i think its an overstatement to say they "disagreed with the defence of blatant unpleasant behaviour".
most of the people who agree with the ban are doing so because they think utility's a dickhead and they're glad he's gone. nobodys pointed to anything that earned the guy a lifetime ban (and almost nobody has actually commented on the arguments being made by people defending the "blatant unpleasant behaviour")

- the defenders of the people (yeah I mean you and these others) slag off the "Hugz" group and say that it's all abuse of power, free our people.

Cue broken record of "we don't tolerate behaviour like that" replied to with "it's unfair, fight the power, free our people, xyz"..

but thats just NOT TRUE. thats not whats happening at all! most people who've said anything in defence of utility are doing so in a moderate "well, he didn't really do anything, did he?" kinda way. theres none (or hardly any) of the "free my people, fight the power" crap that you're talking about so its hardly fair to say anything you've just said summarises whats going on

I wish that everyone would stfu on this topic because it's tired and old.Now lets get on with boards again.

this topic isn't stopping anyone from getting on with boards! you've been talking about your pants for the last few pages which, while funny , is very off topic and if you don't want anything to do with this thread then stop posting on it

Trojan

Fair play passive, a voice of reason (no, I'm not taking the piss)

Originally posted by passive
what most of us are saying are is that he wasn't being overly abusive and in the examples shown people were drawing him out/looking for an argument because they disliked the guy

well..technically its just him,utility, singular. it seems Dev started the threat to notify us that utility was banned. people just came on here to ask why and voice opinions on it.

hmm..i must have missed the hugz thing, but i think its an overstatement to say they "disagreed with the defence of blatant unpleasant behaviour".
most of the people who agree with the ban are doing so because they think utility's a dickhead and they're glad he's gone. nobodys pointed to anything that earned the guy a lifetime ban (and almost nobody has actually commented on the arguments being made by people defending the "blatant unpleasant behaviour")

Ok, maybe I've been a bit unfair here. For clarification, there have been at the very least 4 different threads on the topic of "unfair bannings", most of which involved the same posters and discuss the banning of utility as part of a general trend in boards, and not just as a singular incident. Some of these threads were in the (private) Mod forum. It's confusing when reading and replying to them and I've probably gotten mixed up.

My point remains: the "group" who people have unwittingly joined[1] by defending utility are also defending others who have been banned - they are not defending the banees, but the principle that they should be allowed "free speech" (in the American sense, hence the "free-our-people"), including the right to slag off other users. These people are known bullies who have subjected people to emotional abuse. They couch their arguments as "a little bit of slagging never harmed anybody".

The Hugz reference which you missed may have been on another thread - basically it was a pathetic attempt by these guys to ridicule those of us who stood up and said "hang on, you're not going to abuse XYZ and get away with it". This tactic of childish name-calling is a hallmark of the "free-our-people" group.

Now recall, these people are defending utility and calling for the ban to be removed... maybe some of the argument here becomes clearer.

Originally posted by passive

but thats just NOT TRUE. thats not whats happening at all! most people who've said anything in defence of utility are doing so in a moderate "well, he didn't really do anything, did he?" kinda way. theres none (or hardly any) of the "free my people, fight the power" crap that you're talking about so its hardly fair to say anything you've just said summarises whats going on

Hope my points above clarify this - I apologise to those of you on this thread who are innocently questioning *this one banning*, and not involved in the targetted attacks on other users. Unfortunately it's very easy for you to get tarred by the same brush since some of your fellow posters *are*.

Originally posted by passive

this topic isn't stopping anyone from getting on with boards!

I'm not disagreeing, I'm 100% with you there. Talk to Mr. Giblet there, he thinks we don't "know how to do that" now... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by passive

you've been talking about your pants for the last few pages which, while funny , is very off topic and if you don't want anything to do with this thread then stop posting on it

It's not off-topic, it was started by Mr. Tom DeVore himself

--

You wish, Swiss! Cheeky bugger. Although I don't suppose you know 2 gorgeous female members of the community who would like to experiment?

--

Al.


1. Anyone see The Human Zoo on ITV last night? Excellent program.

amp

Any word from the Admins on the Trojan Pants forum? :mad:

Beruthiel

Originally posted by amp
Any word from the Admins on the Trojan Pants forum? :mad:

to quote someone you know very well

what's the rush?

DeVore

Originally posted by ColinM
I have been wondering why you actually started this thread. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to antagonise you, I genuinely have given it some thought, and I haven't been able to decide what the obvious answer must be.

This has been, roughly, my thought process on it so far:
You simply posted to inform anyone who cared to read it that you had banned him.
But then I thought - why would you not just post and immediately lock the thread if it was simply for a statement of fact, as surely no replies would be necessary.

I also thought that anyone who cared would notice from his tagline that he had been banned, so maybe posting that you had banned him was unnecessary. I thought about this, and figured that maybe you were preempting anyone who did notice and decided to start a thread questioning it.

I also wondered why you did not post in whichever thread you felt he had placed his final straw to say that you had banned him, but again I figured that if there were to be any comments on this, you had started this thread as the place for them. Also, as you say later, it was more of an overall opinion you have of him that he is unkind/uncivil/whatever and that perhaps if you had posted that you had banned him in any one thread you may have felt that it would seem unjustifiable, taken in isolation.

So then that lead me to believe that you did indeed expect responses to your announcement that you had banned him.

I wondered whether you wanted responses in order for you to gauge whether you had made a good decision or not. I wondered whether you would assume that you had if you got enough replies lauding you on your decision or if you would figure you must have made an error in judgement if you got enough replies to the contrary.

I have a distinct feeling though that you never posted that you had banned him in order to give the impression that the matter was open for debate (or that the decision was subject to reversal).

So I am just genuinely curious to know why you posted in the frist place.

Actually your implications are pretty unfair Colin, I posted because I generally post a thread on any 50/50 case where I ban people. Its also so that people cant say I just banned dissenters on the sly (which you'll notice, I dont).

I posted for feedback, thats why I didnt lock the thread. I reread my post and I can see that it reads dictatorial, I didnt intend that. I doubt that any decision made in a position such as mine is objective. I think most are subjective but people havent the honesty to say "yeah I did that cos the guy was giving me a pain in my face". Theres always some other excuse made up which is more "socially acceptible".

I dont do that, I'll ban people who p|ss me off more then a couple of times and while you cant do that by insulting or criticising me directly, I get super annoyed when people are blunt rude and uncivil to other individuals. Utility has proven himself to be ignorant and offensive before and thats why I banned him.

I am interested in feedback (why would I create a forum specifically for it if not!). I think your accusation that I'm looking for praise is fairly low and if you knew me at all you'd know I'm not like that. I dont know where you get that idea about me, nor do I know where you get off putting it around that I act like that. I dont know you from Jack.

I have reversed decisions before (Boston, Vac etc). I've accepted criticism and taken it on board but I am not duty bound not to argue with the critics.

If you think that there are others who deserve banning, let me know. I am only human and remember if you spent 30 seconds reading every post on boards you wouldnt have enough time in 24 hours to read 24 hours worth of posts. So I am not omnipresent, but you can bring posts to my attention by that little link on the bottom right.

Which, I might point out to all those people claiming I dont deal with every case equally, none of you have.

DeV.

DapperGent

Originally posted by Trojan
Hope my points above clarify this - I apologise to those of you on this thread who are innocently questioning *this one banning*, and not involved in the targetted attacks on other users. Unfortunately it's very easy for you to get tarred by the same brush since some of your fellow posters *are*.

Only when the person doing the tarring is making a mistake. You're making your own misconceptions sound like someone else's fault.

mr_angry

Originally posted by passive
hmm..i must have missed the hugz thing, but i think its an overstatement to say they "disagreed with the defence of blatant unpleasant behaviour".
most of the people who agree with the ban are doing so because they think utility's a dickhead and they're glad he's gone. nobodys pointed to anything that earned the guy a lifetime ban (and almost nobody has actually commented on the arguments being made by people defending the "blatant unpleasant behaviour")

Well, personally, I quite liked the guy's sense of humour, and while I thought some of the slagging matches he got into were at times quite abusive, you're correct in assuming that they didn't deserve lifetime bans.

However, if you read the post he was actually banned for, I think you'd find it hard to justify unbanning him. Basically, he told somebody who was in an emotionally unstable state that the alcoholic behaviour of their father was entirely their fault, and was rather nasty about doing so. I like a bit of humour as much as the next man, but that was totally unacceptable to me as a sympathetic human being. I don't care what side of this supposed "fence" that puts me on, but I totally support a banning based on that. Whether it should be a lifetime ban or not... well, that's not really something I have an opinion, and DeV has already given his reasons for doing so. I appreciate that you're giving balance to the argument, but I don't see any real evidence for the cause of unbanning him.

Trojan

Originally posted by DapperGent
Only when the person doing the tarring is making a mistake.

I believe I just admitted and apologised for that.

Originally posted by DapperGent

You're making your own misconceptions sound like someone else's fault.

I'm too tired of this thread to give you a fair response, and if I answered the way I feel like doing I'll probably be banned from this forum. So I'll just say this: have a nice day.

DapperGent

Originally posted by Trojan
I'm too tired of this thread to give you a fair response, and if I answered the way I feel like doing I'll probably be banned from this forum.

Trojan my mind's awhirl with thoughts of abuse yet unsaid.

ColinM

Originally posted by DeVore
Actually your implications are pretty unfair Colin, I posted because I generally post a thread on any 50/50 case where I ban people. Its also so that people cant say I just banned dissenters on the sly (which you'll notice, I dont).

I posted for feedback, thats why I didnt lock the thread. I reread my post and I can see that it reads dictatorial, I didnt intend that. I doubt that any decision made in a position such as mine is objective. I think most are subjective but people havent the honesty to say "yeah I did that cos the guy was giving me a pain in my face". Theres always some other excuse made up which is more "socially acceptible".

I dont do that, I'll ban people who p|ss me off more then a couple of times and while you cant do that by insulting or criticising me directly, I get super annoyed when people are blunt rude and uncivil to other individuals. Utility has proven himself to be ignorant and offensive before and thats why I banned him.

I am interested in feedback (why would I create a forum specifically for it if not!). I think your accusation that I'm looking for praise is fairly low and if you knew me at all you'd know I'm not like that. I dont know where you get that idea about me, nor do I know where you get off putting it around that I act like that. I dont know you from Jack.

I have reversed decisions before (Boston, Vac etc). I've accepted criticism and taken it on board but I am not duty bound not to argue with the critics.

If you think that there are others who deserve banning, let me know. I am only human and remember if you spent 30 seconds reading every post on boards you wouldnt have enough time in 24 hours to read 24 hours worth of posts. So I am not omnipresent, but you can bring posts to my attention by that little link on the bottom right.

Which, I might point out to all those people claiming I dont deal with every case equally, none of you have.

DeV.

Hey Devore,
just because I don't agree with you on this doesn't mean I don't respect you and your opinions. I admire your honesty, and the fact that you recognise that (like anyone) your opinions and decisions are subjective. I admire that you at least try to be objective. I admire that you have the integrity to realise that there is the possibility that you could be wrong. Most people never develop the maturity to do that.

So anyway, if I'm reading you right, you are saying that this is a matter which is open for discussion, and it is possible to change your decision. If that's the case, let me know and I'll see if I can argue successfully why I think I'm right and you're wrong.

However, that may still be a waste of my energy, as even if I manage to convince you that you made a mistake, there's no reason to suppose that Utility would want to spend any more of his time here.

I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have over the weekend, so don't dispense with this thread in the meantime.

Cheers for now,
Colin.

passive

Basically, he told somebody who was in an emotionally unstable state that the alcoholic behaviour of their father was entirely their fault, and was rather nasty about doing so

umm...i can't seem to find that?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135786
are you talking about that thread there?
if so: yes he is out of line but what you're describing doesn't apply to what he got in trouble for at all. are you referring to something else? (i'm not being a smartass, i was about to explain my understanding of his posts on that thread before realising how completely different your post is, thus leading me to believe you mean something else)

eth0_

THAT is supposed to be offensive? What utility_ said there was pretty nice, I thought. Where exactly did he say it was the original posters' fault that his dad was a soak? Where?
Why can't you people just come out and quote/tell us in your own words what he said that was so bad, or else stop wasting everyone's ****ing time.

the_syco

LET THE BANNING'S BEGIN
Seriously, he proberly deserved it. If DeVore got pissed off with him, s/he must've been crossing DeVore's path a bit.

"Because he runs the forum and sets the rules Admin has the power to pull the plug on any Warrior who gets a little too frisky" quoted from here

bizmark

i love that fecking site

Gordon

Although utility_ was helpful and unhelpful on PI, I think that thread in question (etho_) was to do with not his helpfulness but his aggressiveness

quote "Even though he basically agreed with what I said?

You are some moron..."

quote "You basically said exactly what I said u fúcking spa."

Although Buffybot was at major fault also and has been warned and temp banned from PI. The fact that utility was perm banned from PI was because he has been previously unhelpful and aggressive and warned for it.

As for the banning from boards, I think it was a cumulative experience including PI's informative aggressiveness.

mr_angry

I think the post in question may have been deleted actually - you can see some quoting going on relating to posts that don't actually appear in the thread. Either that, or I'm going mad.

Sangre

Originally posted by Trojan

My point remains: the "group" who people have unwittingly joined[1] by defending utility are also defending others who have been banned - they are not defending the banees, but the principle that they should be allowed "free speech" (in the American sense, hence the "free-our-people"), including the right to slag off other users. These people are known bullies who have subjected people to emotional abuse. They couch their arguments as "a little bit of slagging never harmed anybody".

What the Fúck are you talking about? This thread is the exact opposite of what you're waffling about. This has nothing to do with free-speech at all, we aren't 'defending' utility, we are asking why he was banned, is it all clear now?
I rathered utility was banned then have some other unmentionables come back.
Like I said before if you dont care, we dont care and we really dont want you posting stating that fact.
Free-speech? weirdo.

Sangre

Tbh.

[22:16] <vronsky> maybe a hostage exchange utility_ for ronaldo7

Atreides

I have to agree with Trojan on this

Lafortezza

We should seriously consider the utility_ <-> Ronaldo7 exchange, we could possibly throw in newband as well.

ykt0di9url7bc3

I disagreed with par from banning him from the CS board...

I really think its a personality clash combined with a short fuse...but he's young and may learn from his mistakes...

utility needs a leash not a spanking imho...

sorry to say that i'll miss him if he stays gone....hopefully there can be some comprimise laid out....

Pepe LeFrits

Originally posted by Sangre
Tbh.

[22:16] <vronsky> maybe a hostage exchange utility_ for ronaldo7

/me nods

Makaveli

Originally posted by lafortezza
We should seriously consider the utility_ <-> Ronaldo7 exchange, we could possibly throw in newband as well.

And half the soccer board.

peterk19

Come on lads this is getting old now just bring him back on probation cause i miss him too i found him funny
Pete

DeVore

Originally posted by SearrarD
I disagreed with par from banning him from the CS board...

I really think its a personality clash combined with a short fuse...but he's young and may learn from his mistakes...

utility needs a leash not a spanking imho...

sorry to say that i'll miss him if he stays gone....hopefully there can be some comprimise laid out....

hey, I didnt spawn him. He's not my kid so I dont have to put up with his childish outbursts. For those of you saying that its unfair to ban him when others are equally obnoxious I'll say this:

I'm not omnipotent. I do have to sleep and this Januarary has seen me in Dublin for a total of about 4 days until this week. A few slaps *are* going to be dished out as soon as I get a chance to review a few people's "contributions" to this community.

Regarding Utility_ if he really does want to post and will cease the petulant and childish outburst then he can sign up again and noone will ever be any the wiser.


DeV.

blondie83

He prob desevrved a temp ban but not a perm one. I know I'm still relatively new on boards, and as such you're not really going to care what I think, but I've looked through some of his posts, and I think you may have been a bit harsh - just my opinion, I admit I haven't read them all, and I may be wrong. A lot of ppl didn't like utility cos he spoke his mind and was rude, but he made things interesting, and you need a few ppl like that around.
You quoted 4 examples where he was "rude", but the only abusive one of those was the last one where he called someone a bitch because she posted asking for advice on how best to hurt someone and make them feel bad. Admittedly (sp) he prob shouldn't have spoken like that, because people don't appreciate that sort of language here, but think about what she said.

Just my 2c, please don't flame me for it:ninja:

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by DeVore
hey, I didnt spawn him. He's not my kid so I dont have to put up with his childish outbursts. For those of you saying that its unfair to ban him when others are equally obnoxious I'll say this:

I'm not omnipotent. I do have to sleep and this Januarary has seen me in Dublin for a total of about 4 days until this week. A few slaps *are* going to be dished out as soon as I get a chance to review a few people's "contributions" to this community.

Regarding Utility_ if he really does want to post and will cease the petulant and childish outburst then he can sign up again and noone will ever be any the wiser.


DeV.

i get your point