mustard madness

sikes

Boston wrote:

It's pretty clear whats going on here. You think you and the banned users are big shots because your tiny part of boards.ie is a) popular with some admins and b) relates to something that potentially generates money. As such you should be allowed special treatment and free rein. Is that pretty much it?

This is a pretty pathetic post on many levels. First of all, could you please not make this personal. Theres no need to tell me what I think. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.

I will repeat myself, in case you have missed my point. I think posters who post in high volume and are major contributors to any forum, should have special treatment ahead of one with a low post count or not contributing.

I have no idea how much the poker forums generate, but purely from a business point of view, it would be bad practice to remove the best posters from a high traffic forum if it were avoidable.

If you wish to reply, can you please quote me so I can see where you are drawing you assumptions from so I can clear up any misunderstanding.

Boston

Ibid wrote:

FFS stop for once.

He/she/it thinks it's unfair that people/tribes/nations get sitebanned for three months for trolling on a single forum. I imagine ecksor is having a bit of laugh and knows that's unfair too. Whether he's going to cut the ban short or continue the joke by creating his pet forum a Defended Zone of Zero Penetration, who's to know.

From what I remember, this isn't the first time Ecksor has site banned people for messing about on his forum. Maybe it's a laugh maybe not, but things like "WE MAKES YOU DA MONEY" are more then likely going to just piss people off.

Boston

sikes you've been around long enough to know you shouldn't call peoples post pathetic. No more talking to you...

RasTa

Well the poker forum is more important then the mustard form. fact. Don't see why they just can't be banned from that.

sikes

Boston wrote:

sikes you've been around long enough to know you should call peoples post pathetic. No more talking to you...

I have been around long enough to know that you should attack the post not the poster. Thats what I did.

Boston

You know, I'm going to stop posting on this, with people like RasTa there making the case, I'm sure Ecksor will unban the users in question any year now.

Skies, pathetic people make pathetic posts.

opr

Boston wrote:

pathetic people make pathetic posts.

QFT

Opr

sikes

Boston wrote:

Skies, pathetic people make pathetic posts.

If thats your belief..

RasTa

Grand cya so Boston. No case to be made, it's so black and white.

Gordon

Colonel Mustard - lol.

phantom_lord

maybe I;m a little off here cause I spend the vast majority of my time in poker where we don't deal with this kinda stuff, but is boston not trolling in this thread?

Terry

sikes wrote:

I will repeat myself, in case you have missed my point. I think posters who post in high volume and are major contributors to any forum, should have special treatment ahead of one with a low post count or not contributing.

So do you think that I should have preferrential treatment over you?
How many posts constitute a high post count?
How do you know that a new user knows nothing about a specific subject? They might be an expert in the field, yet you seem to think that you are better than them because you have a higher post count.
Boards.ie is a benevolant dictatorship. Remember that and you'll be fine.

Lafortezza

lol, are they really banned for 3 months? Can someone link to the ban list?
edit: found it.

Date of Ban  	Banned Tard  	Date of Ban Lift  	Reason  	Righteous Admin
18-02-2007, 4:49 	cardshark202 	18-05-2007, 4:00 	Trolling. 3 months. 	ecksor
18-02-2007, 12:04 	rounders123 	18-03-2007, 12:00 	Banned. One month. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:52 	Hectorjelly 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:33 	Solksjaer 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor

ShoveAllIn

Faith wrote:

I just visited the Poker forum for the first time, seeing as it's been in Feedback so much recently. It's like a different world! Full of numbers and words that make no sense!

There goes my belief that I vaguely understood the game .

I dont know what is more funny. your eagerness on yousuckassness.

Its all good.

faith for super Smod....

ShoveAllIn

lafortezza wrote:

lol, are they really banned for 3 months? Can someone link to the ban list?
edit: found it.

Date of Ban  	Banned Tard  	Date of Ban Lift  	Reason  	Righteous Admin
18-02-2007, 4:49 	cardshark202 	18-05-2007, 4:00 	Trolling. 3 months. 	ecksor
18-02-2007, 12:04 	rounders123 	18-03-2007, 12:00 	Banned. One month. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:52 	Hectorjelly 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:33 	Solksjaer 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor

He likes it that way. best to leave it alone.

shoutman

Its ridiculous that someone is site-banned for three months for posting in an admins "pet forum" as Boston put it.

Its plain and obvious to see. Some people posting on this thread are reminding me of my girlfriend during that time of the month.....

sikes

Terry wrote:

So do you think that I should have preferrential treatment over you?

If we were to do a scoring system whereby we take into account post counts as the major factor, obviously you would come out top.

Terry wrote:

How many posts constitute a high post count?

I haven't thought this through enough to make any guidelines, and I don't have any data to draw those conclusions.

Terry wrote:

How do you know that a new user knows nothing about a specific subject? They might be an expert in the field, yet you seem to think that you are better than them because you have a higher post count.

I'm not sure where these idea of betterness came from. I hope it wasn't from me. But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

Time Magazine

sikes wrote:

But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

In fairness, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Boards isn't a for-profit company. They're only Boards Ltd so that they could claim www.boards.ie. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have any formal structure.

For the sake of the community, you're treated just like everyone else.

Now of course some common sense is applied here. If somebody trolls with their post they'll be nuked straight away. If you or I trolled, you'd be banned from that forum and maybe get another slap on the wrist. But that's the only postcount discrimination. From what I can see, there is a bit of a gradient for non-established posters (<100 posts, or no articulate posts etc).

You are not your postcount. You are not your join date.

Terry

sikes wrote:

I'm not sure where these idea of betterness came from. I hope it wasn't from me. But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

Well you say that your are more valuable than a new member and that, to me, reads that you somehow feel you are superior to these people.

sikes wrote:

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

I banned a moderator from a forum that I moderate the other day.
He has a postcount similar to mine.
you break the rules, you get a ban. Simple as that.
I actually tend to take it easier on newer members as sometimes they haven't gotten the feel of the place. This isn't always the case. Sometimes a New member can be a complete ****tard and I'll ban them right away, but that is more the exception than the rule.
Some of the people I have banned have ended up being very valuable contributors after having their ban lifted.

It's all about quality and not quantity.

amp

This thread is stupid. Let's bring on the pictures of animals.

sikes

Ibid wrote:

In fairness, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Boards isn't a for-profit company. They're only Boards Ltd so that they could claim www.boards.ie. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have any formal structure.

They have to pay costs and they do that by selling ad space I assume. So I think its pretty relevant the points I am making. The people who make the most posts, are the ones that generate the traffic.

Ibid wrote:

For the sake of the community, you're treated just like everyone else.

This isn't true at all. Different length bans are handed out for the same crime. The lengths are dependent on who the poster is.

Ibid wrote:

Now of course some common sense is applied here. If somebody trolls with their post they'll be nuked straight away. If you or I trolled, you'd be banned from that forum and maybe get another slap on the wrist. But that's the only postcount discrimination. From what I can see, there is a bit of a gradient for non-established posters (<100 posts, or no articulate posts etc).

Ah so we agree?

Ibid wrote:

You are not your postcount. You are not your join date.

We are not solely those things to the community but they make up a large part of who you are. They are the most tangible and easily calculated.

sikes

Terry wrote:

Well you say that your are more valuable than a new member and that, to me, reads that you somehow feel you are superior to these people.

In what sense do I come across as thinking Im superior? I can't just think I am superior full stop. That doesn't make any sense. I have a superior value to boards than a new member, yes.

Terry

sikes wrote:

They have to pay costs and they do that by selling ad space I assume. So I think its pretty relevant the points I am making. The people who make the most posts, are the ones that generate the traffic.

Plenty of people just read and do not post.
Do you disregard these people?

sikes wrote:

This isn't true at all. Different length bans are handed out for the same crime. The lengths are dependent on who the poster is.

The reason behind that is some people have been banned before and a second bannable offence calls for a longer ban.
It also depends on the reason for the ban.

sikes wrote:

In what sense do I come across as thinking Im superior? I can't just think I am superior full stop. That doesn't make any sense. I have a superior value to boards than a new member, yes.

Hehe.

Amp, I'm not too familiar with the gathering card thingy. Surely there is one for this occasion.

sikes

Terry wrote:

Plenty of people just read and do not post.
Do you disregard these people?

I wouldn't disregard them, they read the posts so view the ads. Perhaps if we set up a system where we track IPs too to see how much they read boards. However, its the ones that post that give these people something to read, so again they are more valuable.

Terry wrote:

The reason behind that is some people have been banned before and a second bannable offence calls for a longer ban.
It also depends on the reason for the ban.

This is very true, but I assume there are no guidelines for how long someone should be banned for, for example, trolling, and if they are they are certainly not followed.

Terry wrote:

Amp, I'm not too familiar with the gathering card thingy. Surely there is one for this occasion.

Am i getting a prize?

Time Magazine

amp wrote:

This thread is stupid. Let's bring on the pictures of animals.

Lafortezza

ecksor

shoutman wrote:

Since when has trolling in one forum required a site wide ban?

I adopted the policy a few years ago of removing access from things that people actually wanted access to in return for messing around forums that they thought were a joke because they felt they were being amusing. It was the only thing that deterred the behaviour.

Can you people honestly tell me that the Mustard forum is not in someway a joke? Thats like having a salt forum of a tabasco sauce forum, it makes no sense and the vast majority of people (I would assume) who post in said forums must be taking the piss.

Tabasco sauce is on topic on the Mustard forum.

oscarBravo

RasTa wrote:

Well the poker forum is more important then the mustard form. fact.

"Fact"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

ShoveAllIn wrote:

I dont know what is more funny. your eagerness on yousuckassness.

Its all good.

faith for super Smod....

Am I alone in thinking that was completely uncalled for under the circumstances?

ecksor

No, you're not.

phantom_lord

was cardshark site banned for theee months for his two posts in this thread?