mustard madness

ecksor

No, just the last one. I don't appreciate some little ginger troll saying I have a mustard fetish.

shoutman

ecksor wrote:

No, just the last one. I don't appreciate some little ginger troll saying I have a mustard fetish.

Ha ha now this definately must be a piss take. I'm starting to think that the majority of poker forum regulars posting on this thread are being stitched up good and proper.

Terry

ecksor wrote:

No, just the last one. I don't appreciate some little ginger troll saying I have a mustard fetish.

Hey!
No ginger bashing, please.

shoutman wrote:

Ha ha now this definately must be a piss take. I'm starting to think that the majority of poker forum regulars posting on this thread are being stitched up good and proper

Well, they are superior to most other users.

RasTa

Isn't being a ginger = lifetime ban?

cooker3

Free the mustard 3!!

hullaballoo

ecksor's policy seems sensible from a punitive point of view: why would you ban someone from the Mustard forum if they don't care whether or not they have access to it? They can just go back to posting in the poker/whatever forum the next minute and forget about the Mustard forum.

If you ban them from all of the other forums as well, then they don't have that luxury.

He'll probably correct me on this but it seems like the product of algorithmic thought.

ditpoker

cooker3 wrote:

Free the mustard 3!!

FREE THE MUSTARD THREE!!!

redzerdrog

there is other forums apart from poker:eek:

phantom_lord

redzerdrog wrote:

there is other forums apart from poker:eek:

yeah, but don't worry about it, they're not important.

Imposter

I've just one question. Why isn't Mustard a subforum of Food and Drink?

Asok

Because it is more than some "food or drink"

LuckyLloyd

Ugh, reading this thread made my head hurt.

- I was banned for 24 hours along with three other poker forum posters because I participated in an obvious p!sstake on the mustard forum. I didn't imagine that anyone outside the poker forum would read or give a damn about the thread in question. I was wrong - Ecksor sees all (and was sharp enough to crack our code - lol). Believe me when I say that I shall not "mess with the mustard forum" again.

- Other regular contributers jumped into the mustard forum thereafter, posting in an attempt to be humorous and lighthearted. Ecksor didn't see the joke, again viewed their actions as contraventions of site rules and dealt out harsher bans.

- Cardshark complained about the situation in a tone that was not particularly apologetic or grovelly and got dealt the bad beat of a three month ban for "trolling".


The debate here about the relative weight of different forums or posters is beside the point. Ecksor reckoned that punishment was warranted, and it was delivered. Whether I agree with him or not doesn't really matter (Boards isn't a democracy after all). I would assume that the purpose of the punishments was to make it clear to all that the mustard forum is not to be trifled with. I can confirm that a one day ban was enough for me to get the message - I shall not darken it's door again.

As such, I would suggest to Ecksor that the fuss that has been thrown up about what has gone on so far will make it clear to everyone that sincere mustard related posts are all that are welcomed in that forum. I would be fairly certain at this point that Hectorjelly, Rounders and Solkjsear will not feck with that forum again and understand that taking the p!ss in low traffic forums carries the real threat of a permenant site ban. Therefore, given that the bans and your actions have served their purpose, maybe you could lift them please?

Cardshark's case is slightly different. But I would be very surprised if he said too much more about the whole thing were you to welcome him from exile at this point also. The fact that he is a regular contributer to the poker forum may not matter to you; but I for one shall miss his imperious one - line pieces of advice that are generally delivered as if they are canon law.


My ultimate point is that you have made your point. Quite clearly. Unbanning everyone and locking this thread now would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Ecksor.

Beruthiel

I missed you Jerry

Bustard

Yo ECKSOR 100% out of order.

Take the tampax out of your gee and get your ****in act together.

breadmonkey

Bustard wrote:

Yo ECKSOR 100% out of order.

Take the tampax out of your gee and get your ****in act together.

Oh dear. I hope this isn't HJ or Cardshark (very much doubt it).

Bustard

breadmonkey wrote:

Oh dear. I hope this isn't HJ or Cardshark (very much doubt it).

it aint its an angry oppressed agitator

hullaballoo

Bustard banned for being a twat.

Cuddlesworth

Bit harsh, I quite liked the cut of his jiblets.

Terry

hullaballoo wrote:

ecksor's policy seems sensible from a punitive point of view: why would you ban someone from the Mustard forum if they don't care whether or not they have access to it? They can just go back to posting in the poker/whatever forum the next minute and forget about the Mustard forum.

If you ban them from all of the other forums as well, then they don't have that luxury.

He'll probably correct me on this but it seems like the product of algorithmic thought.

That is the impression I got from his post earlier in this thread.
Quite right too.

mike65

LuckyLloyd wrote:

mustard not to be trifled with

Indeed. Tastes as bad as it tastes.

Mike.

sikes

hullaballoo wrote:

If you ban them from all of the other forums as well, then they don't have that luxury.

He'll probably correct me on this but it seems like the product of algorithmic thought.

A logical course of action would be to ban them from all forums bar the one(s) they add to in a constructive manner.

ecksor

So what's the deterrent from making unconstructive contributions?

scojones

ecksor wrote:

So what's the deterrent from making unconstructive contributions?

A public lashing with a poo covered stick?

sikes

ecksor wrote:

So what's the deterrent from making unconstructive contributions?

A ban from all forums they don't contribute to. By banning them site wide, you are penalising the posters in the forum(s) where they post who are going to lose out on their contributions.

ecksor

I think you misunderstood the question or else I'm completely missing what the deterrent is. Anyway, you're just going to have to take one for the team.

Crucifix

God, I love a good feedback thread.

amp wrote:

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

DeVore

Sikes, not really a deterent to the villian nor to anyone else.

In general:
I find the comments about not being able to ban poker players because poker is a big forum which makes us money, quite funny. Most of you werent around for when we shut the Counterstrike forum (then the biggest forum) or the Soccer forum (quite active too) or refusing several thousand from Eircom for an ad that misbehaved or indeed when Cloud banned most of the South West of the country to stop one muppet from cybercafes.

You may be mistaking us for rational people who care about money.

Now, the people involved should know better and should leave well enough alone. They wouldnt stand for the one of the religious forums coming in and making trouble in the poker forum. Nor would we allow that.

Im not sure what justification they have offered up for acting the tits on Mustard but Boards isnt their playground. Next thing we know we'll have having invasions of one board by an opposing board for "laffs and giggles".
Mutiply by 500 forums = Chaos.

The bans have been commuted to more "reasonable" lengths and I dont see any problem tbh. Also, if you are going to enter into a "mess fight for laffs" make sure the other person isnt taking it seriously and has a gun.

DeV.

hullaballoo

sikes wrote:

A logical course of action would be to ban them from all forums bar the one(s) they add to in a constructive manner.

Please! Don't stop there. Do me the honour of explaining how that's the logical course of action.

It strikes me that my logic was potentially too advanced for you. It works like this:

You have spammed a forum in which you have no interest.

I have two options:
1. I can ban you from that forum.
2. I can ban you from all of the other forums.

If I ban you from the forum in which you have no interest, to what extent will you be pushed either way? None. (There, I even answered a rhetorical question for you.)

If I ban you from all of the other forums, you won't have the luxury of posting in the forum that you prefer. You also won't have the luxury of posting in any other fora that you may decide is worthy of your wit or rhetoric.

You are, therefore, penalised for the offence.

If I am missing a logical step, please fill me in.

sikes

DeVore wrote:

Sikes, not really a deterent to the villian nor to anyone else.

Certainly this is true. And perhaps a shorter ban for the forums they post to could be made though it would very much depend on what had been done.

DeVore wrote:

You may be mistaking us for rational people who care about money.

Well as long as you see my point of view!

sikes

hullaballoo wrote:

Please! Don't stop there. Do me the honour of explaining how that's the logical course of action.

You seem to be missing my point, though its pretty irrelevant as Dev has pointed out.

hullaballoo wrote:

It strikes me that my logic was potentially too advanced for you. It works like this:

You have spammed a forum in which you have no interest.

I have two options:
1. I can ban you from that forum.
2. I can ban you from all of the other forums.

If I ban you from the forum in which you have no interest, to what extent will you be pushed either way? None. (There, I even answered a rhetorical question for you.)

If I ban you from all of the other forums, you won't have the luxury of posting in the forum that you prefer. You also won't have the luxury of posting in any other fora that you may decide is worthy of your wit or rhetoric.

You are, therefore, penalised for the offence.

If I am missing a logical step, please fill me in.

My main point to this, which has gone completely off topic, and one which I have repeated on several times, is that from an $$ point of view it would be bad business practice to remove the highest posters and best contributors to a forum, if its at all avoidable.

But this is what my argument boils down to, people who have high post counts and are big contributors should be treated differently to others. For them a slap on the wrists and a banning from all other forums bar the ones they post in for your first infringement, then progressively get more severe for subsequent offences, perhaps would be enough of a deterrent, but i dont know as I dont have any experience about bannings and spammings etc.

If you cant see what Im getting that then fair enough, this site, as has been pointed out, isnt run by "rational people who care about money" so most of what I have said is pretty irrelevant.