Beer guts and unfair permanent bans.

Ginny

Regulars start out as new people.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Zulu

takola, any chance you'd pm me an little more detail on what you had access to read? I understand you can't post it here, and I understand of you refuse to PM me, but seeing as I can't actually review it myself, how can I understand if it's a PH gaffe or malicious!

_blank_

GinnyJo wrote: »

Regulars start out as new people.

Truth.

Marcus.Aurelius

GinnyJo wrote: »

Regulars start out as new people.

And new people are telling us it's hard to get into, so the BGRH welcome must have gotten worn out. If there's this many echoing this belief then it's time to change something. But this is off-topic.

5starpool

Des wrote: »

Actually, I quite like Pighead, a sentiment I have expressed to Tom Dunne, Trout and Thaed on more than one occasion, in person.


Without presenting it to the masses you mean.

They are under no obligation to do that, either.

An SMod has looked at the case, and in her last post, would seem to be coming down on the side of the Mods, no?

Had Beruthial looked at the deleted posts that are relevant before replying to Tom's post? It looked to me like she hadn't and was basing her reply at the time solely on Tom's post.

I like pigheads posts and with a ratio of roughly 50:1 (of the ones I have seen) they make me laugh rather than cringe. However, if an smod/amin/wwman scrutinises the posts and decides it is fair enough then I don't think there will be any arguments with it, not that arguments would help.

However, I think the originally intended nature of BGRH should be taken into account. Personally, I think that if a poster can't help themselves but react to some of pigheads posts then it can be their oversensitivity that I would blame rather than anything more than the usual witty comback that Pighead is famous for.

Of course it is not to everyones liking, and is certainly not appropriate in some forums, but in the likes of BGRH or similar, I personally don't see what the issue is a lot of them time. The particular ones mentioned in the OP are nowhere near a banning imo (yes, I know, I can't see the rest etc etc), but it seems that some of the moderating is tainted there with regards to pighead so letting him back in as things stand would nearly be pointless as the same thing would happen again soon.

takola

Zulu wrote: »

takola, any chance you'd pm me an little more detail on what you had access to read? I understand you can't post it here, and I understand of you refuse to PM me, but seeing as I can't actually review it myself, how can I understand if it's a PH gaffe or malicious!

Sorry Zulu, I lose my coke if I give away the sekrits!

mossieh

It's funny to see a mod of an imaginary bar getting in a huff because somebody supposedly broke an imaginary rule in this imaginary bar and then when trying to (badly) defend his imaginary position, use "sure it's only an imaginary bar - calm down" as his (imaginary) parting shot.

Imagine that.

Pighead humour >>>>> Imaginary barmen

Dragan

takola wrote: »

Also, I find it amusing how it's the regulars of BGRH who say it's very welcoming. And tbh guys, you can say that because you've been in there so long that you are now in the inner circle. The fact still stands that BGRH can be very unwelcoming to new people. It's been said by so many posters at this point yet it's just dismissed.

People are saying it. It's obviously a problem for some users. Dismissing it is not going to change anything.

I'm not a regular and i find it welcoming as hell. The people are nice in there and if you post something interesting they will respond, the same as in any other Forum. It has a good community spirit and i think when the same stuff is ignored that would be ignored anywhere else people jump on it a bit more than in other forums.

I post highly sporadically in there and always find the folk welcoming and chatty, i have been to one beers with and everyone in there was amazingly welcoming and friendly, definitely the best beers i have ever been to.

And i am neither a regular nor a "name" poster on boards, so no arguments about regularity of posting or popularity apply in my view.

As for Pighead,

yeah, i have read some of the stuff that was not made available for public consumption i feel that a lot of low was low, callous and have changed my view on Pighead somewhat.

I know happily feel that the ban was deserved.

Earthhorse

Quick question; if Pighead had started this thread, which is now deleted, about any other user would it have been an issue?

Are we now molly coddling certain users because they can't take a joke?

_blank_

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

And new people are telling us it's hard to get into, so the BGRH welcome must have gotten worn out.

Bollox.

Certain people are saying it's hard to get in.

Anyway, what exactly does "get in" mean? Get in where?

Either people post, or they don't. It's not a private forum. Someone actually proposed a private forum, but it was shot down in no uncertain terms by the "regulars".

Just off the top of my head, and I don't want to single out anyone, and I'm sure she won't mind, but here is a user, Join Date 18th May 2008 - two months ago who has become a "regular" with 382 posts in the bar alone.

This example alone must prove that new people are more than welcome in the bar, can and do become regulars in BGRH, and fit in quite nicely.

Again, the suggestion that BGRH is a closed shop to new people is, frankly, bollox.

I think the problem arises when people come along, don't "get" the forum, and subsequently make faux pax's (my jaysis, that's a horrible plural) and get the piss taken, then they go and complain about a "clique".

If there is a clique in BGRH, it's the largest "clique" which accepts new members, that I have ever come accross, tbh.

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

If there's this many echoing this belief then it's time to change something. But this is off-topic.

Nothing needs to be changed, imo.

But if people think coming and accusing BGRHers of being unwelcoming, of operating a private members club, and taking the piss out of how they post, well then, that will get people's backs up.

Ginny

Yes its off topic, but again a few people have said they don't get BGRH, but come to a beers you'll meet loads of new people who beg to differ and their number far outweigh any complaints I've seen. Not every forum is going to appeal to everyone, there's loads of forums I wouldn't step in on Boards, they're not my cup of tea. I accept this, instead of moaning that I don't enjoy them.
I don't particularly enjoy AH these days, I find it extremely immature and cliquish with every second thread descending into a women sizest thread, do I moan, no I read it every now and then and for the most part stay away.
And again, I joined in 2007 but only started posting properly late last year, and BGRH was one of the only places I was welcomed straight away.

Hellm0

I fully support any and all efforts to allow the Pighead to continue to spread his message of mild-moderate insults mixed with witty and often humerous anecdotes.

I have been a member of this site for coming up on 6 years now and I must say that despite my frequent and sometimes lengthly inactivity I have always always found pighead to be funny when I spot his posts and I regularly will read a post merely because I see he has had a hand in it.

Those of you who are calling for a ban may be viewing this from the perspective that he is offensive(to some) sometimes or that he has had enough chances however I really do think that Pighead makes a valuble contribution to the site on a whole, after all do we really want a site comprised entirely of people who make no effort to bring humor to a discussion out of fear of the mod-stick?

H.

Marcus.Aurelius

Earthhorse wrote: »

Quick question; if Pighead had started this thread, which is now deleted, about any other user would it have been an issue?

Are we now molly coddling certain users because they can't take a joke?

Exactly what I was thinking, I'd have thanked you, but my thanks are out.

So thank you.

Dragan

Zulu wrote: »

takola, any chance you'd pm me an little more detail on what you had access to read? I understand you can't post it here, and I understand of you refuse to PM me, but seeing as I can't actually review it myself, how can I understand if it's a PH gaffe or malicious!

Its only on the Mods board for a reason, and is only relevant and being brought up now because it does impact Pigheads banning.

I would in no way make the contents available to anyone because they don't need to see it. A complaint about Mods will be handled by the people who CAN read it an make the required decision. It doesn't really impact anyone else.

Zulu

takola wrote: »

Sorry Zulu, I lose my coke if I give away the sekrits!

Furry 'muff, it's just impossible for us lowly plebs to understand why then.

"There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"

Shiminay

To Earthhorse and Marcus./Aurelius:
Irrelevant question tbh - one man's joke is another's slander.

trout

takola wrote: »

I had a read through the thread that Trout recommended. Most of the links were gone at this point but I have to be honest and say I was fairly surprised at what I seen.

While originally, I read this thread thinking that it was a personal dislike of PH which caused the perma-ban. All of pighead's links backed that up and my experience when I was a regular poster in BGRH were that there was a personal dislike and that the mods always saw the bad side of pighead's posts. I had never found him to be malicious and would never have looked at his posts as trolling to be honest. I find him hilarious.

But after seeing some of the threads he's started and certain posts he's made I can actually understand why the mods would be taking the defensive and why he's been perma-banned. And while I think the 2 posts that broke the camel's back were weak, there is enough there to warrant a perma-ban imo.

I shudder to think of the reaction of a certain someone if he'd seen that thread and am grateful that it was caught so quickly.

thanks for taking the time to follow the Mod thread, and form an opinion based on a more complete understanding of the facts. I hope other mods will take a few minutes to follow your lead.

takola wrote: »

Also, I find it amusing how it's the regulars of BGRH who say it's very welcoming. And tbh guys, you can say that because you've been in there so long that you are now in the inner circle. The fact still stands that BGRH can be very unwelcoming to new people. It's been said by so many posters at this point yet it's just dismissed.

People are saying it. It's obviously a problem for some users. Dismissing it is not going to change anything.

Hard to argue with that, so I won't - if people are seeing BGRH as a clique, then it may well be. Perception is reality. That is a thread for another day. Digression.

The point of this thread is Pighead's permaban.

Zulu

Dragan wrote: »

...It doesn't really impact anyone else.

It was brought up here. You can't blame me for being interested.

Marcus.Aurelius

Des wrote: »

Bollox.

Certain people are saying it's hard to get in.

I'm agreeing with you again Des. I found BGRH grand for myself, no problem getting stuck in, posting in random manly threads and p!ssing about at the bar thread.

I really like BGRH, but I'm a bit concerned about others who find it difficult to get into the swing of things. Maybe they don't get the forum spirit.

Marcus.Aurelius

Kharn wrote: »

To Earthhorse and Marcus./Aurelius:
Irrelevant question tbh - one man's joke is another's slander.

Good point, I can see where people are coming from, but we aren't their nannies.

Dragan

Earthhorse wrote: »

Quick question; if Pighead had started this thread, which is now deleted, about any other user would it have been an issue?

Are we now molly coddling certain users because they can't take a joke?

There is a difference between a joke and what was deleted.

_blank_

Kharn wrote: »

To Earthhorse and Marcus./Aurelius:
Irrelevant question tbh - one man's joke is another's slander.

There's Kharn.

A user who is relatively new/sporadic to BGRH, who I'm sure would say it is very welcoming.

And he is at the other end of the scale as regards time on boards as the poster referenced in my previous post.

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

Maybe they don't get the forum spirit.

That is NOT the fault of those that do get ti, surely.

And it certainly does not warrant the accusations of a closed shop or a clique.

Again, I ay to anyone who thinks there is a closed shop to attend one of the BGRH Beers. In my opinion they are more welcoming and open than any Boards-wide Beers I've ever been at.

tallaght01

I had a read of that "biased moderation" thread in the mods forum. I didn't see anything in there that was anything more than banter. I had a good chuckle at it.

I think we need to to less twisting of knickers around her.

takola

Earthhorse wrote: »

Quick question; if Pighead had started this thread, which is now deleted, about any other user would it have been an issue?

Are we now molly coddling certain users because they can't take a joke?

Nobody on boards is molly-coddled Earthhorse and I can say in all honesty that I have no time for hissy fits and attention whoring.

But I agreed with the thread being deleted and think it first of all, did not belong in BGRH and would be inclined to think that pighead's intention of starting it there was to annoy the mods. It was also abusive and no boards user should have to put up with personal abuse and we as moderators are here to ensure that no users are subjected to personal abuse within our forums and do our best to keep it that way at all times.

Zulu wrote: »

Furry 'muff, it's just impossible for us lowly plebs to understand why then.

"There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"

What dragan said Zulu. It's in a private forum. It will stay there.

I apologise, I know it's annoying for you.

Earthhorse

Kharn wrote: »

To Earthhorse and Marcus./Aurelius:
Irrelevant question tbh - one man's joke is another's slander.

It is relevant if it's used to ban the person who made the joke. I only raise it because the issue of who it was about was mentioned by several mods and seemed to be a deciding factor.

Dragan wrote: »

There is a difference between a joke and what was deleted.

Based on what takola, yourself and the other mods have said, I accept that.

RedXIV

Kharn wrote: »

To Earthhorse and Marcus./Aurelius:
Irrelevant question tbh - one man's joke is another's slander.

Ah but here's where it gets messy doesn't it? As a wise man once said

"Either everything is open to humour, or nothing is"

while i'll agree that thanks to places like lolocaust where certain types of humour are pushed into, I'd strongly argue that you look at intent before action. Even if Pighead's posts (which may i add, are usually magnificently done ) do cut close to the bone, it does appear that Pighead has never maliciously intended to offend.

I could be wrong, i haven't seen everything, but from what i've seen of Pighead, this does generally seem to ring true, making a Permenant ban feel somewhat excessive

Xavi6

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is a difference between lewd and crude which some posters cant' seem to grasp.
BGRH is at times a lewd place but the brothers being gents and laydess being ladies it's not crude.
It's like the difference between burlesque dancers and stippers.
BGRH is a burlesque place not a boredello.

Hillbilly most of pigheads offending posts were softdeleted by my co mods so you can't see them but smods can.

As fantastic as all that is I really, really doubt Pighead's posts are treated the same way as others. If, to use an example, Des had made the comment about the sudacream towards Pighead would he have gotten a ban? My arse he would have.

It's selective OTT moderating at its worst. Yes he's said a few unnecessary things but so what? Why can't he just get the regular one or two week bans like your Average Joe poster instead of this ridiculous ones that chop and change and include polls that reek of bullying?

R0ot

Perma-ban seemed to be the right course of action imo

orestes

I have to say, after initially reading this thread I felt that the perma-ban was a bit harsh, but after reading the thread in the mod forum that Trout suggested, I support the perma-ban.

Those two posts that he was banned for might have been the straws that broke the camels back, but some of his other posts and started threads which were deleted warrant a permenat ban from the forum since he has consistantly proven he can't play nice on there and has been pretty malicious towards certain posters a few times. If you can't play nice in the sand-box, you shouldn't be allowed to play there imo