Beer guts and unfair permanent bans.

tallaght01

tallaght01 wrote: »

I agree. The "straw" should be actually something that's against the rules. Not a harmless post about sudocream!!

tbh wrote: »

medical advice tho? :P

A good point, tbh. My pet hate, and I never noticed it!

To the abbatoir with him

dr.bollocko

orestes wrote: »

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

Didnt someone in AH imply today that you had super aids?
Did they get perma banned?

Boggles

orestes wrote: »

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

Haha, when the mod of the stand-up-comedy forum doesn't find pighead funny, you have to ask yourself who picks some of these bloody mods!!!

:D:D

Bubs101

orestes wrote: »

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.

Mod forum? Any chance of a link there? I promise I'll forget all about the Storm incident;)

In fairness to Pigman, regardless of all the other things that he had done, he was still banned for an absolute throw away comment and I think he should be let in, even if it is just for the mods to wait for a reasonable reason to throw him out. It's the principle

meditraitor

Pighead is wrong.

The mods are right.

TerrorFirmer

Super Lame thread. Outside, fresh air and sunshine for everyone!

Des

Des wrote: »

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.

Will do^

I am an easy going bloke & I love my booze so I don't see why I don't have an interest in a forum of the type BGRH is but from my own experiences & from this thread in particular it just doesn't look the laugh it should be. I am probably wrong of course but that's just my opinion at the moment. Probably best off peering in one of these days during work & see if I can get stuck in , but as I said before - not just me that feels this way! Pighead is designed to just take the piss out of people so I just can't see why he couldn't fit in, in a forum like BGRH.

EDIT ~ I obviously can't see what Pighead had said in the deleted posts so I could also be wrong about that.

jaykay74

orestes wrote: »

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

Maybe he should have been banned at the time of those deleted threads then. I think it would have been easier to argue for the banning at that point. All a question of timing.

GuanYin

I'm very confused.

In a forum where there seems to be a standing rule that no serious conversation is allowed and where the mod has spoken on a podcast claiming that he personally mocks and makes fun of posters who post serious threads, a user has been perm banned for trying to be funny and not being serious?

Honestly, from the outside looking in, my impression of the forum is that it is moderated by a clique of the highest order who resort to bully tactics when they want to oust someone such as this and the wonderful show of Ireland's biggotry that they led in feedback last week.

Earthhorse

Bubs101 wrote: »

In fairness to Pigman, regardless of all the other things that he had done, he was still banned for an absolute throw away comment and I think he should be let in, even if it is just for the mods to wait for a reasonable reason to throw him out. It's the principle

jaykay74 wrote: »

Maybe he should have been banned at the time of those deleted threads then. I think it would have been easier to argue for the banning at that point. All a question of timing.

I agree.

_blank_

GuanYin wrote: »

a user has been perm banned for trying to be funny and not being serious?

Not for "not being serious", rather constant sniping, trolling and goading of users of the forum.

IMO.

TequilaMockingBird

So, if I'm getting this right, Pighead wasn't banned for the comments he made about sudocrem, he was banned for something else he did, which only mods can see. When he asked to re-admitted it was then decided it was a permanent ban?

Riiiiight...

DenMan

There is a fine between what can be said in the bar, i.e what you can get away with and what you an be shot down for. I, myself was recently involved in an incident with another poster (who happened to be not from Ireland). Suffice to say the matter was well and truly sorted out between us. It was just a combination of harmless banter and cultural misunderstandings. Then an entire thread was put up here and another hotly debate ensued.

It seems to be an entire build up of other posts which led to Pighead's expulsion. On it's own it would have been harsh but he was warned constantly and the Mod's felt that he wasn't adhering to the charter. As Judge Dredd said the punishment is life imprisonment. And of course the perps plead innocence and Dredd always knows they always say that. The point is if you do not adhere to the guidelines you will be punished. If you continue to ignore the warning a simple suspension can easily turn into an expulsion even though it may be the last thing a Mod wants to do. Sorry dude, the jury decided your fate.

Den

Dinter

Earthhorse wrote: »

I agree.

Me too.

It seems very unfair that moderators can use the "straw that broke the camels back" as a defence for a perma ban.

That's basically an admission that what was done at the time did not warrant a perma ban so we'll add on all this other stuff that we didn't find a big deal at the time. Basically makes it ok to trawl through people's posts until there's enough evidence to dump a user.

Crock of the highest order.

Pighead should have either got banned at the time if this "secret" evidence was so dreadful.

Lining up behind his perma ban and claiming it's a de facto, legitimate course of action is an admission of sloppy moderation and looks like they failed to rein him in at the time and so went after him with a vengeance after the event.

I can't see why they'd hide behind this most specious of excuses.

trout

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm very confused.

Have you read the thread in the Mod forum ?

GuanYin wrote: »

In a forum where there seems to be a standing rule that no serious conversation is allowed and where the mod has spoken on a podcast claiming that he personally mocks and makes fun of posters who post serious threads, a user has been perm banned for trying to be funny and not being serious?

No, that is not the case. Again, I urge you to read the thread in the Mod forum.

GuanYin wrote: »

Honestly, from the outside looking in, my impression of the forum is that it is moderated by a clique of the highest order who resort to bully tactics when they want to oust someone such as this and the wonderful show of Ireland's biggotry that they led in feedback last week.

There is no clique, of any order high or low, either among the BGRH mods, or in the forum at large. This point was even made by the OP of the last feedback thread on this topic.

Tom Dunne

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm very confused.

You are more than confused, you are not in possession of the full facts.

GuanYin wrote: »

In a forum where there seems to be a standing rule that no serious conversation is allowed and where the mod has spoken on a podcast claiming that he personally mocks and makes fun of posters who post serious threads, a user has been perm banned for trying to be funny and not being serious?

Honestly, from the outside looking in, my impression of the forum is that it is moderated by a clique of the highest order who resort to bully tactics when they want to oust someone such as this and the wonderful show of Ireland's biggotry that they led in feedback last week.

Ah yes, bullies, bigots, cliques, BGRH has them all. Nothing like the soccer forum.

sueme wrote: »

So, if I'm getting this right,

Nope, you are not. See comment above about not being in posession of the full facts.

It's context, people, it's all about context. There is a lot of one-sided comments here, a lot of them out of context. And as I said earlier, I would love to dedicate more time to this, but I have Real Life things to tend to.

_blank_

^

How the hell does such a n00b know so much about BGRH?

Oh yeah, because he was welcomed to it, and he only joined in June...

Yeah, major clique and closed shop there folks.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Boggles

Tom Dunne wrote: »

You are more than confused, you are not in possession of the full facts.

Why don't you give the full facts?

DenMan

The world has gone Slightly Bonkers Des...:)

See you in the bar later.

kmart6

Maybe everyone should get to see ''the full facts'' as you put it to see what all this is about! Otherwise this thread isn't going to go anywhere!

Cuddlesworth

trout wrote: »

No, that is not the case. Again, I urge you to read the thread in the Mod forum.

By alluding to the mod forum as a reference you are not helping the case of clique's and mod conspiracy's.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how offensive were the worst of the soft deleted pighead posts? Surely it would have made more sense to outlay them as the reason for the permaban via pm to pighead when he asked why, rather then choose convenient posts he made leading up to the ban.

smashey

This thread sure is thirsty work.

Hey Pighead, I was in the bar just now and managed to sneak you out a pint.

tallaght01

sueme wrote: »

So, if I'm getting this right, Pighead wasn't banned for the comments he made about sudocrem, he was banned for something else he did.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Nope, you are not. See comment above about not being in posession of the full facts.

.

Beruthiel wrote: »

trout
To be fair, I cannot give a clear over sight at this moment.
Not until I know if two of his bans were for the two comments he highlighted, the ones I quoted in my first comment in this thread (page 2)

.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

The ban was for a culmination of those two posts and prior posts. .

My head hurts. I do have sinusitis at the moment, though.

Boggles

tallaght01 wrote: »

My head hurts. I do have sinusitis at the moment, though.

I think it is a case of "quick find some past dirt on pighead and post it quickly before we are found out"

6th

Pighead was not perma banned for the thread that was deleted he was perma banned for the 2 comments that have been posted at the start of this thread.

After that thread that was deleted his next ban should maybe be a perma but it doesnt look like he did anything worthy of a ban. It looks like the foot chance that came up he got a perma ban, mods should lift the ban and wait for him to do something which is actually ban worthy.

Doctor DooM

I drift in and out of BGRH whenever I want. I am never made feel less than welcome, and often have a good laugh.

I always did, before anyone shouts mod conspiracy.

I read trouts thread recently and TBH I can see the BGRH mods point of view. Some of the deleted posts are very nasty, and it could be argued one in particular is set out to make a sensitive poster lose his head. It might of been funny but it was definitely cruel.

That said I often find Pigheads posts amusing. I was suprised at the nastiness of that particular post.

The mods have made it clear this is not about those single instances, but about a continued derailment of what BGRH is about.

I guess the question here is about community. does the BGRH community suffer with Pighead, or without him?

jaykay74

6th wrote: »

Pighead was not perma banned for the thread that was deleted he was perma banned for the 2 comments that have been posted at the start of this thread.

After that thread that was deleted his next ban should maybe be a perma but it doesnt look like he did anything worthy of a ban. It looks like the foot chance that came up he got a perma ban, mods should lift the ban and wait for him to do something which is actually ban worthy.

Thats how it looks alright. He should either have been perma banned previously or they should have waited for a more ban worthy offense.

6th

The person never saw the thread which wouldnt make a difference if it wasnt for the fact that worse things get said were they'll never see them.

TequilaMockingBird

tallaght01 wrote: »

My head hurts. I do have sinusitis at the moment, though.

I'd prescribe 500mg of Anti-Repetitive-Unresolved-Complaints-in-Feedback.

I'm on a high dose of it myself.

6th

jaykay74 wrote: »

He should either have been perma banned previously or they should have waited for a more ban worthy offense.

Quoted coz you said it in a simpler way than me.