Banned from Soccer forum for "thanks"

_blank_

keane2097 wrote: »

In fairness it was the funniest post I've read in a long time - I for one hope he continues to act the joker.

just a question now I see you in this thread.

were you banned for thanking the post?

keane2097

Des wrote: »

just a question now I see you in this thread.

were you banned for thanking the post?

No.

EDIT: Although I am part of what is hilariously being referred to as "The Pighead Six" as I received a PM saying I was banned along with the other five from GuanYin, but she immediately assured me it was just a copy/paste error and that I wasn't banned.

_blank_

keane2097 wrote: »

No.

I don't actually know which answer would have been funnier tbh.

Pighead

GuanYin wrote: »

Fair is fair Pighead. Why not answer my question.

You were asked straight out by a moderator who had just banned you to clarify why you posted what you did.

You didn't give a straight answer. Why not? Why couldn't you have just said.. look sorry it was a joke instead of referencing some quote where Keane states he intended to hurt someone because he didn't like them. To me that reads as: "I saw a chance, so I took it. If you' hadn't acted like a joker would we be here now? No. So you are the last person in this thread who should be point fingers.

It was more important to you to be funny and keep up the Pighead act than deal with a moderator who asked you a straight moderation question. And here we are.

Pighead thought Xavi knew it was a parody! Thought Xavi had banned him for the foul and crude language. Xavi's a football encyclopedia! Him not recognising the rant was incomprehensible to Pighead.

Obviously Pighead isn't allowed to reproduce PM's but Xavi's question was presented something along the lines of "Fcuk sake Pighead, why do it?" To Pighead this read "Yeah I know you were having a laugh but you can't use that language on the forum and now I have to ban you"

Guan Yin it was late night. There was alcohol consumed. Not so much to make a man lose his sesnses but enough to make him giddy. Giddy like a child on their way to a slumber party. An innocent kind of giddy. Giddy like a man who brings a girl to the cinema and whilst yawning puts his arm around her only to be told by the girl in no uncertain terms to "get your hairy hands of me buster" She won't dump him for his offence but she'll tell him to slow down and try and woo her first.

Obviously that answer won't be to your satisfaction as you don't seem to be the forgiving giddy people type but it's all Pigheads got!

Now, thats Pigheads explanation. What about yours as regards to Pigheads previous post. Did Xavi not tell you it was a parody before you banned all the thankers? Because he did know.

GuanYin

Pighead wrote: »

Pighead thought Xavi knew it was a parody!

post. Did Xavi not tell you it was a parody before you banned all the thankers? Because he did know.

You *think*. I don't think he did.

I believe he asked you simply "Why?" as in why break the rules.

It seems you made an assumption.

My advice to you is simple. Drop the act when you're dealing with bannings and such. Funny has a time and place. If you hadn't assumed or if the matter had been cleared up at the time, we wouldn't be here now.

However, I'm sure some good will come of it all.

Xavi6

Pighead, feel free to post the infraction message I sent you. It seems pretty clear to me that it was an expression of amazement at you posting such a foul mouthed tirade.

Daysha

GuanYin wrote: »

You *think*. I don't think he did.

I believe he asked you simply "Why?" as in why break the rules.

It seems you made an assumption.

My advice to you is simple. Drop the act when you're dealing with bannings and such. Funny has a time and place. If you hadn't assumed or if the matter had been cleared up at the time, we wouldn't be here now.

However, I'm sure some good will come of it all.

Ah here's there's completely no need for that at this stage.

Pighead made a mistake and the mods made a mistake. Debate that if you like, but saying stuff like "but he started it" "it's all your fault" etc will get you nowhere.

monkey9

Can someone post the names of those whose banning is lifted tomorrow and who has to reapply for access next week cos i don't know which one i fall under.
I didn't thank the post as any sort of rebellion. I thanked it on friday afternoon before i i even became aware of this thread simply cos the post cracked me up whilst sitting in work. The first time i knew about any of this was when i saw the pm about my ban on Saturday afternoon.
Am i one of the original six??

Daysha

monkey9 wrote: »

Can someone post the names of those whose banning is lifted tomorrow and who has to reapply for access next week cos i don't know which one i fall under.
I didn't thank the post as any sort of rebellion. I thanked it on friday afternoon before i i even became aware of this thread simply cos the post cracked me up whilst sitting in work. The first time i knew about any of this was when i saw the pm about my ban on Saturday afternoon.
Am i one of the original six??

Good point actually.

Are the mods assuming that every poster that weren't one of the original 6 saw this topic and thanked it just to pi** off the mods? Because thats a pretty big assumption to make.

GuanYin

You'll be unbanned tomorrow monkey9.

Daysha

GuanYin wrote: »

You'll be unbanned tomorrow monkey9.

Good to hear.

And what of everyone else not in the original 6? How have you determined the accidental rule breakers from everyone else?

Pighead

GuanYin wrote: »

You *think*. I don't think he did.

I believe he asked you simply "Why?" as in why break the rules.

He was told it was a parody. Pighead thought he knew. It was a misunderstanding.

In Chinese Buddhism Guan Yin is widely known as a "Goddess of Mercy and Compassion". Be true to your username and forgive Pighead for his terrible mistake.

GuanYin wrote: »

It seems you made an assumption.

An assumption maybe. A much lesser crime than making up lies about a user's PM contents to further your argument. And then when challenged by said user to brush it off with an almost arrogant air of "so what".

GuanYin wrote: »

My advice to you is simple. Drop the act when you're dealing with bannings and such. Funny has a time and place. If you hadn't assumed or if the matter had been cleared up at the time, we wouldn't be here now.

However, I'm sure some good will come of it all.

Pigheads advice to you is also simple. Don't be scared to admit when you're wrong and try doing it with a bit of grace and humility. Also don't be afraid to embrace humour. Don't be afraid to let minor incidents pass or to stick so absolutely with every letter of your precious charter. As Mr Wilde once said:
"It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously.”

Xavi6 wrote: »

Pighead, feel free to post the infraction message I sent you. It seems pretty clear to me that it was an expression of amazement at you posting such a foul mouthed tirade.

You have received an infraction at boards.ie

---

Dear Pighead,

You have received an infraction at boards.ie.

Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)

---

Why do it? Seriously FFS

---

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Xavi6

I think the reason I gave for the infraction and my short message made it pretty clear what I felt the intent of the post was.

Yes it may have been naive on my part to not know what the reference was but that's really not my fault initially.

GuanYin

Pighead wrote: »

He was told it was a parody. Pighead thought he knew. It was a misunderstanding.

By who? Just because it is a parody, doesn't mean it isn't intended. He PM'd you to clarify and you didn't.

In Chinese Buddhism Guan Yin is widely known as a "Goddess of Mercy and Compassion". Be true to your username and forgive Pighead for his terrible mistake.

I'm merely pointing out that you are the last person here who should be appointing blame.

An assumption maybe. A much lesser crime than making up lies about a user's PM contents to further your argument. And then when challenged by said user to brush it off with an almost arrogant air of "so what".

I didn't make up lie. I was wrong if I suggested that deise complained.

In any case, he had given his account here. He said he was happy with the consistancy.

Pigheads advice to you is also simple. Don't be scared to admit when you're wrong and try doing it with a bit of grace and humility. Also don't be afraid to embrace humour. Don't be afraid to let minor incidents pass or to stick so absolutely with every letter of your precious charter. As Mr Wilde once said:
"It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously.”

My advice to you is to learn that "humor is a gift and a power, but like all powers it must be harnessed and used responsibly. Even the jester must know when to speak his mind." - Mencius

You're funny at times, but know the time for it.

jank

Did you report the posts of others calling him it? If not then you can't really complain about any case other than your own

Yes I did report it Xavi6 and I made it clear that I did not want those other posters to be banned for it either. I heard nothing back at all.....

I just had a query about the consistency of rules being applied. In my inital ban I tried to argue the case that what I said was not a flame or wrong. The court of the United Kingdon saw to it that Barton deserved to be called that name for doing what he did. He was guilty of what he did. Therefore I dont think calling him a scumbag was out of order. But rules are rules and some mods dont know the meaning common sense. I accepted the ban and didnt make a **** storm out of it.

TBH I think Pighead is the funniest guy on boards and if this incident makes him less likely to post his funny remarks or outburts in the soccer forum then it would be a great pity on behalf of us all. I think the way this has been handled has done way more harm then good.

But rules are rules:rolleyes:

_blank_

plus one

the way this has been handled, from the outset, by ALL the soccer mods was extremely bad, only one of them has admitted this, and fair play to him for that.

as for the rest of you, it started badly, has gotten steadily worse, and is getting worser.

Daysha

GuanYin wrote: »

In any case, he had given his account here. He said he was happy with the consistancy.

I asked whether you were going to ban them like Killme yes, but that's not the same as suggesting that you should.

And yes it was consistent, but it was the wrong kind of consistency. Overturning Killme's ban (what I primarily suggested in my original PM) would have brought the correct kind of consistency, not banning everyone else to equal Killme.

Daysha

Also, mods:

And what of everyone else not in the original 6? How have you determined the accidental rule breakers from everyone else?

That one's yet to be answered.

_blank_

why is this deise dude being ignored?

suppsoe that will be ignored too.

AlmightyCushion

deise59 wrote: »

Also, mods:



That one's yet to be answered.

I think I remember seeing GyanYin answering this when she said the original 6 would be unbanned. Not too sure as I was only skimming through the thread.

Xavi6

Sorry deise, I don't have the list of who did what exactly so I can't really comment on that.

Daysha

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I think I remember seeing GyanYin answering this when she said the original 6 would be unbanned. Not too sure as I was only skimming through the thread.

No what I mean is, are all of the "unoriginals" going to lose soccer access for deliberately breaking the rules?

Surely there are more cases like monkeys where people just saw the post the following day without reading this thread.

Thanks for the response Xavi. At least there's one mod who knows I exist.

redout

Xavi6 wrote: »

Sorry deise, I don't have the list of who did what exactly so I can't really comment on that.

The pighead 6 are also known as "Dave!, keane2097, Kulgan, opr, redout, The C Kid"

GuanYin

It isn't anyone heres business who is being banned or unbanned. Anyone who had soccer access who is unbanned will receieve a PM about it. If they didn't get a PM, they need to request access to get into soccer. If those who did/didn't get a PM want to share it, that is their business. We're not in the business of posting people's bans in feedback.

redout

GuanYin wrote: »

It isn't anyone heres business who is being banned or unbanned

Sure what if people here are some of the one's banned. Then surely it is their business ?

GuanYin

redout wrote: »

Sure what if people here are some of the one's banned. Then surely it is their business ?

quote the rest of it.... or at least the next part....

redout

GuanYin wrote: »

quote the rest of it.... or at least the next part....

I suppose that I could have but seeing as though the original post is sitting directly above mine and there for the world and its mother to see then there is no real need in fairness.

GuanYin

redout wrote: »

I suppose that I could have but seeing as though the original post is sitting directly above mine and there for the world and its mother to see then there is no real need in fairness.

So was the bit you quoted... but you did leave out the bit that mentioned the people whose business it was and how they'd be informed.... which, in turn, answered the questions you asked so indignantly

Overheal

w00t 600th post \o/

The People Front of Judea this mess. I swear.

redout

Overheal wrote: »

w00t 600th post \o/

The People Front of Judea this mess. I swear.

Technically the 599th reply brother.

w00t 600th reply \o/