Ban announcements

[Prince EWS]

This thread has really grown some legs overnight...

You actually missed most of the real fun, when Sanz and Pratters were posting.

 

[silentstriker]

LOL SS - just spoke with sledger now. He said he didn't agree with the ban but cbf to make a fuss because it's so short (i.e what I suggested previously). Not quite the duration is fair enough hey.

His exact words to me were, "I'm not too fussed about 2 weeks away, probs fair enough". I don't know how else to take it.

 

[GIMH]

Burgey's rants appear to have been removed from this thread. Crime against CW.

 

[Smudge]

You actually missed most of the real fun, when Sanz and Pratters were posting.

I caught a glimpse of whatever was left. Spicy to say the least.

 

[GIMH]

The Burgey rants were his best ever, no mean feat. Absolute CW gold, every word true as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Shall do - but just so you're aware, even if sledger himself feels two weeks was reasonable doesn't myself, Burgey, Pothas (etc) have to agree....if you think sledger's crime was proportionate to Sir Alex's, you're obviously less bright than you come across. Don't mean to keep banging the same point like but it's true.

TBF, the mods are the ones who have to clean everything up when people decide to have a piss-about. I mean, it's not like closing a few spammish threads in site discussion is going to give them RSI. But the basic point is that if you don't give people bans for that, then it's reasonable to assume that it's going to keep happening and you'll have to spend chunks of your own time following them around closing their threads. And if people decide that a one week ban is worth it, then it's pretty fair to give a two week ban to stop it from happening.

From the outside I think it's all just mildly amusing, but if I was a mod I just could. not. be. ****ed. I'd probably just ban someone for good as soon as I had to spend thirty seconds of my pretty little life closing their threads. Why should I bother? That's why I'd be a terrible mod. No patience.

But then I'd also have banned Sir Alex ages ago, with no attempt at moral justification whatsoever, just because I think the site's much worse when he's around. There's no rule against simply being an awful poster. Maybe there should be. Could totally save CC.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's no rule against simply being an awful poster. Maybe there should be. Could totally save CC.

That's basically what the forum atmosphere rule is there for. If we believe the forum would be significantly better without someone because of how they post, they'll be banned.

 

[GIMH]

LOL, the seven or eight of you must be the only ones who don't think getting rid of Sir Alex would improve forum atmosphere.

 

[Jarquis]

There's no rule against simply being an awful poster. Maybe there should be. Could totally save CC.

This, it's James's site and ultimately it doesn't have to be a complete democracy. But the only issue is when you bring subjectivity into it is that just because posters A,B,C and E thing posted D is woeful. Others might not.
Whether the forum would be in the state it's in now if certain posters weren't here might be worth considering. What's clear to see is if it carries on as it is, it won't get better anytime soon.

 

[Furball]

LOL, the seven or eight of you must be the only ones who don't think getting rid of Sir Alex would improve forum atmosphere.

**** me you talk so much ****. A sackful of ****, one might say.

 

[Furball]

TBF, the mods are the ones who have to clean everything up when people decide to have a piss-about. I mean, it's not like closing a few spammish threads in site discussion is going to give them RSI. But the basic point is that if you don't give people bans for that, then it's reasonable to assume that it's going to keep happening and you'll have to spend chunks of your own time following them around closing their threads. And if people decide that a one week ban is worth it, then it's pretty fair to give a two week ban to stop it from happening.

This. A thousand times this.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's basically what the forum atmosphere rule is there for. If we believe the forum would be significantly better without someone because of how they post, they'll be banned.

Hmm.

Think that would actually be a great policy if it were implemented. You'll get a lot of brickbats thrown from the cheap seats but some of the gasher posters have really dragged CC down and, whether directly or indirectly, have cost us some of our very best cricket posters.

Think it's time to stop pretending CW is a democracy and get totalitarian on our arses.

 

[GIMH]

**** me you talk so much ****. A sackful of ****, one might say.

and i thought we were buddies

 

[Furball]

Hmm.

Think that would actually be a great policy if it were implemented. You'll get a lot of brickbats thrown from the cheap seats but some of the gasher posters have really dragged CC down and, whether directly or indirectly, have cost us some of our very best cricket posters.

Think it's time to stop pretending CW is a democracy and get totalitarian on our arses.

Do that and people start getting precious about over-zealous moderating. It's a lose-lose situation on here.

 

[Furball]

and i thought we were buddies

Nah, that's not scheduled to happen until November 5th.

 

[Jarquis]

In order to progress sacrifices must be made. /Stalin

 

[Agent TBY]

Do that and people start getting precious about over-zealous moderating. It's a lose-lose situation on here.

Ban dire posters. Leave harmless threads alone.

It's not a lose-lose situation unless you make it so.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm.

Think that would actually be a great policy if it were implemented. You'll get a lot of brickbats thrown from the cheap seats but some of the gasher posters have really dragged CC down and, whether directly or indirectly, have cost us some of our very best cricket posters.

Think it's time to stop pretending CW is a democracy and get totalitarian on our arses.

I must say, I find the argument that Sir Alex should be banned on forum atmosphere grounds a lot more compelling than "he's a troll" or "he's Precambrian" even though I personally don't really mind his posts. That rule is why aussie is currently banned; do people really believe Sir Alex detracts from the atmosphere of the forum as much as aussie did at the end?

 

[GIMH]

Ban dire posters. Leave harmless threads alone.

It's not a lose-lose situation unless you make it so.

Hammer. Meet head of nail.

 

[GIMH]

I must say, I find the argument that Sir Alex should be banned on forum atmosphere grounds a lot more compelling than "he's a troll" or "he's Precambrian" even though I personally don't really mind his posts. That rule is why aussie is currently banned; do people really believe Sir Alex detracts from the atmosphere of the forum as much as aussie did at the end?

There have been so many people who've openly stated it in both this thread and mine. Others who have more politely implied it. I have spoken to people off forum who think he should be gone. Ex-mods, staff members, normal posters. He has to go, just has to.