• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Richard's jest posts

Status
Not open for further replies.

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
If it was someone else who did it, rather than Richard, this thread wouldn't exist, simple as.

The bigger issue here is that people are systematically having a go at him all the time, which makes CW a worse place to be. I understand that he can push a nose out of joint here and there, but some the criticism he cops is completely unnecessary. In my opinion.
 

James

Cricket Web Owner
All his posts are ****ing awful, but that's just my opinon.
That's completely un-called for, and is hardly the sort of comment you should be making to any member on the site. I bet you wouldn't like it if another member said that about yourself.

You've been warned in the past about your forum behaviour so I would suggest we don't have to have to step in, in regard to a post of yours again.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard, do you think you're funny?
Get over this jest crap its not funny FFS.
Essentially people can't tell when he's kidding or not, which usually is a sign of someone being too uptight most of the time and when they try and be funny then it's usually found wanting.
Or worse, people can think you're being 100% serious. That's something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
Agreed. It's worse than dire Rich. I know you have urges to post at every opportunity
And that's absolute bull****, frankly.
 

alternative

Cricket Web Content Updater
On a slightly unrealted note is swearing in general okay now in the forums? Because clearly ever page has tonnes of swearing in it and nothing is happening with it??

Do we have the new mods so the matters can be ignored or what?
 

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.
 

alternative

Cricket Web Content Updater
The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.
In the past i personally have been given a warning for swearing and i don't see that happening anymore and its freaking ridiculous.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I agree fully, I've never so much as once been pulled-up for posting what's nothing more than a few asterisks. I mean, fair enough if you make a post with 10 of them someone might be justified in saying something, but the notion that anyone was ever told-off for just the odd piece of excercising the filter (which I'm assured, especially by Mitchell, they did) is a mad one IMO.
The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.
Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
HeathDavisSpeed said:
the needless lengthening





of a post





by putting in loa






ds of blank lines






for no real reason



is




even more annoying.
Agreed.

And IMO, Richard, it really isn't hard to use an appropriate smiley to get across when others shouldn't be taking you seriously.
 

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I agree fully, I've never so much as once been pulled-up for posting what's nothing more than a few asterisks. I mean, fair enough if you make a post with 10 of them someone might be justified in saying something, but the notion that anyone was ever told-off for just the odd piece of excercising the filter (which I'm assured, especially by Mitchell, they did) is a mad one IMO.

Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.
The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And IMO, Richard, it really isn't hard to use an appropriate smiley to get across when others shouldn't be taking you seriously.
As I say - I've tried that, more than a few times, and plenty often enough it doesn't work.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.
Insults that include swearing are generally, for obvious reasons, taken as larger attacks than insults with no swearing.

As (as you yourself mentioned once) demonstrated in the differing responses to you and Hing and a similar situation with you (and also Thomas) and Rodgie.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
The only reason I wondered whether some chastisement was coming was because of the insult. It'd have been no different if KiWi had said "that Fuller fool" or summat.
What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.
 

Turbinator

Cricketer Of The Year
Haha another thread for Richard! Richard you lucky... :p.

Anyways, I agree with Vic on the fact that it's much better to use a smiley instead of the "this post was in jest".

Other than that, the "this post was in jest" thing doesn't really bother me much either.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.
:naughty:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top