Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 0:52:43 GMT 1
Stick yer name down as an 'Admin' then Mr X. Seriously, give it a go.
You seem to have a lot to say about a site that is run by volunteers for our enjoyment so get involved.
Otherwise .... wind yer neck in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 1:06:10 GMT 1
Stick yer name down as an 'Admin' then Mr X. Seriously, give it a go. You seem to have a lot to say about a site that is run by volunteers for our enjoyment so get involved. Otherwise .... wind yer neck in. All or nothing my friend. I've never said a bad word about any admin before in my life. But don't come on here preaching about 'micro managing' whilst selecting who to have a pop at & ban and what illegal activities to let go. Consistency not hypocrisy, that's all I want to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 1:09:37 GMT 1
'Illegal activities' .... ??
|
|
|
Post by kennyk2 on Aug 11, 2017 1:16:19 GMT 1
OK guys and girls please carry on debating for now but at 0800 BST I'll be locking this thread (it would have been moved off topic on Saturday anyway as a non-footballing discussion).
|
|
|
Post by Jello Biafra on Aug 11, 2017 1:17:31 GMT 1
If the behaviour of just ONE man can cause so much discord over such an extended period, despite warning after warning and short-term ban after ban, then isn't the obvious answer to get rid? His continual disregard of whatever rules and/or guidelines that have been in place at the time have forced the admin team into finally reacting to the volume of complaints against him. And about time too. If it were entirely my decision then he'd never be allowed back again. The only 'issue' that I have with his banning (apart from it not being permanent) is that the admins felt the need to draw attention to it with the long, drawn-out explanation - which I think was completely unnecessary. Ban him, say nothing, forget him, job done. Then relax and enjoy all the free time created by not having to deal with all the furore caused by that onanistic attention whore.
|
|
|
Post by philincalifornia on Aug 11, 2017 1:28:19 GMT 1
If the behaviour of just ONE man can cause so much discord over such an extended period, despite warning after warning and short-term ban after ban, then isn't the obvious answer to get rid? His continual disregard of whatever rules and/or guidelines that have been in place at the time have forced the admin team into finally reacting to the volume of complaints against him. And about time too. If it were entirely my decision then he'd never be allowed back again. The only 'issue' that I have with his banning (apart from it not being permanent) is that the admins felt the need to draw attention to it with the long, drawn-out explanation - which I think was completely unnecessary. Ban him, say nothing, forget him, job done. Then relax and enjoy all the free time created by not having to deal with all the furore caused by that onanistic attention whore. Yeah the irony of a prominent poster on here talking about how ridiculous this was when his own breakaway group gave Nick a lifetime ban before he'd even made a post.
|
|
|
Post by philincalifornia on Aug 11, 2017 1:31:01 GMT 1
'Illegal activities' .... ?? Yeah ticket sales. There was a post on here earlier today (yesterday now UK time) where a poster had two at face value, but apparently that's illegal over there (not here in the US). I offered to have the blame on me and risk extradition , but it had to go.
|
|
|
Post by ukumataii on Aug 11, 2017 2:23:17 GMT 1
I get that people are annoyed with Nick's posts,As I've said before they don't bother me I read the links he puts up if I like it or find it informative I comment if I don't,I dont. I can also see why bumping his own threads can be annoying sometimes you just want to say "Nick stop it now, enoughs enough" The one that winds me up is chfromhx or cartorize as he/she calls themselves, Its just constant, but it's a view and I know from the replies some people don't mind so I either try to call him/her out on their bullshit (while trying to keep on topic) or I ignore it. I wouldn't dream of reporting it though for the percentage of people that agree with what chfromhx is saying, however big or small that group is. Let Nick back before Saturday but to appease the haters tell him he can comment but can't start a thread for a month? If he does the ban stands or even double it.
#compromisefornick #letsnotmakenickourmarkhudson #justcopyingzosoandessexterriernow😉
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 3:11:48 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. Why is Dave still banned then? Why hasn't his ban been rescinded?
|
|
|
Post by ozterrier on Aug 11, 2017 3:46:28 GMT 1
Damned if we do, damned if we don't - that's the Admin's lot, and we accepted it when we accepted the role. You guys see the end result and are perfectly entitled to disagree with the action we take. That's your prerogative. If you don't like a decision we make, then we are happy to discuss it and even reconsider it if necessary. One example of this was 3Pipe - he was recently banned, we reconsidered the position, and we substantially reduced his ban. Though he hasn't posted since the ban, he has been at liberty to do so since 2nd August. We are not inflexible, and we bend over backwards to avoid giving people a ban. Hence why the Examiner sub-board was created, for example. However, you see the end and not the steps before that have led to that result. We have attempted to micro-manage this issue for months (the older admin may say it's even longer than that), but there is only so much you can flog a dead horse. If we have gone to the length of creating new sub-boards in order to avoid banning someone, then if they do eventually get banned then the blame lies with the person who persistently (and knowingly) ignores the warnings he is given. The admins' position is very simple. Nick knows what he is doing. Nick knows that what he is doing will provoke a reaction. Even if the inference from the response to his posts wasn't enough, we have explicitly warned him on a great number of occasions. Therefore, if Nick carries on doing what he is doing (as he in fact did) then our view is that he is deliberately trying to wind people up, which is the very definition of trolling. We have done all that we can to try and avoid banning him, and he has continued to take the piss, for which there are consequences. This isn't a sending off for a straight red card offence. This isn't even a sending off for a second yellow. This is a sending off for a player who has committed a number of bookable offences during the match, and whose sending off is his 5th or 6th of the season, even though it is only December. The action taken reflects this fact. Similarly, fair (and public) warning has now been given to the people who deliberately derail threads by criticising the initial poster for their post. Any future action taken in that regard will reflect the fact that fair warning has been given. As to the role of the admin team. We take up the position knowing that we have a significant amount of power. I could, if I wanted to, ban every person who disagrees with us on this thread. I could change their names to something petty like "I <3 Nick 4eva". I could change every post disagreeing with us so that it says "I wish the words existed to describe how wonderful the admins are". I have the power to do that, and more. What's more, this is not a democracy. There is no obligation on the admin team to throw any decision open for debate. If we were so inclined, this board could be our plaything - we could colour it white and yellow, put a picture of Don Revie and Billy Bremner on every thread, and have Marching On Together play automatically when the page loads up. However, we do not do any of those things. Why? Because aside from it being nauseating, and aside from us not having the time, energy, or (frankly) interest in treating this board like we are mini-dictators, it would not be in our interest to do so, even if we wanted to. As I have said on a number of occasions, a messageboard is nothing without the posters. If we treated the board like our plaything, then we would lose all of the posters and be ruling over a pile of ash (one for the GOT fans out there). If a board is successful, with good activity, and generally a good level of discussion, then I consider that is a sign that the admin team are doing something right. It may not be obvious what we are doing, and it may not look as though we are doing anything a lot of the time, but if people are regularly participating on the messageboard and the board is running smoothly then we must be doing something right. One final point, so that I've covered everything I can think of. The word "consistency" is often thrown about if the punishment given to different posters, with different posts, in different circumstances are not identical. The rules are not laws, they are guidelines. The underpinning principle of posting on this board is "do not deliberately do anything that disrupts the enjoyment of the board for others". As such, a post may be a breach of the letter of the rule, but no action taken, because the admin team do not consider it to have deliberately disrupted the enjoyment of the board for others. That is why we will generally not act unless posts are reported/we are PM'd, because the only way we can know if posts are disrupting the enjoyment of the board for others is if they are reported. Therefore the number of reported posts, the number of times a poster is reported, and the number of different people who report such poster, is likely to be relevant to whether or not we take action. If posters are not doing something deliberately, a gently PM reminder will solve the problem. If they are, then they will be repeat offenders, and we will have no option but to take further action. It really is as simple as that. Why is Dave still banned then? Why hasn't his ban been rescinded? Seeing as you've been for quite some time as wagnertheking then we assumed you'd moved on from your Dave (and Des/Reg/Jack) profile(s). If you prefer Dave to wagnertheking or town nut then I'm sure we can make arrangements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 4:29:17 GMT 1
Why is Dave still banned then? Why hasn't his ban been rescinded? Seeing as you've been for quite some time as wagnertheking then we assumed you'd moved on from your Dave (and Des/Reg/Jack) profile(s). If you prefer Dave to wagnertheking or town nut then I'm sure we can make arrangements. Dave should be fine thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 6:00:45 GMT 1
There was another forum set up when some got disillusioned with DATM and I was told that he was banned from joining that one because of his posts on here . Wasn't our very own Mel Smoother part of setting up that break away forum? That would be amusing if so after his comments on this thread Hahahaha, you couldn't make it up! :-D
|
|
|
Post by townandytown on Aug 11, 2017 6:14:02 GMT 1
A day before our first match back in the top flight and this is the most popular thread. DATM has finally disappeared up its own arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 11, 2017 6:18:00 GMT 1
There was another forum set up when some got disillusioned with DATM and I was told that he was banned from joining that one because of his posts on here . Wasn't our very own Mel Smoother part of setting up that break away forum? That would be amusing if so after his comments on this thread I used to post vehemently on here against Nick as well, make no secret of that. What I did though, was recognised that I was being a bit of a knobhead about it all, took a step back, realised that I could quite easily let Nicks comments pass me by without having a pathetic meltdown, and just accepted that in the grand scheme of things, a few mis-spelt words or dodgy thread titles weren't actually going to cause me a life of misery. It really wasn't difficult.
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Aug 11, 2017 6:31:39 GMT 1
It seems a shame that Nick has been banned just before the start of this fantastic new season. For my part I think the guy is completely harmless and although he comes under fire pretty regularly he never resorts to abuse.
I would like to see Nicks ban rescinded so he can join in with this new seasons discussions. The guy seems to me to be a very loyal follower of Town and I personally disagree with such a lengthy ban.I fail to see what all the fuss is about to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Hammy (still in Golcar) on Aug 11, 2017 6:42:47 GMT 1
Hurry up 0800 Hrs (BST)
|
|
|
Post by Marshleeds on Aug 11, 2017 6:49:23 GMT 1
Good point. I don't do Facebook or Twitter too. Simply because I was bored of seeing what people are having for their tea or they've just been to the cinema or how much a packet of potatoes cost. I would be much more intolerant if I read that on my updates. Maybe some folk are overloaded with site from people they know, or know someone vaguely who are 'friends' on a boring narcissistic website and need someone to get their frustrations out on. Nick may be good for your health! Get that anger out guys.😉 Is this the point where I'm talking bollocks and log out for 5 months Just having a cheeky Nando's mate, after cinema, and the potatoes I took, for a snack, cost £1.72. Photos to follow! You ok Hun? .....Inbox me at Wine o clock .....luv my bestie x
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 11, 2017 6:54:03 GMT 1
It seems a shame that Nick has been banned just before the start of this fantastic new season. For my part I think the guy is completely harmless and although he comes under fire pretty regularly he never resorts to abuse. I would like to see Nicks ban rescinded so he can join in with this new seasons discussions. The guy seems to me to be a very loyal follower of Town and I personally disagree with such a lengthy ban.I fail to see what all the fuss is about to be honest. If Nick's ban was to be rescinded purely because the season starts tomorrow then so should Pipes's. It's only fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 6:55:57 GMT 1
Oh I do love a good datm civil war.
Can you tell that we haven't had any football to talk about for a while. Soon enough the Mole Smooth and Mr X's of this world will be able to take out their displaced dissatisfaction on a bunch of athletic twenty year old kids again. ...But until then...helmets on admins!
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Aug 11, 2017 6:56:18 GMT 1
It seems a shame that Nick has been banned just before the start of this fantastic new season. For my part I think the guy is completely harmless and although he comes under fire pretty regularly he never resorts to abuse. I would like to see Nicks ban rescinded so he can join in with this new seasons discussions. The guy seems to me to be a very loyal follower of Town and I personally disagree with such a lengthy ban.I fail to see what all the fuss is about to be honest. If Nick's ban was to be rescinded purely because the season starts tomorrow then so should Pipes's. It's only fair. While I have next to no interest in who is/isn't/gets banned, 3pipes isn't banned now but chooses not to post
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 11, 2017 7:00:17 GMT 1
You can only imagine what he'll look like by 8am after all the attention 😱😁
|
|
|
Post by morrisraspass on Aug 11, 2017 7:00:28 GMT 1
Was previously not in favour of a ban, but logged on last night and six of the eight threads I clicked on were either started by Nick and were bobbins or descended quickly into people defending or slating him. It was pretty frustrating.
The thing is is that it's needless, on both sides. Firstly, Nick can and did post decent stuff, and secondly if only people ignored it the threads would drop right away.
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 11, 2017 7:01:10 GMT 1
Oh I do love a good datm civil war. Can you tell that we haven't had any football to talk about for a while. Soon enough the Mole Smooth and Mr X's of this world will be able to take out their displaced dissatisfaction on a bunch of athletic twenty year old kids again. ...But until then...helmets on admins! Now that you've got Nick banned, you've resorted to trolling me and Mr X haven't you? You're sooooooo mean.
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Aug 11, 2017 7:02:53 GMT 1
It seems a shame that Nick has been banned just before the start of this fantastic new season. For my part I think the guy is completely harmless and although he comes under fire pretty regularly he never resorts to abuse. I would like to see Nicks ban rescinded so he can join in with this new seasons discussions. The guy seems to me to be a very loyal follower of Town and I personally disagree with such a lengthy ban.I fail to see what all the fuss is about to be honest. If Nick's ban was to be rescinded purely because the season starts tomorrow then so should Pipes's. It's only fair. I agree , I think it would be a nice touch to give both of them an amnesty at the start of this special season.
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 11, 2017 7:04:58 GMT 1
If Nick's ban was to be rescinded purely because the season starts tomorrow then so should Pipes's. It's only fair. While I have next to no interest in who is/isn't/gets banned, 3pipes isn't banned now but chooses not to post Pipes is banned until 26th August as far as I know unless the admins have relented
|
|
|
Post by mightytj on Aug 11, 2017 7:05:06 GMT 1
Oh I do love a good datm civil war. Can you tell that we haven't had any football to talk about for a while. Soon enough the Mole Smooth and Mr X's of this world will be able to take out their displaced dissatisfaction on a bunch of athletic twenty year old kids again. ...But until then...helmets on admins! Now that you've got Nick banned, you've resorted to trolling me and Mr X haven't you? You're sooooooo mean. Maybe he will go away, start a new board, reflect, be repentant and return a better man - it's been done before ;-)
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 11, 2017 7:05:48 GMT 1
Thought Pipes ban was over, he just has chosen not to post since it ended?
Pretty sure an admin mentioned that yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 11, 2017 7:12:38 GMT 1
Thought Pipes ban was over, he just has chosen not to post since it ended? Pretty sure an admin mentioned that yesterday. All I know is he told me it was until the 26th, but I've not heard from him much since then
|
|
|
Post by captainblack on Aug 11, 2017 7:13:38 GMT 1
Oh I do love a good datm civil war. Can you tell that we haven't had any football to talk about for a while. Soon enough the Mole Smooth and Mr X's of this world will be able to take out their displaced dissatisfaction on a bunch of athletic twenty year old kids again. ...But until then...helmets on admins! The Nick-Gate saga rumbles on.
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Aug 11, 2017 7:13:41 GMT 1
Thought Pipes ban was over, he just has chosen not to post since it ended? Pretty sure an admin mentioned that yesterday. All I know is he told me it was until the 26th, but I've not heard from him much since then Fair enough. If it is to the 26th, then it would be a bit harsh on him.
|
|