|
|
Post by henseventea on Apr 23, 2012 0:20:07 GMT 1
Whilst he's not done anything which is against the rules of this board, the vast majority who've read the thread in question (myself included) seem to be in agreement about the total lack of humility and respect shown by this poster. And yet, DATM Travel agent is clearly breaching part 19c of the terms of service of this site and should be immediately banned. |
|
rocho
Junior Terrier
Posts: 64
|
Post by rocho on Apr 23, 2012 0:23:40 GMT 1
Speaking as someone who has been nominated for the ban for speaking my mind I`d just like to say that if a person was actually banned from DATM would it be such a bad thing? Also if the person could actually be bothered then wouldn`t it be quite easy to set up another profile using another email address? Quite funny that certain folk think DATM is the holy grail! Cue the ban shyted brigade! Haha great post, some of these f***ing idiots would rather chop there arm off than be away from this sh*t board for a day!! Good to see all the usual ar*e lickers ganging up on someone who has a different opinion |
|
dowd
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 888
|
Post by dowd on Apr 23, 2012 0:31:52 GMT 1
Whilst he's not done anything which is against the rules of this board, the vast majority who've read the thread in question (myself included) seem to be in agreement about the total lack of humility and respect shown by this poster. And yet, DATM Travel agent is clearly breaching part 19c of the terms of service of this site and should be immediately banned. Thats from the 16th Edition  please catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by OperationPig on Apr 23, 2012 0:32:42 GMT 1
I'd ban him, this forum doesn't need anymore wums, they are bringing this site down! however i voted he stays!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by henseventea on Apr 23, 2012 0:58:12 GMT 1
And yet, DATM Travel agent is clearly breaching part 19c of the terms of service of this site and should be immediately banned. Thats from the 16th Edition please catch up. No honestly, click the link down the bottom, his username is clearly a breach of the prohibited use condition of the terms of services that are legally binding for use of this site. |
|
|
|
Post by JackHudd on Apr 23, 2012 1:18:04 GMT 1
Speaking as someone who has been nominated for the ban for speaking my mind I`d just like to say that if a person was actually banned from DATM would it be such a bad thing? Also if the person could actually be bothered then wouldn`t it be quite easy to set up another profile using another email address? Quite funny that certain folk think DATM is the holy grail! Cue the ban shyted brigade! Haha great post, some of these f***ing idiots would rather chop there arm off than be away from this sh*t board for a day!! Good to see all the usual ar*e lickers ganging up on someone who has a different opinion. A good argument eloquently made  |
|
|
|
Post by 3 pipe problem on Apr 23, 2012 2:01:07 GMT 1
Takes the heat off Lee Clark I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Apr 23, 2012 6:55:55 GMT 1
Those terms of service are brilliant. I'm breaching a few myself. I particularly like the one that says I can't use ad blocking software, but being the complete fecking rebel that I am...I DO!!!!!!!!!!
DATM Travel Agent...you've got a load of polls you need to set up here.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedchippington on Apr 23, 2012 7:48:41 GMT 1
I go to bed and its 50-50, i wake up and its overwhelmingly in favour of giggity. Either the pissheads have come home and pressed the wrong button or giggity successfully lured the australian vote.. The problem we have now is that by voting him back we are giving mr delusional maverick boy a mandate to carry on being dull
|
|
|
|
Post by Venezuelan_Pete on Apr 23, 2012 8:48:58 GMT 1
You can't just ban someone for making a daft comment
|
|
|
|
Post by Steel Panther on Apr 23, 2012 8:57:16 GMT 1
You can't just ban someone for making a daft comment But you can ban someone for making an abusive or threatening one, so the fact that this kid 'rocho' still has an account is an epic failure on part of the admin team |
|
|
|
Post by grimois on Apr 23, 2012 8:59:05 GMT 1
God, couldn;t we have merged this with all of the otehr "giggity is a c*ck" threads? Just saying like....
|
|
|
|
Post by fnd on Apr 23, 2012 9:22:47 GMT 1
I go to bed and its 50-50, i wake up and its overwhelmingly in favour of giggity. Either the pissheads have come home and pressed the wrong button or giggity successfully lured the australian vote.. The problem we have now is that by voting him back we are giving mr delusional maverick boy a mandate to carry on being dull Nearly spat my tea out laughing |
|
|
|
Post by ben1142 on Apr 23, 2012 9:24:35 GMT 1
I am locking this as it serves no Purpose. He opinion and view frankly sicken me. However holding a differing opinion against the main should never result in a ban. It would very quickly become a dead board if people were banned for holding a different opinion were banned every time. That is the way of fundementalism.
With regards to rocho, well after his previous outburst he was given a ban for a few days. It seems he's come back and cannot control his mouth or his abuse of other posters. I have temporarily banned him as I am currently on the south east medertieran and dealing with this while in the back seat of a car driving along the costal road.
Will discuss the situation with the Admins later.
Regards
Ben.
|
|
, no chance of retreat!
