Terrier69

[impact]

What "spam" have they been banned for? He/she posts a lot of links but they all seem at least fairly relevant to me.

[El Mel]

A few posts deleted but everything else seems well within the rules of the board.

Strange one.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

They were regularly posting, without comment, irrelevant tweets on threads that they had no business being on. These were reported. They were warned once in August, continued so got a yellow, and continued again so got a second yellow.

[impact]

I couldn't see a great deal, loads of twitter links but everything pretty relevant, unless some posts have been deleted?

Seems pretty OTT to me given some of the posts which are on various threads and add absolutely nothing to the discussion, and given the amount of shit we had to put up with of Nick's nonsense in the past.

[El Mel]

A case of an over-sensitive poster who doesn't like the Twitter links, and is repeatedly hitting the 'report post' button then?

[Solihull Terrier]

He was a massive spammer, plenty asked him to stop, couldn't understand why he just carried on doing it.

[impact]

Oct 1, 2020 7:32:48 GMT 1 Solihull Terrier said:

He was a massive spammer, plenty asked him to stop, couldn't understand why he just carried on doing it.

In what way was he spamming?

[Solihull Terrier]

Oct 1, 2020 14:37:48 GMT 1 impact said:

Oct 1, 2020 7:32:48 GMT 1 Solihull Terrier said:

He was a massive spammer, plenty asked him to stop, couldn't understand why he just carried on doing it.

In what way was he spamming?

As others have said, posting random twitter links that had little relevance to Town or the topic at hand. That said it never bothered me enough to report him.

[impact]

Oct 1, 2020 14:45:39 GMT 1 Solihull Terrier said:

Oct 1, 2020 14:37:48 GMT 1 impact said:

In what way was he spamming?

As others have said, posting random twitter links that had little relevance to Town or the topic at hand. That said it never bothered me enough to report him.

I know he posts a lot of twitter links but the vast majority are about the topic at hand.

Banning for a week for posting twitter links seems ridiculous.

[Deleted]

Gratefull thanks for all the above messages of support guys.

I don't consider myself a spammer and I always thought my posted twitter links were relevant.

Some posters disagreed - which is their right.

I have NEVER posted any verbal abuse and always kept it civil in my replies to other posters.

This is now the second and recent occasion, that I have been banned from, not just posting, but also reading the board.

I think I have now finally got the hint to NEVER return

Over and OUT.

terrier69

[impact]

Nov 18, 2020 15:28:36 GMT 1 @terrier69 said:

Gratefull thanks for all the above messages of support guys.

I don't consider myself a spammer and I always thought my posted twitter links were relevant.

Some posters disagreed - which is their right.

I have NEVER posted any verbal abuse and always kept it civil in my replies to other posters.

This is now the second and recent occasion, that I have been banned from, not just posting, but also reading the board.

I think I have now finally got the hint to NEVER return

Over and OUT.

terrier69

Don't post twitter links ever. Feel free to constantly abuse posters and hope they die though, as that's allowed.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Nov 18, 2020 16:27:37 GMT 1 impact said:

Nov 18, 2020 15:28:36 GMT 1 @terrier69 said:

Gratefull thanks for all the above messages of support guys.

I don't consider myself a spammer and I always thought my posted twitter links were relevant.

Some posters disagreed - which is their right.

I have NEVER posted any verbal abuse and always kept it civil in my replies to other posters.

This is now the second and recent occasion, that I have been banned from, not just posting, but also reading the board.

I think I have now finally got the hint to NEVER return

Over and OUT.

terrier69

Don't post twitter links ever. Feel free to constantly abuse posters and hope they die though, as that's allowed.

Or post twitter links only on relevant threads and with comment.

Posting links to tweets on threads that the tweet bears no relation to, without comment, endlessly is spam.

This is a bit like the old Nick situation - if the behaviour you're demonstrating breaks the rules when objectively reviewed, after being reported, we'll act. We have been exceptionally clear about this with Terrier69 and the behaviour didn't change. Now, whose fault is that?

I've just been done for speeding for the third time in my life. I have not blamed the police for the fact I was doing 47 in a 40. It is my fault and I will take my medicine.

Have a grown up response, or spit out your dummy - it's up to you - but we are not saying you're not welcome @terrier69. We're just saying change your behaviour.

[impact]

Nov 18, 2020 17:20:31 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Nov 18, 2020 16:27:37 GMT 1 impact said:

Don't post twitter links ever. Feel free to constantly abuse posters and hope they die though, as that's allowed.

Or post twitter links only on relevant threads and with comment.

Posting links to tweets on threads that the tweet bears no relation to, without comment, endlessly is spam.

This is a bit like the old Nick situation - if the behaviour you're demonstrating breaks the rules when objectively reviewed, after being reported, we'll act. We have been exceptionally clear about this with Terrier69 and the behaviour didn't change. Now, whose fault is that?

I've just been done for speeding for the third time in my life. I have not blamed the police for the fact I was doing 47 in a 40. It is my fault and I will take my medicine.

Have a grown up response, or spit out your dummy - it's up to you - but we are not saying you're not welcome @terrier69. We're just saying change your behaviour.

I post loads of twitter links without comments. Should I be banned as well?

Or maybe some more well known/popular posters who post reams of utter shit which add absolutely nothing who are seemingly ok?

Banning someone for a week twice for posting twitter links is just stupid. So as I said, lets call other posters knobheads and tossers because that's allowed. Or take inspiration from our resident WUM and abuse everyone who disagrees with us and wish people dead, because that's allowed. Just don't ever post twitter links without comments.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Nov 18, 2020 17:34:30 GMT 1 impact said:

Nov 18, 2020 17:20:31 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Or post twitter links only on relevant threads and with comment.

Posting links to tweets on threads that the tweet bears no relation to, without comment, endlessly is spam.

This is a bit like the old Nick situation - if the behaviour you're demonstrating breaks the rules when objectively reviewed, after being reported, we'll act. We have been exceptionally clear about this with Terrier69 and the behaviour didn't change. Now, whose fault is that?

I've just been done for speeding for the third time in my life. I have not blamed the police for the fact I was doing 47 in a 40. It is my fault and I will take my medicine.

Have a grown up response, or spit out your dummy - it's up to you - but we are not saying you're not welcome @terrier69. We're just saying change your behaviour.

I post loads of twitter links without comments. Should I be banned as well?

Or maybe some more well known/popular posters who post reams of utter shit which add absolutely nothing who are seemingly ok?

Banning someone for a week twice for posting twitter links is just stupid. So as I said, lets call other posters knobheads and tossers because that's allowed. Or take inspiration from our resident WUM and abuse everyone who disagrees with us and wish people dead, because that's allowed. Just don't ever post twitter links without comments.

To my knowledge you've not been reported for posting twitter links on irrelevant threads - the without comment part is fine if the tweet speaks for itself and is clearly related.

As we have said until we're blue in the face, we react to reports. When we receive those, we review the reports objectively and act accordingly. No one receives a ban for their first offence unless it's a very serious one - this does not qualify. So effectively, to be banned twice, you'd have had at least 3 warnings before which would, one might hope, prompt you to change your behaviour. In this case, 2 warnings were issued before the first yellow. That means 5 opportunities to reflect/change before the latest ban.

If, for example, Johnathon Hogg got a ban for multiple yellow cards for the same offence would you blame the rules, the ref or Hogg for not avoiding the yellow cards?

[impact]

Nov 18, 2020 17:42:42 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Nov 18, 2020 17:34:30 GMT 1 impact said:

I post loads of twitter links without comments. Should I be banned as well?

Or maybe some more well known/popular posters who post reams of utter shit which add absolutely nothing who are seemingly ok?

Banning someone for a week twice for posting twitter links is just stupid. So as I said, lets call other posters knobheads and tossers because that's allowed. Or take inspiration from our resident WUM and abuse everyone who disagrees with us and wish people dead, because that's allowed. Just don't ever post twitter links without comments.

To my knowledge you've not been reported for posting twitter links on irrelevant threads - the without comment part is fine if the tweet speaks for itself and is clearly related.

As we have said until we're blue in the face, we react to reports. When we receive those, we review the reports objectively and act accordingly. No one receives a ban for their first offence unless it's a very serious one - this does not qualify. So effectively, to be banned twice, you'd have had at least 3 warnings before which would, one might hope, prompt you to change your behaviour. In this case, 2 warnings were issued before the first yellow. That means 5 opportunities to reflect/change before the latest ban.

If, for example, Johnathon Hogg got a ban for multiple yellow cards for the same offence would you blame the rules, the ref or Hogg for not avoiding the yellow cards?

If he gets booked for a nothing challenges whilst another player gets away without a card for headbutting someone, I'd 100% blame the ref.

You did receive reports for some of the cases I mentioned.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Nov 18, 2020 17:51:01 GMT 1 impact said:

Nov 18, 2020 17:42:42 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

To my knowledge you've not been reported for posting twitter links on irrelevant threads - the without comment part is fine if the tweet speaks for itself and is clearly related.

As we have said until we're blue in the face, we react to reports. When we receive those, we review the reports objectively and act accordingly. No one receives a ban for their first offence unless it's a very serious one - this does not qualify. So effectively, to be banned twice, you'd have had at least 3 warnings before which would, one might hope, prompt you to change your behaviour. In this case, 2 warnings were issued before the first yellow. That means 5 opportunities to reflect/change before the latest ban.

If, for example, Johnathon Hogg got a ban for multiple yellow cards for the same offence would you blame the rules, the ref or Hogg for not avoiding the yellow cards?

If he gets booked for a nothing challenges whilst another player gets away without a card for headbutting someone, I'd 100% blame the ref.

But the issue here is there is more than one ref, and several matches. If he got booked for "nothing challenges" after being warned that nothing challenges would earn him a booking, then I suspect you;d think he was a bit of a dim bulb.

It's a shame you're being so short sighted as to excuse one persistent breaking of the rules because you feel another person should be treated differently. We, as admins, don;t look at each case in comparison to others - we look on a case by case basis and the simple fact here is that Terrier69 has been warned several times and, rather than change behaviour, is opting to leave. That's entirely his prerogative, but the blame for this doesn't lie with us. Suggesting we shouldn't apply the documented rules and sanctions here because, in your opinion, we haven't applied them elsewhere when you believe we should, is a bizarre point of view.

Let's be clear - our desire is not to ban anyone. It is to never get reported posts, to never have to take action. For that to happen, people need to obey the rules - all of them, not just the ones you feel are important.

[Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser)]

Of course, if you can explain to me how this post was relevant to the thread it was in, I'll immediately rescind the yellows he's had before:

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/2754778/thread

[impact]

Nov 18, 2020 17:58:04 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Nov 18, 2020 17:51:01 GMT 1 impact said:

If he gets booked for a nothing challenges whilst another player gets away without a card for headbutting someone, I'd 100% blame the ref.

But the issue here is there is more than one ref, and several matches. If he got booked for "nothing challenges" after being warned that nothing challenges would earn him a booking, then I suspect you;d think he was a bit of a dim bulb.

It's a shame you're being so short sighted as to excuse one persistent breaking of the rules because you feel another person should be treated differently. We, as admins, don;t look at each case in comparison to others - we look on a case by case basis and the simple fact here is that Terrier69 has been warned several times and, rather than change behaviour, is opting to leave. That's entirely his prerogative, but the blame for this doesn't lie with us. Suggesting we shouldn't apply the documented rules and sanctions here because, in your opinion, we haven't applied them elsewhere when you believe we should, is a bizarre point of view.

Let's be clear - our desire is not to ban anyone. It is to never get reported posts, to never have to take action. For that to happen, people need to obey the rules - all of them, not just the ones you feel are important.

You have 2 refs. Thinking the same.

The problem is the total inconsistency of it all. You let people get away with the incidents I described before, but ban someone twice for posting twitter links. You're making it a popularity contest. Don't like a poster for a tiny infraction - report him. Like someone despite making fuck all sense or abusing some - nah I'll leave that he's fine.

I could go through the forum and find hundreds of posts unrelated to the thread and report them until I'm blue in the face. I won't because it doesn't matter. People are talking on a message board.

Plus it made fuck all difference me reporting stuff before which was clearly against the rules so what's the point.

[El Mel]

Nov 18, 2020 18:00:32 GMT 1 Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) said:

Of course, if you can explain to me how this post was relevant to the thread it was in, I'll immediately rescind the yellows he's had before:

downatthemac.proboards.com/post/2754778/thread

Shame you can't enlighten us with the name or names who keeps reporting him.

Sad fuckers.

[DeepSpace]

Serious point then. We’ve had one poster saying they hope that another catches Covid & dies. I’m sure you saw it. Is it the case that nothing happens in that scenario unless it’s reported?

[Chips Longhorn]

Nov 18, 2020 21:58:38 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Serious point then. We’ve had one poster saying they hope that another catches Covid & dies. I’m sure you saw it. Is it the case that nothing happens in that scenario unless it’s reported?

Thats always been the case and quite rightly . Admins can't be expected to read every post. Whilst it feels a little harsh against 69 he did get told and told and told and he chose to just carry on regardless

[Deleted]

Nov 18, 2020 21:58:38 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Serious point then. We’ve had one poster saying they hope that another catches Covid & dies. I’m sure you saw it. Is it the case that nothing happens in that scenario unless it’s reported?

Harsh to pin it all on the admins.

I check the forum 4 or 5 times a day and I don’t see every comment on every thread.

Although you’d like to think whoever did make that comment will be banned permanently.

[DeepSpace]

Nov 18, 2020 22:07:05 GMT 1 @rickyterrier said:

Nov 18, 2020 21:58:38 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Serious point then. We’ve had one poster saying they hope that another catches Covid & dies. I’m sure you saw it. Is it the case that nothing happens in that scenario unless it’s reported?

Harsh to pin it all on the admins.

I check the forum 4 or 5 times a day and I don’t see every comment on every thread.

Although you’d like to think whoever did make that comment will be banned permanently.

That’s fair enough & I accept it’s probably hard to track everything. I know that a lot of people don’t like to report, myself included, but said poster has a track record of horrible abuse to other posters.

[Deleted]

How many people are you allowed to wish dead for a yellow card?

People are hardly gonna take your other bannings, verdicts, etc., kindly, when there's one poster who is allowed to do whatever he likes. Thanks presumably to one of the two admins veto-ing any sanction - one of the problems with having only two admins - if one administrator doesn't want to ban someone no matter what, they can't be over-ruled.

You might say, 'fair enough' if a referee gives you a yellow card for a late challenge, but not if there's one player who's going around headbutting everyone and receiving no punishment: 'Oh, that's Walter. He's the fourth-official's nephew'.

[impact]

Nov 18, 2020 22:01:33 GMT 1 Chips Longhorn said:

Nov 18, 2020 21:58:38 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Serious point then. We’ve had one poster saying they hope that another catches Covid & dies. I’m sure you saw it. Is it the case that nothing happens in that scenario unless it’s reported?

Thats always been the case and quite rightly . Admins can't be expected to read every post. Whilst it feels a little harsh against 69 he did get told and told and told and he chose to just carry on regardless

Which I'd be sort of OK with but the inconsistency is bizarre at best.

I remember Ben getting a ban for going "Fuck off!" to arterrier because he'd won a bet on Town losing. It was a joke and taken that way by the recipient. I got a warning for telling a WUM to "fuck off someone else then" when complaining about not wanting to read something. Sheriff got a ban for telling someone antagonising him to "shut the fuck up you clown". All those counted as abuse.

Yet I was told calling someone a tosser or a bellends, and meaning it isn't. Work that out.

You could go through most of drum's or mayorofcov's posts and report them for being spam and be enough for a lifetime ban no doubt. Usually they make little sense. But they're like so don't get reported, and people just skip past them. That's where this system doesn't work. 1 person decides they don't like you and suddenly it's game over.

[Galpharmer]

[ben1987]

Nov 18, 2020 23:04:23 GMT 1 impact said:

Nov 18, 2020 22:01:33 GMT 1 Chips Longhorn said:

Thats always been the case and quite rightly . Admins can't be expected to read every post. Whilst it feels a little harsh against 69 he did get told and told and told and he chose to just carry on regardless

Which I'd be sort of OK with but the inconsistency is bizarre at best.

I remember Ben getting a ban for going "Fuck off!" to arterrier because he'd won a bet on Town losing. It was a joke and taken that way by the recipient. I got a warning for telling a WUM to "fuck off someone else then" when complaining about not wanting to read something. Sheriff got a ban for telling someone antagonising him to "shut the fuck up you clown". All those counted as abuse.

Yet I was told calling someone a tosser or a bellends, and meaning it isn't. Work that out.

You could go through most of drum's or mayorofcov's posts and report them for being spam and be enough for a lifetime ban no doubt. Usually they make little sense. But they're like so don't get reported, and people just skip past them. That's where this system doesn't work. 1 person decides they don't like you and suddenly it's game over.

I once got a warning for saying (jokingly) to million dollar babies, ‘I’m Ronny Pickering who the fuck are you?‘ 🙃🙃

[Porrohman]

Nov 19, 2020 13:34:55 GMT 1 ben1987 said:

Nov 18, 2020 23:04:23 GMT 1 impact said:

Which I'd be sort of OK with but the inconsistency is bizarre at best.

I remember Ben getting a ban for going "Fuck off!" to arterrier because he'd won a bet on Town losing. It was a joke and taken that way by the recipient. I got a warning for telling a WUM to "fuck off someone else then" when complaining about not wanting to read something. Sheriff got a ban for telling someone antagonising him to "shut the fuck up you clown". All those counted as abuse.

Yet I was told calling someone a tosser or a bellends, and meaning it isn't. Work that out.

You could go through most of drum's or mayorofcov's posts and report them for being spam and be enough for a lifetime ban no doubt. Usually they make little sense. But they're like so don't get reported, and people just skip past them. That's where this system doesn't work. 1 person decides they don't like you and suddenly it's game over.

I once got a warning for saying (jokingly) to million dollar babies, ‘I’m Ronny Pickering who the fuck are you?‘ 🙃🙃

Well if you're going to pretend you're the dead host of We Are The Champions you deserve everything you get 😁