|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 18, 2021 8:52:17 GMT 1
I take full ownership of my having called Oti that. That's my point. It's not my logic that would suggest otherwise. It's yours. I'm not sure any right thinking person would accept an argument that anyone was provoked into demonstrating homophobia. It's a ludicrous argument. Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. |
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Jul 18, 2021 8:53:35 GMT 1
Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Don't give them ideas 🤣 |
|
Niggled
Iain Dunn Terrier
Posts: 590
|
Post by Niggled on Jul 18, 2021 9:01:54 GMT 1
59% of members who have voted don't agree with the admins. 265 votes (as I type this) out of however many hundreds (or thousands?) of members. Not terribly representative regardless of which way the vote was currently heading. It's like when an advert says 86% of people would recommend something, yet it's based on 73 responses. In the last 24 hours 440 members have been on this site, 265 have voted, that's more than half. Not terribly representative? Really. So it's nothing like what you are spouting. |
|
Niggled
Iain Dunn Terrier
Posts: 590
|
Post by Niggled on Jul 18, 2021 9:04:56 GMT 1
Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Serious question . How did the 3 admins become admins ? Was it voted on , I have never seen a vote . Are they appointed , and if so , how. Is there a time for term in office. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 18, 2021 9:06:24 GMT 1
Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Serious question . How did the 3 admins become admins ? Was it voted on , I have never seen a vote . Are they appointed , and if so , how. Is there a time for term in office. The problem is, nobody wants to do it, so we've ended up with a group that aren't brilliant at it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:09:18 GMT 1
Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Surely it wouldn’t be every decision. Just questionable ones, such as this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:12:12 GMT 1
Serious question . How did the 3 admins become admins ? Was it voted on , I have never seen a vote . Are they appointed , and if so , how. Is there a time for term in office. The problem is, nobody wants to do it, so we've ended up with a group that aren't brilliant at it. I think Kenny is absolutely fine. Doesn’t let his personal opinion of people get in the way of applying the rules. Grim just looks for a power trip too often, unfortunately. As for the third admin - well, the fact many on here can’t even remember his username probably tells its own story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:14:42 GMT 1
Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Decisions as key as life time bans should be made to vote on. You'd get an idea properly if the majority want them gone, if they're abusing, trolling etc. Removing people shouldn't be just solely down to admins, they could or one could, have a personal gripe with someone. At least polling it gives you an idea if the mass majority agree with you and your other admins. Minor decisions on the board, like moving bits to sub boards isn't key. |
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Jul 18, 2021 9:16:30 GMT 1
Genuine question for people. Is this more about who it is and the fact that some people like him, think the board will be a poorer place without him, and his illness?
Because my honest view is that if this was someone else in the exact same situation, same posts that have been reported over the years, etc, but not liked as much or doesn't post as much, this wouldn't have blown up like it has.
Personally I say if you break rules, get various warnings, bans, or whatever the punishment might be, you only have yourself to blame if you carry on.
Also people shouldn't go and blame the admins or the people who have ever reported any of his posts. It's Oti's fault as he knew what he was posting, and he chose to post what he did over many years. It's like if I choose to punch someone, it's not the fault of the person who rings the police, or the police themselves if I end up in a cell, it's my fault because I chose to punch that person.
|
|
|
|
Post by turbo2 on Jul 18, 2021 9:17:46 GMT 1
59% of members who have voted don't agree with the admins. 265 votes (as I type this) out of however many hundreds (or thousands?) of members. Not terribly representative regardless of which way the vote was currently heading. It's like when an advert says 86% of people would recommend something, yet it's based on 73 responses. Everyone can vote. The fact they haven’t makes no difference. The lass in batley won the local election the other week with something like 16% of the total available votes.. |
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Jul 18, 2021 9:20:24 GMT 1
Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Surely it wouldn’t be every decision. Just questionable ones, such as this. Who defines questionable? |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 18, 2021 9:22:41 GMT 1
Surely it wouldn’t be every decision. Just questionable ones, such as this. Who defines questionable? If Huddersfield supporters are facing permanent exclusion from the main fans discussion forum, then it should be questionable don't you think? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:24:00 GMT 1
Surely it wouldn’t be every decision. Just questionable ones, such as this. Who defines questionable? Common sense, if possible. |
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Jul 18, 2021 9:26:23 GMT 1
Why? Because of who it is and his circumstances? Would it be questionable if I was facing a permanent ban for saying the same things that Oti has that have led to people reporting his posts (and no I wouldn't be that fussed if I ever did get one)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:27:13 GMT 1
Is he being reinstated or not? Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Maybe there is a case for a “jury” rather than summary justice, or at least allowing offenders to offer a defence or an independent appeal ?? I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted, but this I doesn’t seem to be a matter of fact like a speeding ticket, it’s an alleged transgression that is more nuanced than that, and needs discussion, not a judge, jury and execution dished out by a pair of administrators not elected and not answerable to the community, Referring to that Wiki process, there is an opportunity to appeal, where editors not active in the blocking action will independently review. Seems a more human approac? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:29:29 GMT 1
Why? Because of who it is and his circumstances? Would it be questionable if I was facing a permanent ban for saying the same things that Oti has that have led to people reporting his posts (and no I wouldn't be that fussed if I ever did get one)? Any lifetime should be at least put up. I don't think Nick should be banned tbh. I don't agree with lifetime at all anyhow. It's to suit some and their cliques though |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 18, 2021 9:29:31 GMT 1
Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. You'd get an idea properly if the majority want them gone, if they're abusing, trolling etc. Removing people shouldn't be just solely down to admins, they could or one could, have a personal gripe with someone. At least polling it gives you an idea if the mass majority agree with you and your other admins. Minor decisions on the board, like moving bits to sub boards isn't key. Then it wouldn't be about enforcing the rules anymore, it would be about the popularity of the individual involved. I assume by your post you are implying the possibility of malpractice by the two admins involved? I note one removed himself from the process because he was too close to it. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 18, 2021 9:30:12 GMT 1
Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Maybe there is a case for a “jury” rather than summary justice, or at least allowing offenders to offer a defence or an independent appeal ?? I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted, but this I doesn’t seem to be a matter of fact like a speeding ticket, it’s an alleged transgression that is more nuanced than that, and needs discussion, not a judge, jury and execution dished out by a pair of administrators not elected and not answerable to the community, Referring to that Wiki process, there is an opportunity to appeal, where editors not active in the blocking action will independently review. Seems a more human approac? Big G's Sharia Law pal. No if's, no buts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:33:44 GMT 1
Decisions as key as life time bans should be made to vote on. You'd get an idea properly if the majority want them gone, if they're abusing, trolling etc. Removing people shouldn't be just solely down to admins, they could or one could, have a personal gripe with someone. At least polling it gives you an idea if the mass majority agree with you and your other admins. Minor decisions on the board, like moving bits to sub boards isn't key. Then it wouldn't be about enforcing the rules anymore, it would be about the popularity of the individual involved. It wouldn't be enforced by 3 people that nobody has voted in to their bit of power.... It isnt on popularity, Nick I don't like, I wouldn't have lifetime banned him either. It at least gives the person a fair chance and discussed by people on this board as opposed to 3 admins and some of their mates in their ear. It's a damn lot better than current proceedings. |
|
|
|
Post by turbo2 on Jul 18, 2021 9:35:39 GMT 1
Why? Because of who it is and his circumstances? Would it be questionable if I was facing a permanent ban for saying the same things that Oti has that have led to people reporting his posts (and no I wouldn't be that fussed if I ever did get one)? Any lifetime should be at least put up. I don't think Nick should be banned tbh. I don't agree with lifetime at all anyhow. It's to suit some and their cliques though Totally agree. Still no idea why nick was banned. Ffs he’d have an argument with himself in a phone box. If you don’t like it block him. If you don’t like Oti block him. If you don’t like me block me............ |
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man (Destabiliser) on Jul 18, 2021 9:37:12 GMT 1
Maybe there is a case for a “jury” rather than summary justice, or at least allowing offenders to offer a defence or an independent appeal ?? I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted, but this I doesn’t seem to be a matter of fact like a speeding ticket, it’s an alleged transgression that is more nuanced than that, and needs discussion, not a judge, jury and execution dished out by a pair of administrators not elected and not answerable to the community, Referring to that Wiki process, there is an opportunity to appeal, where editors not active in the blocking action will independently review. Seems a more human approac? Big G's Sharia Law pal. No if's, no buts. That's right. I'm a total tyrant me. Power mad. Kenny and Rigsdon are pathetic weak puppets with my hand up their backsides working them from the inside. FFS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:37:55 GMT 1
Any lifetime should be at least put up. I don't think Nick should be banned tbh. I don't agree with lifetime at all anyhow. It's to suit some and their cliques though Totally agree. Still no idea why nick was banned. Ffs he’d have an argument with himself in a phone box. If you don’t like it block him. If you don’t like Oti block him. If you don’t like me block me............ Exactly the point. There is a block button on here to mute certain posters isn't there? Removing people and Town fans at that, of their own site for good, is ludicrous. Just mute them or what not. Nick isn't my cup of tea, he certainly don't spoil my day though. Always moaning at his spelling errors on purpose. If spelling wrong all the time angers you, you've some proper issues |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 18, 2021 9:38:04 GMT 1
Of course he's not. To do that we'd then have to have a poll on every decision ever made by the admin team, past and future. Maybe there is a case for a “jury” rather than summary justice, or at least allowing offenders to offer a defence or an independent appeal ?? I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted, but this I doesn’t seem to be a matter of fact like a speeding ticket, it’s an alleged transgression that is more nuanced than that, and needs discussion, not a judge, jury and execution dished out by a pair of administrators not elected and not answerable to the community, Referring to that Wiki process, there is an opportunity to appeal, where editors not active in the blocking action will independently review. Seems a more human approac? Did you read the detailed history provided bu one of the admins involved - Rigdon. Sounds like you're saying you didn't in which case you need to. Informed posts are usually better than uninformed posts. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 18, 2021 9:38:50 GMT 1
Any lifetime should be at least put up. I don't think Nick should be banned tbh. I don't agree with lifetime at all anyhow. It's to suit some and their cliques though Totally agree. Still no idea why nick was banned. Ffs he’d have an argument with himself in a phone box. If you don’t like it block him. If you don’t like Oti block him. If you don’t like me block me............ The Off topic section is full of controversial viewpoints, it even says, do not enter if you're easily offended. So what happens, an "easily offended" get's upset about being excluded, and goes in there reporting controversial viewpoints for kicks. We're all adults, we shouldn't even have to block people, just ignore them.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:39:07 GMT 1
Big G's Sharia Law pal. No if's, no buts. That's right. I'm a total tyrant me. Power mad. Kenny and Rigsdon are pathetic weak puppets with my hand up their backsides working them from the inside. FFS. Less of the dramatics big man and just reinstate or at least reach out and question , that goes for Nick too. |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Jul 18, 2021 9:41:11 GMT 1
Big G's Sharia Law pal. No if's, no buts. That's right. I'm a total tyrant me. Power mad. Kenny and Rigsdon are pathetic weak puppets with my hand up their backsides working them from the inside. FFS. Well, you're the one spouting on here about how you aren't going to change your mind, so yes, I suspect that's pretty much how it works. You sat on the throne pegging Kenny and Rigsdon while they type out your commands on DATM |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 18, 2021 9:42:13 GMT 1
Then it wouldn't be about enforcing the rules anymore, it would be about the popularity of the individual involved. It wouldn't be enforced by 3 people that nobody has voted in to their bit of power.... It isnt on popularity, Nick I don't like, I wouldn't have lifetime banned him either. It at least gives the person a fair chance and discussed by people on this board as opposed to 3 admins and some of their mates in their ear. It's a damn lot better than current proceedings. and the second part of my post "I assume by your post you are implying the possibility of malpractice by the two admins involved? I note one removed himself from the process because he was too close to it." ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:42:27 GMT 1
Maybe there is a case for a “jury” rather than summary justice, or at least allowing offenders to offer a defence or an independent appeal ?? I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted, but this I doesn’t seem to be a matter of fact like a speeding ticket, it’s an alleged transgression that is more nuanced than that, and needs discussion, not a judge, jury and execution dished out by a pair of administrators not elected and not answerable to the community, Referring to that Wiki process, there is an opportunity to appeal, where editors not active in the blocking action will independently review. Seems a more human approac? Did you read the detailed history provided bu one of the admins involved - Rigdon. Sounds like you're saying you didn't in which case you need to. Informed posts are usually better than uninformed posts. Yes I did. Sounds like presumption is the order of the day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2021 9:44:47 GMT 1
It wouldn't be enforced by 3 people that nobody has voted in to their bit of power.... It isnt on popularity, Nick I don't like, I wouldn't have lifetime banned him either. It at least gives the person a fair chance and discussed by people on this board as opposed to 3 admins and some of their mates in their ear. It's a damn lot better than current proceedings. and the second part of my post "I assume by your post you are implying the possibility of malpractice by the two admins involved? I note one removed himself from the process because he was too close to it." ? What gives either the right to remove for good, when none have been voted in. They're admins not owners. Can you not see it should be put to members, doesn't this happen at certain members clubs still to this day? |
|
|
|
Post by artysid on Jul 18, 2021 9:45:11 GMT 1
Did you read the detailed history provided bu one of the admins involved - Rigdon. Sounds like you're saying you didn't in which case you need to. Informed posts are usually better than uninformed posts. Yes I did. Sounds like presumption is the order of the day. A presumption based on your statement "I’ve not read the full story and didn’t see any of what led to him being booted" my apologies. |
|
