Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?botrash wrote:Hilly wrote:Seriously, how is this bloke still here? Idiot.Enigma wrote:Who are these people and have they really got a clue? Seriously this isnt simply a typo or carelessness its lack of knowledge and were expected to put our faith and money in them
Or are we paying an agency to do this stuff if so time to find a new one surely
Maybe thats how we ended up at Shildon someone thought theyd heard it was a city ground when the comment was its a shitty ground
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Discussion moved from sticky post
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?Hilly wrote:No. He was banned for a mischievous little oik.monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?botrash wrote:Hilly wrote:Seriously, how is this bloke still here? Idiot.Enigma wrote:Who are these people and have they really got a clue? Seriously this isnt simply a typo or carelessness its lack of knowledge and were expected to put our faith and money in them
Or are we paying an agency to do this stuff if so time to find a new one surely
Maybe thats how we ended up at Shildon someone thought theyd heard it was a city ground when the comment was its a shitty ground
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Let's cut to the chase, you're Enigma and you've come back to have another bite of the cherry.monkey wrote:No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?
No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board. Not really sure what I have possibly said there that suggests it's anything to do with his opinions, but don't let that stop you making up any old interpretation to suit your pointless argument...
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
I can promise you I'm not. I just think that a message board should be a mixture of people with differing views. Do you?Hilly wrote:Let's cut to the chase, you're Enigma and you've come back to have another bite of the cherry.monkey wrote:No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Add no value to the board?! So you get to decide who adds value and who doesn't eh? Take your nazi jackboots off and think about this for a second. If you ban people who you think don't 'add value' who are you left with? Just a select group who all agree with each other. That'll be interesting! Why don't you ban me as well if you think my argument is pointless?botrash wrote:monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?
No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board. Not really sure what I have possibly said there that suggests it's anything to do with his opinions, but don't let that stop you making up any old interpretation to suit your pointless argument...
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Of course I do - but it becomes quite clear that the poster has ulterior motives (as you can tell in every post that he / she made) that's when enough is enough.monkey wrote:I can promise you I'm not. I just think that a message board should be a mixture of people with differing views. Do you?Hilly wrote:Let's cut to the chase, you're Enigma and you've come back to have another bite of the cherry.monkey wrote:No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
If that's the case then take on their arguments and beat them! I go on the RTG Sunderland message board and they would never ban somebody for this on there even though loads of Newcastle fans go on there. Too much censorship ruins a board.Hilly wrote:Of course I do - but it becomes quite clear that the poster has ulterior motives (as you can tell in every post that he / she made) that's when enough is enough.monkey wrote:I can promise you I'm not. I just think that a message board should be a mixture of people with differing views. Do you?Hilly wrote:Let's cut to the chase, you're Enigma and you've come back to have another bite of the cherry.monkey wrote:No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
So do too many fuckwits
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Its not about censorship, folk need to realise that this message board is owned and paid for by individuals, not some big rich corporation. When solicitors letters start dropping on the doormat then action needs to be taken.monkey wrote:If that's the case then take on their arguments and beat them! I go on the RTG Sunderland message board and they would never ban somebody for this on there even though loads of Newcastle fans go on there. Too much censorship ruins a board.Hilly wrote:Of course I do - but it becomes quite clear that the poster has ulterior motives (as you can tell in every post that he / she made) that's when enough is enough.monkey wrote:I can promise you I'm not. I just think that a message board should be a mixture of people with differing views. Do you?Hilly wrote:Let's cut to the chase, you're Enigma and you've come back to have another bite of the cherry.monkey wrote:No, he was banned for daring to have an opinion. Do the mods only allow posts that they agree with? Next stop Poland eh?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.
Also folk are not banned because of disagreeing with an individuals posts, each case is looked at and the effect it has on the message board, eg delib inciting arguments. If you dont like the way the message board is operated then please close the door on your way out
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
So you think "add value" means "agree with me"? Again, you're just making up "facts" to argue a point that doesn't exist.monkey wrote:Add no value to the board?! So you get to decide who adds value and who doesn't eh? Take your nazi jackboots off and think about this for a second. If you ban people who you think don't 'add value' who are you left with? Just a select group who all agree with each other. That'll be interesting! Why don't you ban me as well if you think my argument is pointless?botrash wrote:monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?
No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board. Not really sure what I have possibly said there that suggests it's anything to do with his opinions, but don't let that stop you making up any old interpretation to suit your pointless argument...
I was going to write a long message justifying myself to you then I realised - I don't really care in the slightest what you think
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
I can promise you I'm not. I just think that a message board should be a mixture of people with differing views. Do you?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.[/quote]
Of course I do - but it becomes quite clear that the poster has ulterior motives (as you can tell in every post that he / she made) that's when enough is enough.[/quote]
If that's the case then take on their arguments and beat them! I go on the RTG Sunderland message board and they would never ban somebody for this on there even though loads of Newcastle fans go on there. Too much censorship ruins a board.[/quote]
Its not about censorship, folk need to realise that this message board is owned and paid for by individuals, not some big rich corporation. When solicitors letters start dropping on the doormat then action needs to be taken.
Also folk are not banned because of disagreeing with an individuals posts, each case is looked at and the effect it has on the message board, eg delib inciting arguments. If you dont like the way the message board is operated then please close the door on your way out[/quote]
What are you talking about? Where did I say that its ok for people to make accusations or defamatory statements that lead to solicitors letters? Of course people should be banned for that. What I'm saying is that it's not right to ban somebody for posting their opinion even if it does incite an argument. For gods sake there's enough people on here who are quite happy to have an argument anyway! That's the beauty of a message board. By the way, jus who do you think you are telling me to leave the board? If you don't like what I'm saying why don't you leave?
There's many reasons to ban people but not agreeing with their posts is not one of them.[/quote]
Of course I do - but it becomes quite clear that the poster has ulterior motives (as you can tell in every post that he / she made) that's when enough is enough.[/quote]
If that's the case then take on their arguments and beat them! I go on the RTG Sunderland message board and they would never ban somebody for this on there even though loads of Newcastle fans go on there. Too much censorship ruins a board.[/quote]
Its not about censorship, folk need to realise that this message board is owned and paid for by individuals, not some big rich corporation. When solicitors letters start dropping on the doormat then action needs to be taken.
Also folk are not banned because of disagreeing with an individuals posts, each case is looked at and the effect it has on the message board, eg delib inciting arguments. If you dont like the way the message board is operated then please close the door on your way out[/quote]
What are you talking about? Where did I say that its ok for people to make accusations or defamatory statements that lead to solicitors letters? Of course people should be banned for that. What I'm saying is that it's not right to ban somebody for posting their opinion even if it does incite an argument. For gods sake there's enough people on here who are quite happy to have an argument anyway! That's the beauty of a message board. By the way, jus who do you think you are telling me to leave the board? If you don't like what I'm saying why don't you leave?
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Still replied though so you must care a little bit!botrash wrote:So you think "add value" means "agree with me"? Again, you're just making up "facts" to argue a point that doesn't exist.monkey wrote:Add no value to the board?! So you get to decide who adds value and who doesn't eh? Take your nazi jackboots off and think about this for a second. If you ban people who you think don't 'add value' who are you left with? Just a select group who all agree with each other. That'll be interesting! Why don't you ban me as well if you think my argument is pointless?botrash wrote:monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?
No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board. Not really sure what I have possibly said there that suggests it's anything to do with his opinions, but don't let that stop you making up any old interpretation to suit your pointless argument...
I was going to write a long message justifying myself to you then I realised - I don't really care in the slightest what you think
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Depends on the type of argument and how heated that becomes, we have many arguments on here that folk dont get banned for your missing the point entirely and I didnt tell you to leave I suggested if you didnt like the way the message board was run that you shut the door on your way out, and please dont take that tone or attitude with me
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Why you didn't bother posting anything about this until almost a month after Enigma was actually banned is beyond me (and in a sticky, at the top of the board, about saving the club, which I'm now going to have to tidy up when I haul myself back out of bed in the morning), but the simple fact is he was banned because he was continually posting statements designed to incite arguments, rather than statements of opinion or attempts to provoke discussion.
Had he simply been here providing an opinion he could quite happily have remained. He didn't. So he couldn't.
Had he simply been here providing an opinion he could quite happily have remained. He didn't. So he couldn't.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Suggest you create a new topic, merge the posts out of here into it. Can't remember offhand how to do it myself. Don't mind doing it myself tomorrow (er, today - I've just seen the time!) if you'd rather.charlie wrote:Was just looking at how to tidy it up Mikkyx
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
I`ll have a look, not going to bed yet, get yerself off x
Discussion moved from sticky post
Right, try and keep discussions of this nature off sticky posts please
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
That's what his wife just said as well.charlie wrote:not going to bed yet, get yerself off x
-
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:56 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
How come Pete is still able to post then?botrash wrote: No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
If you look back you'll see you started with the tone!charlie wrote:Depends on the type of argument and how heated that becomes, we have many arguments on here that folk dont get banned for your missing the point entirely and I didnt tell you to leave I suggested if you didnt like the way the message board was run that you shut the door on your way out, and please dont take that tone or attitude with me
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
This is the whole crux of my argument. Who's to say that Pete (sorry, just using him as an example) provides more to this board than enigma or anybody else that's been banned?number_one wrote:How come Pete is still able to post then?botrash wrote: No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.
- wellindarlo
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:51 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Discussion moved from sticky post
That would be the moderators
-
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:56 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Using Pete as an example in this argument has worked for you, so fair point well made.monkey wrote:This is the whole crux of my argument. Who's to say that Pete (sorry, just using him as an example) provides more to this board than enigma or anybody else that's been banned?number_one wrote:How come Pete is still able to post then?botrash wrote: No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.
- grytters
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Sheffield
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
botrash wrote:No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.monkey wrote:Have you really just banned somebody for having a different opinion to you?
No you don't. If that were the case there'd be nobody left.
Bring Back the Quarters
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Here's how it is, it's a privately owned board, the moderators give up their time for free, they don't have to put themselves in the firing line, but they do. Now as moderators, they have to make the rules and uphold them. There is no higher body to give them a guideline, it is up to them, they are the law.monkey wrote:This is the whole crux of my argument. Who's to say that Pete (sorry, just using him as an example) provides more to this board than enigma or anybody else that's been banned?number_one wrote:How come Pete is still able to post then?botrash wrote: No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.
You clearly don't like the way they do things, well if that's the case become a moderator and advise within.
Re: www.savedarlo.org and www.1883cic.org
Look, I understand that the mods have taken the time to look after the board and I appreciate that. However, I don't see the problem with people pointing out when they dont think they are acting fairly. Why do I need to be a moderator to do that?Quakerz wrote:Here's how it is, it's a privately owned board, the moderators give up their time for free, they don't have to put themselves in the firing line, but they do. Now as moderators, they have to make the rules and uphold them. There is no higher body to give them a guideline, it is up to them, they are the law.monkey wrote:This is the whole crux of my argument. Who's to say that Pete (sorry, just using him as an example) provides more to this board than enigma or anybody else that's been banned?number_one wrote:How come Pete is still able to post then?botrash wrote: No, I just ban people who spout repetitive crap and add no value to the board.
You clearly don't like the way they do things, well if that's the case become a moderator and advise within.
Re: Discussion moved from sticky post
Enigma was blatantly a WUM so I don't really see what the problem is.
Re: Discussion moved from sticky post
Exactly. Every single person on this board could see it, and it's fair to say he irritated and offended many.