Lies.
On the topic of explaining bannings, a locked thread, maybe stickied, if not, fair enough, and the mod pops the explanation into it each time, bannings are fairly rare so it wouldn't be a huge task.
Mjld
- Thread starter Eyepopper
- Start date
- Status
Lies.
On the topic of explaining bannings, a locked thread, maybe stickied, if not, fair enough, and the mod pops the explanation into it each time, bannings are fairly rare so it wouldn't be a huge task.
Lol! I explained myself afterwards that I was just acting a twat with the whole orphan thing just to wind you all up. I stand by my statement that I still have my doubts about him though, for whats its worth...But lets not open that can of worms!
We'll see.
With bannings so rare why do you care?
So a locked thread, do you think that would lead to moore or less threads debating how fair/unfair bannings are?
Because we know the posters, and in some cases, like them, and you bastard mods find out the juicy details in the mod forum, that's why you are the only ones who dont think it needs to be public, the rest of us would like to know, with a locked thread to explain bannings you can be justified in punishing those who make threads questioning the decision.
Why was MJs name shortened? I didn't realise it was the same guy for ages.
Kinell.
A prime example of why any discussion on bannings is counter productive. We ban so infrequently and never at the drop of a hat that it seems odd that any time it does happen we get whinging.
The bottom line is that he earned it and got it. End of discussion.
A prime example of why any discussion on bannings is counter productive. We ban so infrequently and never at the drop of a hat that it seems odd that any time it does happen we get whinging.
The bottom line is that he earned it and got it. End of discussion.
I was just teasing, Mac.
I'm still going to keep an eye on you, though. You seem shifty.
I've yet to hear one convincing reason why we should explain bannings to the general caf public.
a lot of mods perpetuate threads like this,just as much as us mere mortal posters.
you must have expected a response like this when this thread was created,especially with a popular poster like MJ,so lets not all act surprised.
but, lets lock it the feck up now and move on.
you must have expected a response like this when this thread was created,especially with a popular poster like MJ,so lets not all act surprised.
but, lets lock it the feck up now and move on.
If people want to discuss a banning then why not just let them get on with it, what's the harm?
Brophs; said:
So others can heed the warning and modify their behaviour?
my suggestion is bulletproof and would work, just try it.
The rules are pretty clear, IMO. And posters will be asked to stop what they're doing if they've crossed a line.
Most people want to know because they're nosey or see an opportunity to shit-stir.
It's never just a discussion it invariably ends up as criticism of us as mods and how everyone else would do it better.
So?
It gets a bit old listening to the same insults and accusations over and over again.
You sort of feel the need to defend yourself when being called a power happy wanker by people who know half of what's happening.
You sort of feel the need to defend yourself when being called a power happy wanker by people who know half of what's happening.
Brophs; said:
The rules are clear, but the enforcement of them isn't.
It only really needs to be clear to those who are on the receiving end of it. And it's always made so generally people are warned about what they're doing before they're banned.
I honestly dont see much anger over the bannings, just a lot of curiosity, if you weren't a mod would you not be curious if a pal, say kinky, got banned with no explanation given?
Because it always ends up in criticism of mods/admins who never act impulsively. They deserve better IMO.
I am actually in favour of giving 2 day bans to anyone who even vaguely questions a mod/admins action on anything. This place is becoming chaotic due to this sort of anarchy.
Not really. I wasn't always a mod and it was always pretty obvious why someone was banned, there was just less debate about the morality of it all.
Bannings in the mains aren't shrouded in any more mystery than they used to be.
Bannings in the mains aren't shrouded in any more mystery than they used to be.
Eyepopper; said:
I was referring back to my original post in response to Brophs.
I would have just locked the thread with the banning and reason. All we're getting is a rehash of the other thread you started warning people.
Which was a WUM which ran on for pages and pages due to peoples outrage at the sheer idea that shit posters might be banned.
I do think you mods do a fine job but this one point cant agree with you on.
Yeah, I can see that becoming a bit tedious for the mods, but I would suggest that's a good reason for telling people the other 'half of what's happening' in the first place.
Incidentally I'm quite aware that it's only the mod's hard work that has maintained the Caf as the best (and I'm quite serious for once), as I go on other forums without such moderation and just bang my head against a wall in frustation.
I'm fecked if I know why but I do like banning threads. Oh well.
Thing is, if someone's making 200 odd posts a day for weeks on end, it's surely in their own best interest to be banned. The fact that he's already been PMing Brophs kind of emphasises to me that he might have gotten to a point where he was addicted to the Caf. That can't be healthy so a ban is perhaps the best for everyone...
And if he is addicted what do you think just cutting him off is going to result in?
But why?
Ever since we spoke about post counts, I've become a bit self concious of mine. I.. I think it's shrinking.
As a complete side note, anyone else keep reading the thread title as "Mild"?
I keep wondering what's mild and interesting enough to take up six pages. That might even be the start of a terrible joke.
I keep wondering what's mild and interesting enough to take up six pages. That might even be the start of a terrible joke.
With any luck, the sudden realisation that he's been unnecessarily wasting loads of time on here...
What do you think it might result in?
Because it is none of anyone's business. This is not a democracy and it undermines the authority of the mods/admins. Personally I think it is a shem that the Cull thread was a joke. There are at least 20 regular posters, many of them in this thread, who should be banned permanently either because they question our descisions or on quality control grounds. If you incluse the football forum I'm guessing the list of quality control bans would get close to 3 figures such is the state of the place.
Why dont we/they get banned/warned a la mjld?
Next time they step out of line they will. We aim to significantly reduce the membership before Christmas.
Thats what confuses me, i thought the cull thing was a joke, but its true now?
I dread to think.
The cull thread was a joke but our determination to weed out those who continue to disrupt the place is real. We won't do it by some list mind. We will just be enforcing rules and handing out infractions to thoise who don't without friend or favor. If we are lucky people will start thinking a bit harder about how they behave and we won't have many/any more permanent bans. After the repeated warnings MJLD has received you would have thought that he would have got the hint. Hopefully others will have a little more sense and self discipline.
Not sucking up here at all but I personally welcome this move. Even the United forum needs a bit of a clean-up in my eyes. Nearly every thread has become a bit of a cliche recently. If it hasn't been done before then it gets filed under a certain category (Player vs. Player, Over/Underrated, Pro/Anti-Glazer, Top Red/OOT, etc) and gets responded to as such. Anything genuinely new either gets lost amongst the chaos, morphed into something old, turned into a random discussion or (in some rare cases) actual intelligent football discussion.
I'm interested though, how heavily is the banstick going to come though? Will it be (a) major cull(s) before Christmas or a slow and steady banning process?
No, it's an oligarchy and therefore receives the same criticism that any oligarchy does. It's inevitable and unavoidable.
- Status