So Brad has gone and the race is on to take his place!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zarlak said:
Surely you can see his point though here Moses, mods are on one hand saying Brad was given an infraction for insulting another member of the forum.





So you say here, that if this doesn't insult him, that of course it is not classed as an insult.

Wibble said it didn't insult him, therefore you say it isn't classed as an insult, yet he was infracted for insulting.

This goes against what's being said. It doesn't tally.

Noone replied to my earlier post either, which was that did Brad not get infracted for saying 'I miss calling Wibble a cnut :p' which is quite obviously a joke, he hasn't even called Wibble a cnut, not even close, he's joked about missing the old days, infracted for 'insulting' despite you saying of course that kind of thing isn't seen as an insult yet Popper posts cnut a lot in loads of posts directly at posters and brushes it off as a joke, this isn't a bad thing, if anything it backs up the point made by people that calling people cnut can be a joke, hence loads of examples of Popper doing it and is fine, yet when Brad posts what is obviously a joke it's all of a sudden an insult and he is infracted for it.

I can't understand why we have to understand the context of Poppers 'cnuts' but you can't see the context of Brads.

It most likely doesn't change the overall debate of whether Brad should have been banned or not, I personally think no, but I don't want to debate that anymore as it doesn't lead anywhere. However separate to that is the issue AAA is debating over why mods can say cnut in a joke and it's fine but if another member does it WHAM there's an infraction and it's a personal insult despite having more factors aligning it with a joke than most of Poppers examples.

Again to use GB as an example without any malice to the man, he's come into a thread and said 'feck off Brad' in all seriousness, this is fine? But personal insults are not allowed........ Brad replied with a simple 'Hello Geebs :)' or 'Evening golden_blunder' or something to that effect. He could easily have sworn back but would have been infracted?

I think people just want to know where they stand, is it one rule for one and one for another? Or mods separate to us?

I'm not sure how anyone can say that calling people cnuts in a joke is fine if you're a mod calling a poster, but if you're a poster calling a mod in a joke it's not fine without realising that it's hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Big picture. We have had what 3 pages on on infraction and it's not 'settled'. How may will it take 10? And then the other 26 to get through?

It's the amount of infractions.

The system is not perfect that's why you need so many to get turfed.

However if you must labour one point - Brad and Wibble had bad blood, (which is the CONTEXT) and Brad was asked not to go around calling wibble a cnut, so he devised this 'clever' way around it but saying 'I miss calling wibble a cnut'. If you think that was Brad's best way to diffuse the bad blood, then we have a different sense of humour.
 
Zarlak, the answer is: you have to know the context in all cases. Eyepopper's were (in the ones I read) jokes in the sense of "We're all having a laugh." Brad's was a "joke" in the context of, "I've been infracted for calling you a cnut before, so in my permanently-arrested state of adolescence, I will make references to calling you a cnut, but will not actually come out and call you a cnut. Aren't I precious?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.