Why on earth was he banned? As far as I can see it's a moderator abusing his power on here.
The banning of A1dan
- Thread starter didsbury1982
- Start date
- Status
It only for two days.
Don't you know about the slippery slope that is defamatory comments and MUST threads?
Don't you know about the slippery slope that is defamatory comments and MUST threads?
There is protection in place for the MUST members for allegations, defamation and general libelous statements since someone made an allegation, somewhat in jest, that MUST threatened to sue over.
I'm all for free speech and don't like to see anyone banned, but I completely agree with the mods on this. If the pro MUST arguement is given such protection, then in the interest of free speech and a level playing field, the posters arguing against them should be afforded the same protection.
I'm all for free speech and don't like to see anyone banned, but I completely agree with the mods on this. If the pro MUST arguement is given such protection, then in the interest of free speech and a level playing field, the posters arguing against them should be afforded the same protection.
I am sure when A1dan returns on Saturday he will appreciate that claims of racism towards multiple members of the forum cross the line, especially considering the nature of the topic and the restrictions placed on the debate due to past events.
To suggest there is any pro MUST protection is laughable. Go back and read that thread.
Oh and heres me thinking you just threw your toys out of the pram.
This is actually in reference to MUST threatening to sue over ciderman's comments earlier this year.
I was involved in that thread from the start. From what I gather, people are free to complain all they like about MUST, as long as they don't actually make claims that are libelous, for example, suggesting that a certain member of MUST might be acting on behalf of his own interests to reap personal profits.
Everyone has been very careful to make it clear that they are giving only, their own opinions on MUST and why they no longer feel they are fairly represented as a fan by them.
A1Dan argued his points fairly for a long time and there was no harm in that, but he then started making blatent allegations that certain members and moderators were racist. If anyone from the opposite side of the arguement did that, I have no doubt the mods here would ban them aswell.
The whole thing was firmly tongue in cheek. Everyone knew that as well.
If you'd heard the orginal comment by the poster who was threatend with legal action, you'd realise that was tongue in cheek too.
What the heck has race got to do with MUST?
he had it coming
Oh that makes it ok then! Ciders comment wasn't tongue in cheek anyway. This place has had an agenda against MUST ever since with bearded being one of the main offenders. I'm sure no one at MUST is losing any sleep over a bunch of keyboard warriors anyway.
Perhaps not, however when they wake and look at themselves in the mirror this weekand see a cross between Malc's beard and Rooney's face, well that could be a time for pause.
Well yeah, it does actually. One rule for one, the same for everyone else.
And many MUST members have taken them up on that, me included. And I hope they have a re-think on the rooney issue. I still support everything they are trying to achieve though.
MUST are a waste of space basically, and I've always said that. They have done feck all of any use, and spent christ knows how much money doing so.
There most certainly is. After they threatened us earlier in the year we have deleted a huge number of posts for this very reason. Protection we haven't given anyone else. Especially not the Glazers.
I've even deleted posts in this thread for that reason.
Ciderman made an entirely stupid and needless analogy in the thread regarding the BNP. Ciderman who has previous made far more serious defamatory allegations about MUST and Drasdo, as well as on multiple occasions making tiresome personal insults about him
And A1Dan gets banned. One of the best posters on here for my money, who argues fairly, constructively, and with passion. The WUM abusive argumentative twat who gives this place a bad name remains
Something is wrong with that situation
And A1Dan gets banned. One of the best posters on here for my money, who argues fairly, constructively, and with passion. The WUM abusive argumentative twat who gives this place a bad name remains
Something is wrong with that situation
Legally I can say what I THINK about anybody, it's called freedom of speech. MUST can't sue anybody for telling them what we think of them.
He got a time out. Woopy do. He wasn't infracted for past posting BTW. He will be back soon anyway.
Cider has been infracted when he steps out of line and despite there being little if anything that has been said couldn't be defended as fair comment about a public figure, even under UK defamation laws, we have chosen to be on the safe side and censor the majority of criticism of MUST. It sickens me but is necessary to censor comment in this way but we can't risk Niall getting sued. So I've refused to renew my MUST membership and I'm going to ask for my Phoenix Fund money back in feeble protest. Glazer has not been protected in this way.
Anyway, this thread has been answered so lets leave all MUST/Glazer discussion elsewhere, where it should be.
Cider has been infracted when he steps out of line and despite there being little if anything that has been said couldn't be defended as fair comment about a public figure, even under UK defamation laws, we have chosen to be on the safe side and censor the majority of criticism of MUST. It sickens me but is necessary to censor comment in this way but we can't risk Niall getting sued. So I've refused to renew my MUST membership and I'm going to ask for my Phoenix Fund money back in feeble protest. Glazer has not been protected in this way.
Anyway, this thread has been answered so lets leave all MUST/Glazer discussion elsewhere, where it should be.
They can. Statement of opinion is a bit harder to sue for than a statement of alleged fact, and I personally think it likely that MUST (or rather one of their committee members seemingly on behalf of MUST) were full of piss and wind and had no intention to sue and just to make us do what they want when they threatened to sue Niall/Cider, but who can afford to take the risk?
I was banned and no one asked questions. Why does A1Dan get special treatment!
On a serious note, I was actually following the thread and as far as I saw there was nothing that broke the rules there, and then it disappeared. Might have missed the hot parts though.
Can you modmins actually make a sub-forum which can act as a temporary bin, where you can move the threads which fall into dispute with the rules so all registered main forum members can view them and note not to make the same "mistake".
Also regarding what is being said for MUST protection, why and what happened, I think that it's being taken out of proportion. I don't know what happened exactly, but, from what I know, MUST and Drasdo, rightly threatened to sue Redcafe for allowing those horrendous posts to remain on the site for everyone to be seen.
If the same comments were made about Redcafe, Wibble, or any other Admin or mod, they would have been deleted instantly and the person making them would be inevitably perma-banned. You should keep one line of ruling standards for everyone.
On a serious note, I was actually following the thread and as far as I saw there was nothing that broke the rules there, and then it disappeared. Might have missed the hot parts though.
Can you modmins actually make a sub-forum which can act as a temporary bin, where you can move the threads which fall into dispute with the rules so all registered main forum members can view them and note not to make the same "mistake".
Also regarding what is being said for MUST protection, why and what happened, I think that it's being taken out of proportion. I don't know what happened exactly, but, from what I know, MUST and Drasdo, rightly threatened to sue Redcafe for allowing those horrendous posts to remain on the site for everyone to be seen.
If the same comments were made about Redcafe, Wibble, or any other Admin or mod, they would have been deleted instantly and the person making them would be inevitably perma-banned. You should keep one line of ruling standards for everyone.
We are not public figures. Public figures are provided less protection from defamation as long as the comments are defendable as fair comment I believe. While I didn't always like the way Cider put his points or necessarily believed many of the things he thought were true I did think that a reasonable person could believe them to be true.
I'm not going to go into the nuts and bolts of the situation except to say it was handled very badly indeed by MUST and/or their officials (as we got conflicting messages from them about whether the official who threatened legal action was acting officially or off his own bat or somewhere inbetween).
I'm not going to go into the nuts and bolts of the situation except to say it was handled very badly indeed by MUST and/or their officials (as we got conflicting messages from them about whether the official who threatened legal action was acting officially or off his own bat or somewhere inbetween).
A1Dan will be back in less than 2 days so I think this thread has run its course.
- Status