Why is Scholesy banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
phelans shorts said:
Well he's just made a character call, he feels that Welbeck has a similar character to these "certain players", where's the problem in that opinion?
Click to expand...

A "character call"? What the feck?

I'm assuming kietotheworld is referring to players who have previously acted like cnuts, on or off the pitch. You know, actual evidence on which to judge their personality. The stuff non-insane people might use to form an opinion on the personality of a total stranger.

What evidence do you use for this "character call" then? (dare I even ask)

Specifically, what evidence do you think Scholesy was using?
 
phelans shorts said:
I know I made that post first, when you actually made a statement about his motives, which you cannot prove and is nothing like what I said, keep up.
Click to expand...

Which is what I said, YOU cant prove his motives either, for all you know he believed in those theories of his or he was on a WU. It cant be categorized as putting his gut feeling out there as you put it in your previous post.

Seriously, do you not understand it or are you delibrately ignoring the point here ?
 
BaldwinLegend said:
Not in my opinion, no, but I don't think it makes him a troll or that he should be banned for it.

You've made more than a few posts yourself which I'd struggle to describe as 'completely reasonable'.
Click to expand...

He wasn't banned for any one singular incident, though, it was a build-up of many that gave the impression that he was looking for attention because they were so out there and obviously controversial. He can't have thought that saying Welbeck was classless and had a poor personality - on the basis of one interview - wasn't controversial. He said it anyway, even though he knew it would bring negative attention to him. It's something he did regularly.

Like this:

Scholesy said:
I actually hope he does fail. Probably the first time I have felt this way. Horrible attitude.

Would hate to see him in our first team permanently. I cant stand the sight of him.
Click to expand...

Or saying, explicitly, "I can tell if a player is good enough after watching him for 15 minutes".
 
Pogue Mahone said:
A "character call"? What the feck?

I'm assuming kietotheworld is referring to players who have previously acted like cnuts, on or off the pitch. You know, actual evidence on which to judge their personality. The stuff non-insane people might use to form an opinion on the personality of a total stranger.

What evidence do you use for this "character call" then?

Specifically, what evidence do you think Scholesy was using?
Click to expand...

What the feck?

I never said there was any evidence did I? I said he judged the personality as being similar, that doesn't have to come with any evidence, unless you are telling me you have never seen someone in the street and thought that they seem like an utter cnut.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
How far can you go back?

Do you have a collection of anecdotes stretching back to his days in kindergarten?
Click to expand...

There you go again. Attacking the poster, not the content of his post. You've been perfectly polite and reasonable to a lot of people in this thread but went into attack mode the moment Brwned joined in.

Isn't this EXACTLY the sort of attitude you're so irate about when the knee-jerk sneering was aimed in Scholesy's direction?
 
BaldwinLegend said:
How far can you go back?

Do you have a collection of anecdotes stretching back to his days in kindergarten?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought people were asking for evidence as to how he was a wum. I was trying to help on that front.

Silly me, I'm just being all self-obsessed again.
 
maybe a reminder to all that the forum is not a democracy

decisions are taken, rightly or wrongly. Move on.

Persistent troublemakers will be removed
 
phelans shorts said:
What the feck?

I never said there was any evidence did I? I said he judged the personality as being similar, that doesn't have to come with any evidence, unless you are telling me you have never seen someone in the street and thought that they seem like an utter cnut.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, no. I'm not as judgemental as you, obviously.

We're talking about Welbeck though. And you're dodging the question. Why do you think Scholesy might think HE is a total cnut? In your own time...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Funnily enough, no. I'm not as judgemental as you, obviously.

We're talking about Welbeck though. And you're dodging the question. Why do you think Scholesy might think HE is a total cnut? In your own time...
Click to expand...

Since I am not Scholesy I don't know what makes him think Welbeck is a cnut, so I have no answer, maybe the best person to ask is Scholesy himself?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Funnily enough, no. I'm not as judgemental as you, obviously.

We're talking about Welbeck though. And you're dodging the question. Why do you think Scholesy might think HE is a total cnut? In your own time...
Click to expand...

As a grown man, why do you give a feck? We all enjoy the debate, you obviously held him in high enough regard to deem it worthwhile responding to so many of his posts over a period of time encompassing years - just let him get on with it. If his posts bothered you that much, you should have ignored them.

You can't ban someone because you disagree with their opinion on Danny Welbeck. I couldn't give a monkey's what Scholesy thinks about Danny Welbeck frankly.
 
phelans shorts said:
Since I am not Scholesy I don't know what makes him think Welbeck is a cnut, so I have no answer, maybe the best person to ask is Scholesy himself?
Click to expand...

So that's a no then? You can't come up with a single reason for why Scholesy's comments about Welbeck might, in fact, be reasonable. There's a surprise.

Oh and he was asked at the time. Couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation for his opinion either. Almost never does. I think this might have been mentioned before?
 
phelans shorts said:
Since I am not Scholesy I don't know what makes him think Welbeck is a cnut, so I have no answer, maybe the best person to ask is Scholesy himself?
Click to expand...

I suspect he was asked many times at the time and failed to respond in his usual manner.

That's an assumption however because I can't be bothered to look back, I've never seen that post.
 
Some of you are using Scholesy as an excuse to reignite old disputes. Seriously let bygones be bygones and grow up.

I've defended Schoesy recently but if someone like Sultan felt that his time was up, then I'd say that his time was up. If Scholesy was just an attention seeker, he has my sympathies as he probably only goes after attention online due to lacking it in real life.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
As a grown man, why do you give a feck? We all enjoy the debate, you obviously held him in high enough regard to deem it worthwhile responding to so many of his posts over a period of time encompassing years - just let him get on with it. If his posts bothered you that much, you should have ignored them.

You can't ban someone because you disagree with their opinion on Danny Welbeck. I couldn't give a monkey's what Scholesy thinks about Danny Welbeck frankly.
Click to expand...

I don't give a feck.

I didn't ban him.

His posts never bothered me enough to ignore him.

If anything, I enjoyed sparring with him. He was a very odd, yet strangely interesting character.

I'm just explaining why he's wound people up the wrong way. Bit surprised it needs so much explaining tbh.
 
Too much whining. Its been dealt with. The matter is closed. If you wish to make valid suggestions to Sultan, pm him.

This thread will be cleaned up soon if it continues to go in the same manner.

and by thread, i mean dissenters will be shot
 
It's not about whether it's harsh or not, for al those saying that.


Scholesy has claimed it'd be better if he doesn't post anything, demonstrating in doing so that he's not prepared to take the mocking he brings upon himself in good humour. This is the second time he's felt the need to start a thread specificically to point this out, and its been a recurring theme for far too long to assume it might just go away.

Here's the two possible ban/not ban scenarios resulting from this:


a) Scholesy gets banned, either leaves the forum, or re-registers and starts over with a new alias, and is able to post without being instantly ridiculed every time his name crops up.

b) Scholesy doesn't get banned, continues to post abuse provoking "opinions" in the football forum, continues to derail threads, continues to be mocked every time he posts, and continues to complain about it until he either eventually goes completely mental, or gets banned/driven away.

Which one do you think is the best option for all concerned parties?

Do people think Sultan just decided to ban him on a whim because he posted something about John Terry? Why do people start questioning things when they haven't even thought about what it is they're questioning?



alastair said:
A lot of new posters can get abuse regardless of their opinion though - look at newtonheathdave - forced out because of getting dog's abuse in every thread when he talked absolute sense all the time.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I liked Dave, but there was that post where he analysed all of City's signings and came to the conclusion that every single one was an unbelievable bargain. The steady decline down from the hill of sanity began from there.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So that's a no then? You can't come up with a single reason for why Scholesy's comments about Welbeck might, in fact, be reasonable. There's a surprise.

Oh and he was asked at the time. Couldn't come up with a reasonable explanation for his opinion either. Almost never does. I think this might have been mentioned before?
Click to expand...

I am meant to tell you why someone else thinks he's a cnut? How on earth am I supposed to do that, I don't share the opinion so how can I back it up?

I can't believe that I'm being asked to back up an opinion I don't hold, quite bizarre, that said I expected nothing else.
 
Wouldn't it be better just to lock the thread and have done with it? We'll have all forgotten about Scholesy in a couple of days anyway.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
Are you happy now he's gone?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I quite liked Scholesy. At least he was interesting. As I said to Brad in this very thread, I'd get rid of the ones who I don't think contribute anything before I'd get rid of someone like Scholesy - he's stimulated more interesting debate in one thread than a lot have in their entire posting history, IMO.

He was always walking a tightrope though, and he only had himself to blame. I posted this a couple of months ago:

Brwned said:
I think he's incredibly misguided but quite interesting at times, but I'm not sure whether that interest is just from the mystery of his logic. A lot of the time he's polite and responds and he does create debate, and that's generally what I care most about in the footy forums. I like him.

Regardless, even if he doesn't go out with the intention of winding people up he still knows he does it at certain times and he doesn't try to tame that very much so I don't think he needs people defending him. He's aware of his actions he just thinks that it's worth it anyway. The Modric comments stopped being funny lightyears ago, Spoony was the only one who could pull it off and that was right at the beginning, even he's lost his touch. And people will completely laugh of some of his vaguely valid opinions plainly because of his reputation, but he brings it on himself. If he didn't want to be seen that way then he could make his opinions and presentation of his opinions a bit less extreme - he doesn't. The comments are harmless regardless.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather he wasn't banned, as most would, but I think he was far from blameless and there was plenty of justification to his banning.
 
no, it will all be forgotten in a few days

I honestly dont care what people think of me TR. I generally admin the stuff on this board quietly, but it gets my heckles up when the usual faces turn up, to question a ban (doesnt even matter who is banned). Those people need to accept that we take the decisions, rightly or wrongly and they dont get changed because posters doesn't agree with it
 
BaldwinLegend said:
We're responding to Sultan inviting suggestions on how he could have dealt with it.
Click to expand...

You've started arguing amongst yourselves.

There's been no real feedback on how this could have been dealt better. I asked because it's too easy to say you're wrong without giving alternatives. We are all guests on this forum and have no divine right to post, and all the management ask for is to simply adhere to it's etiquettes.
 
golden_blunder said:
no, it will all be forgotten in a few days

I honestly dont care what people think of me TR. I generally admin the stuff on this board quietly, but it gets my heckles up when the usual faces turn up, to question a ban (doesnt even matter who is banned). Those people need to accept that we take the decisions, rightly or wrongly and they dont get changed because posters doesn't agree with it
Click to expand...

Just saying how it might come across to other posters who look in the thread, like myself.

I appreciate it is pretty much a thankless task doing what you lot do, and the boards are better for it, but sometimes people are interested to know why someone they chat to or get on with well have been banned as it may be the only contact they have with them, if that makes sense?
 
Personally I feel that infractions for the endless posts of "Modric" etc... would have been the best way to deal with it, after all they were much worse than Scholesy's actual posts, which were usually very understandable most of the time, sure he had some more eccentric views but they were in the minority, and well don't we all hold some more eccentric views?
 
All this thread has served to prove is that 'modmins' (a word coined by yours truly) is now ingrained in caf vocabulary.
 
phelans shorts said:
Personally I feel that infractions for the endless posts of "Modric" etc... would have been the best way to deal with it, after all they were much worse than Scholesy's actual posts, which were usually very understandable most of the time, sure he had some more eccentric views but they were in the minority, and well don't we all hold some more eccentric views?
Click to expand...

Like its been mentioned before, its not a demoracy, when you sign up to any site, you agree to their terms and conditions, if you truly can't stand the way the site run, you'd need to find an alternative. I highly doubt that the Admin/Mods will ever infract a whole host of people when they perceive the problem to be just a single poster. Whether their perception is right or wrong is another matter altogether but it goes back to my original point, their site = their rules.
 
index_moomin.gif
 
phelans shorts said:
Personally I feel that infractions for the endless posts of "Modric" etc... would have been the best way to deal with it, after all they were much worse than Scholesy's actual posts, which were usually very understandable most of the time, sure he had some more eccentric views but they were in the minority, and well don't we all hold some more eccentric views?
Click to expand...

Then we'd have had half the forum in here complaining about the injustice of being infracted for posting the word "modric".

and besides, it's not really the duty of mods to provide blanket protection to an individual poster as if they're a vulnerable six year old. Especially when no one's actually being particularly abusive to them anyway.

If he was being told to "feck off" every time he posted then maybe it'd be different.
 
phelans shorts said:
Personally I feel that infractions for the endless posts of "Modric" etc... would have been the best way to deal with it, after all they were much worse than Scholesy's actual posts, which were usually very understandable most of the time, sure he had some more eccentric views but they were in the minority, and well don't we all hold some more eccentric views?
Click to expand...

You should read some of the disgraceful replies mods get for giving out infractions PS. We have a simple choice - either let the forum descend into a farce and just look on not caring, or keep the from becoming a laughing stock by taking tough but fair decisions. I'm sure we don't want to go the same route like the other sites we regularly point at and laugh in the football forums.
 
noodlehair said:
Then we'd have had half the forum in here complaining about the injustice of being infracted for posting the word "modric".

and besides, it's not really the duty of mods to provide blanket protection to an individual poster as if they're a vulnerable six year old. Especially when no one's actually being particularly abusive to them anyway.

If he was being told to "feck off" every time he posted then maybe it'd be different.
Click to expand...

He was repeatedly used as the butt of a large groups jokes, for no reason in particular, other than that he made comments that in retrospect aren't that eccentric, instead they were repeatedly dragging threads off topic rather than actually offering anything to the debate, often unlike Scholesy himself.

Surely that is worse than holding some slightly eccentric views, which is the opposite of how this has panned out.

Seriously, what point does posting "modric" in lots of threads have other than trying to evoke a reaction? Surely that is more blatant wummery than anything scholesy can be accused of?
 
Sultan said:
You should read some of the disgraceful replies mods get for giving out infractions PS. We have a simple choice - either let the forum descend into a farce and just look on not caring, or keep the from becoming a laughing stock by taking tough but fair decisions. I'm sure we don't want to go the same route like the other sites we regularly point at and laugh in the football forums.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree completely that all views should be allowed, my point is the response every one of his posts received with countless posts of "Delfouneso > Pato" and "modric" is nothing short of unbelievably blatant wummery, which led to scholesy quite understandably reacting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.