Should Sock Accounts be Allowed?

i'm assuming that is at me.

Yes that's precisely it mate.

No one deserves (well most) to be killed but if decide to take a trip to syria and start shouting obscenities at ISIS for the ****s and giggles and i don't make it out alive, it's a shame, i didn't deserve it, it's illegal but i can understand why it happened to me

 

Yup ... as @Stan said on more than one occasion ... the ridicule, condescension and mockery of others directly led to some wanting to give him a come uppance ... and it did. Why not anyone else? .. possibly because no other single poster went to such extremes of arrogant twatishness ... but that's just conjecture

 

Oh come on now don't drag Syria into it...thing is in this place we set the parameters, it's a shame they have been set so low. There's always one person who will try to shift the boundaries again...I hope I don't get hold of any info..it might just be me

 

... the analogy is extreme... but nevertheless apposite ...

 

This ^ is legally correct.

Morally I agree with HIAG, but legally what was shared publicly on here was only information that was already publically available via HIAGs FB Page. It wasn’t personal information by the legal definition, how someone joined the dots to find his pages is a moral not a legal issue.

Quite different to deliberately trying to misrepresent another individual by claiming to be them by identifying yourself as such and then posting potentially defamatory comments and false information.

 

well if i piss you off enough then that might happen .

but i'm bob, friend of all humans and a civilian on the sidelines.

I might come under collateral damage though

 

I've never disagreed with Stan's stance on why...because I understand that. Maybe now you understand why Skiddy gets a hard time, no one goes to his lengths of twatiness and obsessiveness

 

I agree with this...I just thought in this place there are no rules so we try to make them based on our collective moral compasses....that bit went to **** though

 

Hiag has no evidence at all - he first accused me of being the person that had disclosed his personal data to both Piskie and Ginger !
He had no proof of this but thought it was ok to threaten me in a PM.

Hiag wants Piskie and Ginger banned regardless of the truth.

As far as I know neither were the VB sock account poster who shared his FB pictures. Again this doesn’t stop Hiag from calling for them to be banned,


#thetruthwillcrushyou

 

Only to those who knew my name and I never gave anyone my name.

Work it out for yourself, muppet.

 

Someone obviously went the extra mile...that says alot about that person

 

Isnt this now a ban hammer offence?

 

We have a collective moral compass?!


I get what you are saying but on here, peoples compasses are usually pointing in very different directions from each other.

 

Posting what he reckoned was the phone number of @Spurlock ’s employer would surely class as personal information.........plus it’s aim was patently malicious.

Don’t hold your breath though......

 

please log in to view this image

 

Its this kind of thing that leaves a sour taste IMO, one rule for one.

Especially once the lines have been drawn. Anything previous needs writing off but once rules are established then ban hammer should be instant

Posting my pic is one thing but putting work etc at risk is a much bigger and more ****ish issue imo

 

I agree, you either have a rule or you don’t, turning a blind eye due to who is transgressing makes a mockery of it.

 

Yet there is talk of cliques .

As i have said normally I dont get involved but when highburyal got banned, his suspected twitter/Facebook account was used in here with glee by the purveyors of "rules". Because it suited.

His initial grievance was on unfairness and i thought he had a point tbh, but his approach went all wrong at the end. Wasn't all his doing mind

 

Give over.

Posting personal details has now been agreed to be out of order. It was a silly thing to do, and not acceptable, but only you two are suggesting a ban. I simply nipped it in the bud quietly and with minimum fuss, and I hope to Spurlock's satisfaction.

People suggest I'm biased and ban happy, and then complain when I'm not, but still act and sort things. If I followed your advice, you'd both probably be gone for the personal info you've been party to posting about Pete.

Quietly in the background, and with minimum fuss is my favoured way. It's worked well enough on the Hull board, and I learned that the hard way from posters on there putting me right in no uncertain terms when I thought I knew better.

 

FYI my comment was aimed at you doing the banning.

And in all honesty your post is bullshit, because it can be argued "being silly" was all that happened with hiag BUT it was established in no uncertain terms that this would not be tolerated.

Anyone breaking that rule doensg need to be "outed" but at the same time needs to be punished as per the warning

No ifs and buts, posting work details is worse