Should Sock Accounts be Allowed?
- Thread starter luvgonzo
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Whooooaaah there.Give over.
Posting personal details has now been agreed to be out of order. It was a silly thing to do, and nipped in the bud quietly and with minimum fuss, and I hope to Spurlock's satisfaction.
People suggest I'm 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.
Firstly my comment wasn’t a criticism of you, I never even mentioned you, so pipe yourself down love.
Secondly, seeing as you’ve brought it up. I’ve never posted anything that is classed as personal information about Pete, check out the legality of that if you wish, everything that I’ve ever mentioned is information that he has put in the public domain or is information freely available in the public domain, so you can pipe down with that tired and completely inaccurate accusation for the final time please.
The new rules were already set by the point nonuts posted that number, my opinion was that it deserved sanction an opinion that I stand by, you saw it differently, your choice, it’s called a difference in opinion.
Last edited:
So in your world, everyone that's posted Pete's details should be banned.
Iirc Pete specifically was going to be "thought about" as he puts himself out there
No body posts stuff about Pete that he hasn't already posted or put links to, so to suggest its the same thing is bullshit of the highest order and confirms the one rule for one etc
Maybe clarify Pete's situation. But the two are totally different situations and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous and dishonest
As a wise man said, you can stay calmer passing through troubled waters, when you know your opponents can't swim.
Well of course you do, what else would you put the gravy in?
No Quents it was still accessible ... not all those visiting your FB page would have known your name ...some may have searched for "Rotund wizard in Dorset" and you would have popped up as you were 'publicly open' ... look up the definition of 'accesible' ... Muppet back at yer
Attachments
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
brb said there would be an immediate 6 month site ban for anyone posting personal information about another poster. I reported, on several occasions, posts made by both Pixie and Skiddy that gave away personal information, and I reminded brb of his ruling and suggested that the said posters were clearly undermining his authority.
All of this happened before the collective sock account known as The Village Bike , posted more personal information.
brb’s reaction was to ban Sucky who, so I understand, created that sock account many months previously and for a different purpose to do with the ‘Pool board. Several posters had access to that sock account by the time I was made a victim of the cyber attack on me.
Sky told me and brb that Sucky had not used the VB sock account to make the attack, but that Pixie had given the password to Skiddy to enable him to carry out the attack, and that that is what did, in fact, happen.
brb’s reaction was to ban both Sucky and Sky.
Those are the sordid facts.
Attachments
I posted earlier the VB facts it was you and brb who created it the rest of us were just pawns in your little game.
- Status