** STATEMENT REGARDING GLORY **

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Minxy said:
Please tell me who all these banned for life characters are .... as I have obviously been missing out.
I'm afraid I don't remember our conversation but I don't doubt that it happened ..... as it would be lovely if we could figure out a nice simple solution for banning that everyone was happy with.
3 speeding tickets & a piss in the street wouldn't even be brought to a super-mods attention .... or if it was it would be laughed at.
How would you like us to explain why people are banned without breaking the confidential aspect of reports & complaints ?
Click to expand...
Banned for life? Let's start with Glory, then Clive, Bluememe, Leeds60, Sheldon .... need I go on?

Every single one banned sine die, with no reason given to the wider community. Even the Masonic Lodge is free-er with information than this. And if you've been missing out, you need to have a word with someone.

Our conversation happened. I can look back through my archive for you, if you need a reminder. January, 2016, as I recall.

The 'confidential aspects'? Easy. If you were actually to communicate with those banned, you might find yourself with a waiver to confidential information. Otherwise, you could explain by leaving out the confidential stuff. A simple 'x has been banned for 3 months for doing x,y& z, contrary to our terms & conditions. x warnings have been issued and ignored. The poster left the board with no alternative than to impose this ban'. Or something to that effect. Every last detail is not required. Your statement is a cop-out, Minxy.
 
FORZA LEEDS said:
It’s quite self explanatory though WJ

Most normal people know where the line is drawn and what would constitute crossing that line without having to be spoon fed that information

It’s not rocket science, if a poster continues to act like a twat (attention seeking) even after receiving several warnings then a ban is inevitable

Don’t think there’s any need for us to be issued with a ‘disciplinary procedure’
Click to expand...
Really? You sure? For this thread certainly doesn't back you up.

Imagine your proposal applied to the law. You drop a bit of litter, the Judge has a hangover so won't listen to your mitigation, you get angry, then all of a sudden you're banged up for life. You don't know why, your family don't even know where you are, far less why, and you have no right of appeal.

Not the best analogy, perhaps, but I hope I get my point across. Life bans for everything? No information shared with the 606 community? No chance of appeal? Others getting away with the same, & even worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifecheshirewhite
Blue meme and Clive were known as a disruptive force from previous boards. The complaint's dropped In straight away via pm and for the good of the board they were booted. Ja and mot forum done the same and we all drew the same conclusion that those two accounts were made to disrupt leeds forums. I believe the ja606 mod's believed them or him to be man u fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF and wakeybreakyheart
Whitejock said:
Really? You sure? For this thread certainly doesn't back you up.

Imagine your proposal applied to the law. You drop a bit of litter, the Judge has a hangover so won't listen to your mitigation, you get angry, then all of a sudden you're banged up for life. You don't know why, your family don't even know where you are, far less why, and you have no right of appeal.

Not the best analogy, perhaps, but I hope I get my point across. Life bans for everything? No information shared with the 606 community? No chance of appeal? Others getting away with the same, & even worse?
Click to expand...

If people complain we listen. You for one knew how lenient we were with glory maybe we should have nipped it on the bud earlier bit then we are accused of our zelious moderating. It's a toughy for sure
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF, wakeybreakyheart and Whitejock
ristac said:
The more I think about it all the more I have to agree with Forza. I know stealing from a shop is wrong, I don’t know where it changes from a smack on the hand to something more serious but I don’t care as it will never effect me. I’d only need to know the finer detail if I planned on stealing.

I’m not suggesting WJ is planning on forum disruption but I’d be gobsmacked and amazed if a single member we had now were to be banned. There have been a few heated exchanges since Glory was banned but its genuine emotion and I think we can all see that.

I think that’s where the line is drawn, genuine emotion being vented from time to time or as Forza put it, seeking attention in a negative and controversial manner then ignoring the warnings, remember Glory had been banned before by the Supermods and Elland and Bucks fought for his return so he knew how close he was sailing to the wind.

Please remember as well, Glory has been in touch and said;
“I fully accept a ban for content related issues”.

But... I don’t want to start going over old ground about Glory, the question is, do we need a set of Guidelines or rules? My three concerns would be...

1) It would need to be site wide, you couldn’t implement it for just one sub forum.
2) You could be as nasty as you like and to avoid a ‘strike’ claim it was bait/joke
3) Miss a misdemeanour and would it be called favouritism, one persons interpretation of an act of bullying might not be another persons.

I think going forward, it might be an idea for the supermods to have a Google Mail account. Then when banning anyone who was a regular poster they could consider including the email address if the person wanted their side to be heard.

They don’t really need a reason included, they can still access the forum logged out (I assume?) and as long as the mods of the forum have posted a statement like we did then the person banned can read the reasons for themselves assuming they truly do not know.
Click to expand...
I have no intention of discussing Glory's case, as the point I'm trying to make is a generalisation for the good of the board.

HOWEVER, I cannot imagine Glory using the phrase “I fully accept a ban for content related issues”. Is this an actual quote, or a paraphrase? The reason I question it is that 'a ban' is non-specific, and alludes to a life ban. If he used the term 'the ban', it would have been in response to a defined term ban. He didn't, and I cannot believe anyone would agree to an indefinite ban.

I agree with the Google Mail account, for anyone banned cannot access the site as their IP address has been blocked (you assumed incorrectly, I'm led to believe). I know there are ways round this, but most of us wouldn't know where to start with a VPN or whatever. So even if a statement was posted (this one was the first ever), then it cannot be read by the banned person unless they have these circumvention skills.
 
bucks_is_leeds said:
Blue meme and Clive were known as a disruptive force from previous boards. The complaint's dropped In straight away via pm and for the good of the board they were booted. Ja and mot forum done the same and we all drew the same conclusion that those two accounts were made to disrupt leeds forums. I believe the ja606 mod's believed them or him to be man u fans.
Click to expand...
Blue meme was from the old bbc606,would wind people up,when they swear at him,he would report them to the mods.I told this to brb who also remembered him from the same site,so that's probably why he got banned so quick as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitejock and bucks_is_leeds
Whitejock said:
“I fully accept a ban for content related issues”.
Click to expand...
Exact quote sent to Elland via text message from his own phone <ok>

There was more than just that one line, but obviously I am sure you would agree, it would be wrong of Elland to disclose the entire contents of a text message via a forum, I believe he does not accept the dual accounts and he understand why it was perceived as bullying but he didn't feel it was, those are not exact words, just a general idea so nobody thinks I am trying to say he was accepting everything that has been said about him

In regards to the IP being blocked, I didn't know. I thought the gmail account would be good but I have no idea how that could be worked if an IP is blocked, I'll have to leave those tricky questions to the supermods <ok>
 
Last edited:
ristac said:
Exact quote sent to Elland via text message from his own phone <ok>

Edit... More to follow just reading...
Click to expand...

If i remember correctly Glory said he didn't want unbanning, so not really sure why we are on page 30 of this thread now, other than to pass the time <whistle>

Mind you, I suppose we could always get Jammy to lend Dad his account to confirm this situation to be true :bandit:
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF, wakeybreakyheart and ristac
Amazing the amount of accounts that have been signed up for 7 years and hardly if ever post, but have looked in on this thread, come on guys, don't be shy, their a friendly bunch really :emoticon-0138-think
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF and ristac
TC (Lovely Geezer) said:
That's it in a nutshell Jammy.
We sign up to this forum to debate football and partake in the banter - simple as that.
If people are offended at Leeds60's (I'm always right posts) or Gory's (fishing trips), they really shouldn't bother signing up!
If the mods think that dishing out bans because of either private PM's from these moaners or because of their own personal vendetta's is accetable to the rest of us, they really shouldn't be involved in this site <ok>
Click to expand...
Glory was the king at PMs

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF and ristac
Whitejock said:
Simply ignore this thread then, Einstein. <doh>
Click to expand...

True, I could do that, but as my great uncle Abert calculated that E=mc2, I'd need to travel faster than time not to read it........<laugh>

If me posting on here with some home truths bothers you so much, why don't you put me on ignore or alternatively PM your mods to get me banned?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wakeybreakyheart
Oldsparkey said:
True, I could do that, but as my great uncle Abert calculated that E=mc2, I'd need to travel faster than time not to read it........<laugh>

If me posting on here with some home truths bothers you so much, why don't you put me on ignore or alternatively PM your mods to get me banned?
Click to expand...
I can see why you like posting on here. It's a lot more exciting than watching a Cardiff game.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF and Gessa
ristac said:
Exact quote sent to Elland via text message from his own phone <ok>

There was more than just that one line, but obviously I am sure you would agree, it would be wrong of Elland to disclose the entire contents of a text message via a forum, I believe he does not accept the dual accounts and he understand why it was perceived as bullying but he didn't feel it was, those are not exact words, just a general idea so nobody thinks I am trying to say he was accepting everything that has been said about him

In regards to the IP being blocked, I didn't know. I thought the gmail account would be good but I have no idea how that could be worked if an IP is blocked, I'll have to leave those tricky questions to the supermods <ok>
Click to expand...
Glory has corrected my assumptions, by text, as follows:

"I did accept the ban' Not interested in the length. To read the ****e about the second accounts means I won't be back. I spent hours proving I was not Eric, and then they started again. The clear for content reasons quoted is because if they repeated the known untruth once morethe legals were involved. Brb confirmed no second accounts exist. It's time to drop it imo".

and ..

"You can still see the board if you log out & view as a guest. That's what the banned see".

I got it wrong about viewing the board whilst banned. I'm guessing my source (Leeds60) was trying to log i to his account, rather than going in as a guest. My apologies if I misled anyone, chaps.

But this is Glory-specific. The thrust of my complaint is the way this and every other banning is handled, as detailed previously. My questions will not go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifecheshirewhite
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back