Should gimmethickerhoops be banned

  • 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!

should GTH be banned

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am happy enough for him to use the Watford board while he maintains the 'Busy Bee' tone. He said nothing under that name to upset anyone. The only reservation is that he says he is a Watford fan, which we know he is not. Or maybe he is really and has only just come out! ;)
 
Seems a bit ironic to let a QPR fan who continually slags off all things Watford be a member of the Watford forum and not any other! Still, everyone deserves a second chance so que sera.
 
I know this is one of the drier forums on this site but if anyone genuinely wanted him banned then they're probably not ready for the world yet.
 
I have not read all of his posts on all boards, but what I have read has been at worst irritating and occasionally mildly amusing - unfortunately he makes people 'bite' sometimes and so a reinstatement on our board is for me o.k. only as long as we have a majority in favour. I would prefer him to come back as a Q.P.R. fan however and not under any assumed user name - unless he really has seen the light and come over to the Horns. :emoticon-0105-wink:
 
Gimme the QPR fan is banned & will not return

You are being asked if you want Busy Bee the Watford fan back on this forum only. If he returns to you & is caught making any other persona to use the other boards he will be banned again.

QPR mods are quite clear about their decision & I will not undermine them
 
Maybe your signature has something to say on this issue Minxy?

Like to join me with the first one of the day? ;)
 
For my tuppence worth, I would rather "lose" Bee or whatever he wants to call himself than to lose a single hornet poster on here. I voted not to ban GTH and stand by that now under whatever name.

11 people voted to ban him. Of those Nick P has never posted on here and StainesHorn has not posted since November 2011 so is unlikely to change his habits whatever is decided. That leaves 9. Dan Starkey has indicated he is OK to give a second chance. That leaves 8 - they are BabyDan, Bolton, Brian USA, CharlieLivesey, Toby, Vic-rijrode, Yellowvoice and Yorkshire.

I would not like to lose any of them as they all make valid contributions to our board AS HORNETS. It would be good to have their agreement before we make a decision - perhaps ofh can canvass Yorkie over a bottle of Vin rouge. I am sure that if allowed back our Mods could make very clear that "Bee" (could we make a change of name a condition? :) - to perhaps Stevenage exQPR) would be on "licence" to contribute postively rather than in the WUM vein too much. Any racism, sexism homophobia etc would of course not be tolerated - as it is not from any of us.

As I say - just my opinion
 
Whatever his user name now is - we know him to be a QPR fan who has never done anything other than slag off Watford FC (sometimes in a humourfull way) so why would he want to be allowed back onto our board and banned from his own ? I have said that I would allow him back if we have a majority in favour - however it would need to be a substantial majority because even if only a couple of real Horns stop posting as a result of him then this would be too much of a risk to take.
 
I think its been mentioned before but the Barnsley board might take him
see if he can behave himself there first

if any of you haven't been over there its worth a visit
 
Well as everyone seems to be free to have their tuppence worth now i will have mine.

A request came in to ban gimme from his community by his his board mods #1176. The rules clearly stated on the mod board are as follows for consistency;

Mods request bans from their own board:
Opposition team members ban request = a board ban
Own team member ban request = a site ban

NO mod has ever made objection to the above rules and they have been there since my reign. Now people want to change the rules and undermine the QPR mods decision(s) as well has undermining the supermod who pressed the button in my honest opinion.

You might not see it like that, but i do.

NO banned user has ever been allowed access to alternative team boards when banned from their own board. To avoid conflict with rivals and additional work for opposing mods and supermods alike. But because this user proceeded to break the rules by also undermining the ban by creating a false persona as a Watford team supporter it makes it ok. No.

Dave, you in particular said quote; 'he likes to get a reaction, so if you bite, he will keep it going, but at the end of the day, there is no malice intended'

I could apply that quote to 99% of all previously banned posters and i'm sure i've banned as many people from the Norwich board as i have from the bigger QPR population. All he had to do was appeal to his own community mods but as you have also stated Dave, we have been there before with who was it Andrew QPR or some similar name. And he even had the opportunity this time to do that appeal, under the false persona of Busy Bee.

In fact what has the QPR ban got to do with anyone else...maybe he's a mate, then that sucks as double standards, when Watford and Norwich supporters decide if a QPR board decision is correct and want to change the rules for this one member. Maybe we should put every ban to a committee meeting before proceeding.

I'm sure i'm allowed my voice as much as you all are. .

You must log in or register to see images


Thanks
brb (Site Admin)
 
brb said:
A request came in to ban gimme from his community by his his board mods #1176. The rules clearly stated on the mod board are as follows for consistency;

Mods request bans from their own board:
Opposition team members ban request = a board ban
Own team member ban request = a site ban

NO mod has ever made objection to the above rules and they have been there since my reign. Now people want to change the rules and undermine the QPR mods decision(s) as well has undermining the supermod who pressed the button in my honest opinion
brb (Site Admin)
Click to expand...

As this is (albeit primarily a football) discussion site I am sure brb you will welcome people discussing issues. Thank you for explaining the rules but I am not sure if I follow them completely. It seems that if someone upsets the opposition then he can be banned from "their" board. Fair enough. If he upsets his own team he gets chucked out completely. Normally I guess that if you are banned from your own board you would not care about a total site exclusion.

This almost seems a unique situation though - someone has been banned from their board but has previously posted a lot on another board and wants the chance to "switch" to them. You will be able to tell me if this has happened before but it seems unlikely. You say no Mod has ever made objection to the rules - but how much debate has there ever been on those rules? Also are the Mods superior to us ordinary posters? Do their views count more than ours? I can understand that Mods have a job to do - and as an ex-Mod myself I sympathize with and support them. Nobody wants to undermine the QPR Mods decision - we realise he is not welcome on their board. What our debate is about (- and it is only a debate amongst us Hornets) is whether someone who has been banned from his own board should be welcome on ours. I am not at all sure we will come down in favour anyway.

As for the superMod - we totally support their actions - they did what needed to be done. Excellent work. I would equally expect a superMod to allow a person who is banned from one board to resurface on another if that board wanted him. the superMod would again be doing their duty in good faith. In this instance it appears that a superMod has actually suggested the solution that we are debating.

May I suggest that rules are made to make life straightforward, fair and easy. However all rules are subject to scrutiny and change and should be viewed in a flexible light if the demand is there to change them.
 
I would like to confirm that I have now had the opportunity to read QPR mod warnings to Gimme (by PM) re his behaviour.

So to give the mods side to Gimme saying he wasn't warned I will quote one of many warnings



"This video is spreading racist hatred. Promoting this video is spreading racist hatred and in complete violation of section 3 of our rules.

This is hardly the first time you've trodden this path. Your history on this forum is littered with attacks on Muslims and their beliefs.

This is a football forum open to people from all countries, religions, orientations and beliefs. You will not use it as a platform to attack any group of any description."



I cannot see how this could be mistaken for anything other than a warning.

In my opinion the video was extremely radist, others may disagree & call it humour
 
Leonardo said:
.....11 people voted to ban him. Of those Nick P has never posted on here and StainesHorn has not posted since November 2011 so is unlikely to change his habits whatever is decided. That leaves 9. Dan Starkey has indicated he is OK to give a second chance. That leaves 8 - they are BabyDan, Bolton, Brian USA, CharlieLivesey, Toby, Vic-rijrode, Yellowvoice and Yorkshire.

.....
Click to expand...

I voted to ban him from the Watford board not from the entire Not606 board. In my view he contributes nothing to this board but puerile and nasty little comments. However, if people feel strongly enough that somehow we are infringing his human rights and that to continue to ban him would be tantamount to censorship, then I would not object to "unbanning" him (under whatever name he wants to return). Once identified he would immediately be added to my ignore list - simply because I consider him irrelevant to this board and I don't want to read anything he writes.
 
I can't really believe that this discussion is still going on. The guy has a history of annoying, offensive, racist posts - some find them funny, some don't, some deal with them themselves, some can't. Bottom line is that he has been found to be objectionable by many, including those who set and monitor the rules, and has been banned previously for doing exactly what he is 'guilty' of now. End of story IMO.
 
Minxy said:
quote one of many warnings

"This video is spreading racist hatred. Promoting this video is spreading racist hatred and in complete violation of section 3 of our rules.

This is hardly the first time you've trodden this path. Your history on this forum is littered with attacks on Muslims and their beliefs.

This is a football forum open to people from all countries, religions, orientations and beliefs. You will not use it as a platform to attack any group of any description."
Click to expand...

vic-rijrode said:
In my view he contributes nothing to this board but puerile and nasty little comments.
Click to expand...

Bolton's Boots said:
The guy has a history of annoying, offensive, racist posts
Click to expand...

Looking at the very last three comments, how do i define giving consideration equally for other posters that act the same as this, as the rules appeared to being brought into question.

It appears to me the totally correct decision was made.
 
brb - I really have no axe to grind regarding GTH and whether he is banned, unbanned or whatever will not cause me to lose sleep.

As a strong believer in freedom and as someone opposed to censorship however I do feel that the subject is one worthy of proper debate and worthy consideration.On that point you have made 3 very selective quotes.
1 Minxy is the superMod who correctly banned him per a request. She quotes a warning to GTH but does not say when it was given and from my own checking of GTH's recent posts I cannot find the post that must have triggered the ban. I cannot see any videos recently posted by GTH and the only "iffy" comment was a feeble joking comment which he himself admitted was in bad taste.
2 You partially quote Vic but omit his comment "I would not object to unbanning him"
3 Bolton is a strong voice against GTH - but I would love him to be able to provide half a dozen of the "annoying, offensive, racist posts he refers to.

Most of us on the Watford board found that GTH was simply a poor quality low level WUM. Only 9 of us on the Watford board who post voted to exclude GTH and of those 2 have said they would reluctantly see him unbanned while 7 have not given their views ( I happen to know 2 of those have told me they do not support the banning option now.

I am not going to post on this subject again - I have given my views, I have given the arguments against a ban on the Watford board. I do not like racists, homophobes or sexists so do not equate free speech with "licence". However I have seen many post comments and videos that I consider well beyond the pale without their being banned.

Enough. brb and Minxy represent the laws. So be it.
 
Leonardo said:
1 Minxy is the superMod who correctly banned him per a request. She quotes a warning to GTH but does not say when it was given and from my own checking of GTH's recent posts I cannot find the post that must have triggered the ban. I cannot see any videos recently posted by GTH and the only "iffy" comment was a feeble joking comment which he himself admitted was in bad taste.

However I have seen many post comments and videos that I consider well beyond the pale without their being banned.

Enough. brb and Minxy represent the laws. So be it.
Click to expand...

That particular warning was given following video on Music thread on 6th July ..... sorry I wasn't clear

Have you reported the offensive post you have read to the board mod ..... supermods ban when asked to by mods
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back