Off Topic Some Questions for the Mods

Not at all. There's a enormous gulf in asking a question on someone's behalf, and answering on behalf of someone else.

Hypothetical example:
Question on behalf of TC: "Do you like bumbashing underage young lads, TC?"
Answer on behalf of TC: "Of course he does. Somehow he's evaded the authorities for years. Fact".

Somehow I suspect that you'd prefer if the question was never asked, but would be horrified that someone would have the gall to answer on your behalf, without giving you the chance to speak for yourself.

 

Oh really? The TC's lay out the list of sanctions, for example, do they? The appeal process (or lack of it) etc.? Perhaps you could be too kind and point the detail out that I so clearly missed?

I have simply asked some questions arising from the latest 'ban' situation. If I was a Mod, the last 2 'general' questions would be the ones that I'd really like to know the answer to, if I didn't already myself. If I was a 'complainer' or provocative 'fisherman', I might be interested in the answer too.

 

Yes they do actually

The providers ("we", "us", "our") of the service provided by this web site ("Service") are not responsible for any user-generated content


That is as clear as crystal and ALL of your questions are covered by that sentence alone

and if you do not like it they have this at the end

If you do not agree with these terms, please do not register or use this Service. If you wish to close your account, please contact us.


Again - crystal clear

 

Oh dear, TC. Keep up! A Mod ban decision is not 'user-generated content'. And you're still not listening. You are NOT a Mod.

 

The mod ban decision was BECAUSE of the "user generated content" was it not?

 

Perhaps if you're not sure, you should ask the Mods, like I have.

Guess I was speaking on your behalf after all, eh?

 

1) Why would anyone need to ask a question on my behalf?
2) If that question WAS asked on my behalf, I would not mind it one bit - obviously I would not need to ask myself a question - so you are basically saying "TC has asked me to ask "you" if you like bumbashing young lads" (as you posted it, lets presume it was yourself that was being asked)

I would not be horrified, just confused as to why I would need to answer my own question if I already knew that you "liked bumbashing underage lads".

For the hypothetical record, I did not know this before, or want to know

 

Everybody WAS sure - as were you!!

 

Yes he really did write to them and he believed that they listened.

Personally I don't understand WJ's approach on this one but he is entitled to an opinion. It is a good job I'm not a mod, I would have just replied "anyone don't like the decision find another forum", I certainly wouldn't explain myself if I were them, they were chosen to be mods to make tricky decisions, I'm sure they don't need this crap after a long day at work. (This crap = everything to do with the Leeds60 issue, not this one thread).

Reading through this thread there seems to be more people that understand/ accept that Leeds60 had to go than those demanding he is allowed back.

I think we need to just accept we are all going to see things different, I like your posts Wakey, don't make a rash decision, lets see how things go from here onwards

 

Morning WJ,

Look guys, I'll tell you in a nutshell what has happened.

Mike had been warned on multiple times, both on threads, and via PM.

I personally have pleaded with him twice via PM, (in last couple of months) just before Christmas for him not to :

i) Antagonise posters with off topic subjects designed to wind up.

ii) Name posters by way of 'calling them out'

iii) Post aggressively.


It was made clear to Mike not longer than a few weeks ago that he would be banned if he stepped out of line again.

When a complaint came in, we had no choice (unfortunately)

Mods will only act if posters complain to us.

I really didn't want this board being dominated by 2 posters.

It's sad that things have escalated to this, and I miss his posts already.

 

For the record
I did not want Leeds60 banned - but understand why as several posters have left this forum because of him.
I do not agree with WJ when he says that Elland, Bucks and The Don have held a "Kangaroo Court" and have "taken down the mirrors in their houses" and completely disagree with hsi assumption that he was asking on behalf of all contributors - I suspect most contributors will say the same!
I fully appreciate all the unpaid time and effort that they put in to moderating this forum and also appreciate that this hassle is above and beyond what they signed up for. I do not expect them to answer any of the snidey questions directed at them and would be more than happy for them to treat this thread with the contempt it deserves and delete the fooker

 

No, no. He was HIDING the sausage

 

What's that old saying...."Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience". Be careful Mr TC.

 

I didn't know TC was like that.......that's changed my opinion of him......

 

Sorry mate - you're far too old

 

For the record I'm sorry Mike's banned, particularly if his health situation is as he paints it, but it is totally his own fault, no one else's.

He had the option to back off and chose not to.

 

Petrol is 103.9 and Eire is my witness.

 

Good for you. Don't read the latest government **** on alcohol