Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Leeds United' started by Eireleeds1, Mar 16, 2020.
Do you mean does Bucks, Elland or myself have a button we can press to ban someone? No we don’t.
Realise that Ristac. So how would it work if your superiors aren’t available, surely potential anarchy here
That hierarchy would put it in order of preference for a meeting. There is a lot going on in the real world right now, I don’t personally see this matter as urgent or pressing, a core group of 4-5? of you do. Maybe he is watching the thread to see what support there is, I really don’t know the answer. My hierarchy answer was in response to WJs question
I guess so yes
Likely the ones that see it’s in any form pressing are the ones mainly who actually personally know Glory. Think that’s understandable. Of course there’s more important stuff happening but we still need distractions such as this forum, from time to time. As for Glory looking in, he does, no idea to what extent. But it’s a public forum where anyone can look in and as I recently found out even take screenshots to distribute elsewhere, mischievously or not. Someone of us probably forget a lot more read our input than the few dozen posters
I mean maybe he (brb) is looking in. Just because he hasn’t replied, it doesn’t mean he hasn’t viewed the thread.
Morning everyone if we set up a voting thread just to see what posters want. Then would it be a private vote visible only to Elland? Is it possible to do that.
I'm not proposing for one minute to make it public. That would cause too many arguments which is how we got here in the first place. Just asking for an enemy
very good London, very good
I'll bite, not my style TC, although I know a few South Londoners who have a gold medal at this..
Before anybody comes or goes why don't we make it clear what the rules of engagement are for the board and if people stick to them then ok, if not I would prefer a system where we had a "please explain request" from our mods, rather than a ban with no communication, and if the poster can't explain then a recommendation to ban and duration is sent to the supermods from our mods. When somebody is banned then our mods post a clear statement as to who is banned, why they are banned and how long it will last for.
There are some pretty clear rules to be found for the site anyway. Personally and based on the published site rules I have no reason to object to Glory returning. One of the key reasons given, at the time, for him to be banned was that he was running dual accounts, i.e., Me. That was and is not true and so this reason can be taken away from his list of "crimes" If however running dual accounts is against the rules then perhaps it could be added to our own particular forums rules. I personally can't see the point in having dual accounts, it seems a bit weird and odd. So I would 100% support a rule that banned those who did have dual accounts. The two usernames would then be published by our mods on our forum and we could all have a good laugh at the sickos.
Lets just get him back and move on, presumably the banning button would still work if the sh!t started flying again?
I have PM'd him - I'm sure he will look in when he feels like it!!
It won’t be going to a forum vote, someone asked in a PM and bucks made it clear it’s not going that route, I’d also back him in that decision. I respect Glory has a small core of friends fighting his corner for a return he initially didn’t want but it’s getting a bit tedious now how it keeps getting dragged up.
And until then I’ve exhausted all I have to say on the matter
All I will say Eric that long before you joined this site, Glory was almost always involved in every serious clash with other posters. We don't know all the ins and outs or all the PMs that were sent between our ex member and mods. He wasn't banned just because of one incident, he was banned because of a cumulative of events and run ins over the years. I feel this is starting to feel like groundhog day.
So Glory upset a few snowflakes?
Will never understand how people get so riled up on a forum.
If you don't like it, don't respond to it - simples
Exactly and it’s the ones that complain about snowflakes that do the most whining. People holding grudges for donkeys years given what’s going on is pathetic in my opinion
Why not put it to a non binding vote anyway if you’re convinced it’s such a minority. Result could help the super mods in their decision. Maybe some are afraid of what the results might throw up. Personally I’m curious. Simple three way vote. 1 ban remains 2 ban removed and 3 don’t care either way
Yes I agree we know the vote is not binding. So many posts on here show a lot of interest in the outcome. Why allow so much input and then deny an outcome. Could it be the revenue being created the longer this goes on?. Surely not.
Who said I was upset TC. There are many snowflakes on here TC and I ain't one of them. Everyone on here has a breaking point, it's very easy to get personal with people to get a cheap laugh and it's nothing to do with being a snowflake. I know what you're trying to do here TC, you're one of the biggest **** stirrers.Ironic that you're defending someone who used to have the mods on speed dial and the same bloke who was that arrogant that he didn't take any blame for his actions...