** 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.
Irishshako said:
Playing devils advocate here Bucks, why didn't Glory not get banned as well, because those of us who have been around since 2011 remember the arguments between them.<ok>
Click to expand...

The complaints about 60 were slightly more than glory's. Glory was issued a final warning then I believe so rode his luck for two years.

I thought Glory done exceptionally well on 60s return considering he called for the ban so credit where it's due.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ellandback, FORZA LEEDS, ristac and 1 other person
bucks_is_leeds said:
The complaints about 60 were slightly more than glory's. Glory was issued a final warning then I believe so rode his luck for two years.

I thought Glory done exceptionally well on 60s return considering he called for the ban so credit where it's due.
Click to expand...
Looking at Minxy's post about banning procedure it appears you and our other mods would have to specify temporary or permanent when it comes to banning.

Given that at the time you thought Glory was guilty of having multiple accounts I can see how you might have recommended a permanent ban. Once that was proven to be false however perhaps a temporary ban might have been more appropriate.

The evidence did change and has changed again over the last couple of weeks. No one is denying that Glory was always on thin ice and whether he crossed that line or not is very much your judgement call as the rest of us do not have all the necessary information.

Most of us I think would have been very supportive of a temporary ban given how we are all aware of various issues surrounding current and historical postings where Glory is concerned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lifecheshirewhite
Irishshako said:
Playing devils advocate here Bucks, why didn't Glory not get banned as well, because those of us who have been around since 2011 remember the arguments between them.<ok>
Click to expand...
I can answer that one

60 used to always bite and by doing this kept overstepping the mark.

There were multiple times I asked 60 to ignore / not bite - I pleaded with him not to bite back but he kept doing it.

At the same time other posters got involved (l can't remember who they were, so lets call them lemming 1, lemming 2 and lemming 3).

Messrs lemmings were also complaining about 60 and his aggressive posting at the time.

When 60 ignored my final warning not to get involved, we had NO OPTION BUT TO BAN HIM.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FORZA LEEDS
ellandback said:
I can answer that one

60 used to always bite (that the bait if you will) and by doing this kept overstepping the mark.

There were multiple times I asked 60 to ignore / not bit - I pleaded with him not to bite back but he kept doing it.

At the same time other posters got involved (l can't remember who they were, so lets call them lemming 1, lemming 2 and lemming 3).

Messrs lemmings were also complaining about 60 and his aggressive posting at the time.

When 60 ignored my final warning not to get involved, we had NO OPTION BUT TO BAN HIM.
Click to expand...
But IMO he was being provoked. Anyway that chapter is History now...<ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF, ristac and Whitejock
Whitejock said:
To pick up on your last point, if you're saying that the process is for our mods to ask supermods to instigate a ban, how come our mods have had to fight supermods to prevent certain bans, then? Are you saying that they're requested bans then changed their minds? Doesn't make sense.

And if you do indeed do these bans, where's the evidence to support it? How many bans have we had on the Leeds site in the last year? And how many of them were communicated? Apart from the disproportionate sine die bans we worked out for ourselves, we have no idea about any other bans. Is it al a secret for some reason? Some might suggest you were making it all up.
Click to expand...
I'm re-posting this, Minxy, as you haven't answered, other than to obfuscate by asking if I'm calling you a liar.

I'm not, but I might once I hear the answers. From my end it very clearly looks like you're trying to avoid answering. I wonder why.
 
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...

Yes I am sure WJ

Your analogy is flawed in this context. To drop a bit of litter once and get banged up for life for doing so would be wrong

To continually drop litter whilst continually ignoring warnings to stop committing the offence and you leave yourself at the mercy of the powers that be

For the record I personally didn't have a problem with Glory and a quick check would show that I was 'liking' his posts right up to the time he was banned

At the end of the day and in the big scheme of things it's just a little footie forum.

First World problems of the highest order
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLOF, wakeybreakyheart and Irishshako
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back