Sorry I meant could a Fulham mod ban me but if other mods from the Norwich board felt it wasn't a good enough reason, could they unban me?
THAT Rickie Lambert Interview
- Thread starter nick_obee
- Start date
-
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
-
- Status
Sorry I meant could a Fulham mod ban me but if other mods from the Norwich board felt it wasn't a good enough reason, could they unban me?
If you consider the intent of the comments I think there's a fairly clear difference between saying "calm down" or "don't sweat" and calling someone a bed wetter. The bed wetter line is far more aggressive and far less likely to be followed up by a reasoned response. I think it's telling that people throughout society use the first two phrases all the time and I'd be happy to use either phrase in, say, a work meeting. I only ever hear/see people being called bed wetters on football forums and would never consider it acceptable to say that in a meeting at work.
It also seems quite clear to me that calling someone a bed wetter is not an attempt to suggest that someone has a bladder condition, the intention is to suggest that person is emotionally unstable and dismiss their opinion. It may not quite be a personal attack but I'd certainly say it's likely to provoke an unsavoury or inappropriate response and I believe that's against the rules of this forum.
That's sort of the point. I agree with LTL that I can't see what they've done. Surely part of the reason you would suspend/ban someone is to deter others from doing the same thing? How are people supposed to avoid doing what Joe and Dan have done when we don't really know what it is?
This all needs to chill out now. I fear for this great forum if this attempted uprising continues. Let the mods to their job, they've run the forum brilliantly since its inception and I think it's time people let them off the hook and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe the name of the thread could be changed? Then I won't keep coming on here to read about Rickie to find it's still about a 48 hour ban being given. 
Well the rules for forum usage are around..somewhere (cant be arsed finding T&Cs right now) and I'm guessing one of the reasons you cant see what they've done is because offending material is either deleted or edited out when someone gets a warning.
Anyone could guess what is unacceptable on here. I doubt Joe and Dan would resort to racism or others -isms, so would suspect it was considered they were being too personal in their arguments and persisted despite warnings. They were probably being provocative deliberately and are loving all this fuss. This is not a case for a European civil rights courts...they have received a 48 hr ban from a football forum.
In that situation the respective mods would have to argue the point out with the super mods, who actually do the banning and unbanning.
Can they fly and stuff?
Nothing has been deleted/edited. They were banned at the point at which they made the "dickhead" comment.
They were banned due to an accumulation of complaints/infringements. Seeing as Puck asked why we can't see those i said that they had probably been deleted or edited as they happened due to being offensive/against the rules.
It's usually being too personal that upsets people. The mods have to act if they get a lot of complaints. It's alright other people saying that they wouldn't be bothered...you can't set the bar at the level wanted by people with rhinoceros skin.
That's the point at which they were banned. Because Beefy joking called Osvaldorama a dickhead, which both of them acknowledged as a non-serious comment. It was then continued by Dan and Joe.
Now, I said I wasn't going to be posting on here until further notice - and I haven't been talking about football on here. But I was asked to put this across. It hasn't been deleted, and they tell me that there were no warnings given during that flurry of posts.
Sometimes kids need to be on the naughty step. They'll be back on Friday totally well behaved #flyingpigs
DTLW they were banned after repeated warnings as Spaced Saint confirmed yesterday and gave an example. Our mods don't make the rules but have to act if they are repeatedly broken.
The reasons have been discussed to death DTLW... if there are broader points to discuss, go for it, otherwise can we move on?
The point being, myself (and others) can't see what rule they've broken - and no one is willing to clarify it. A bit ****, in my book.
"Repeated offences" and even when their ban came through it said "no specified reason", which kind of says it all.
- Status