Time to ban Sisu

I think he crops up occasionally on our "Mouser Watch" thread, to get a handle on what the intelligent thinking rival's opinion is of 'Pool.

 

Okay, sounds fair to me.

 

It's the only thing that gives you any relevance

 

We ban very few people, I'd hazard a guess and so far lower than most boards, possibly even your own.

 

Sisu has his opinion. I disagree with a lot of what he says and he does go OTT with the Roman bashing but I'd prefer it if issues like this were dealt with via PM.

Difference in opinion stimulates debate, we have an obligation to moderate these boards with a degree of impartiality, we cannot start requesting bans left, right and centre without legitimate reason. If we need to remove people from the board we will, but generally it's a last resort thing unless there has been abuse.

 

DL. Like I said. I haven't got a problem with his wummery. It's just that most if not all of it is abusive and not in the least but funny. If people want to spout rubbish then fine but it must at least have some value to it. Not the type he puts down which is, in my opinion, derogatory and inflammatory just for the sake of it. He has been banned before right?

 

He was banned recently and got reinstated

 

Totally agree.

 

Maybe we need yellow cards or a sin bin ??? A ban can then be applied for repeat offences.

 

Spuds banned one of your lot for disliking comments

 

What I find hysterical about this board is that you will ban people for merely having the cheek to take an opposing and critical view to the party line, but you are quite prepared to tolerate angry keyboard warriors who utter and get away with some of the worst kind of verbal filth that I have ever seen dished out on the internet.

My eldest son's school recently held an anti-bullying day, to which parents were invited. The local cops gave a talk, and I was surprised to learn that children from the age of 10 can now be convicted of the crime of cyber-bullying, which is apparently becoming a massive problem for the authorities. Some of the examples that were given for cyber-bullying are, I can assure you, extremely tame to what is permitted on this board.

I have said it before and I will repeat it here, again, that there should be zero tolerance for any kind of personal abuse against fellow posters. The fact that someone may support a different team than you does not give you any right to personally abuse that poster. I also believe that there is absolutely no excusing anyone who uses profane language against another poster.

If you want to establish a "banning policy" how about you ban anyone (partisan fan or not) who uses personal abuse against another poster (non-partisan or not)?

 

Ignore feature is broken on here it seems

 

Wait, you're a dad?

 

Amazing how funny you find this. Does the person involved post on your board, or this one?

 

What a ridiculous point, it's totally different, we don't know each other as people or even each other's name/gender. It's not bullying in the slightest, if you get called a **** or insulted in any way on here it should be taken with a pinch of salt simply for the reasons I just mentioned. Although I do agree that some of the abuse towards other team's fans goes way over the top and is often for no reason.

 

"If you play with fire, you're gonna get burnt".

Your posts are often deliberately provocative in a way that incites other members. Having got to know your nature (on here) you strike me as a genuine football fan that just likes to partake in a bit of banter with rival fans every now and then. The thing is, these are anonymous forums, people don't have time to judge character so they will always judge on a first impression basis.

I agree that some of the abuse is a bit too far but given your previous its something you'll have to accept. I learnt the hard way when I was banned from your board.

You cannot get banned without repercussions, that's just a walk of life. It's like doing time in prison and expecting everybody to be all lovey dovey towards you upon release with job offers flying in left, right and centre.

As I've said before in response to a dig from SD, we do not like banning people and its something we do very rarely. Whilst we encourage fans of all clubs to visit this board, we will not stand back and watch regular fans deterred whilst WUMs/Advertisement promoters/Matth + his 150 hourly accounts run riot on our board.

 

If HIAG is a Dad, then I think he should be convicted for having underage sex

 

As I'm sure HIAG, with his law background, could tell you having sex underage isn't a crime, having sex with someone underage is a crime as they can't give consent. Hence "age of consent"

 

Roman bashing? 1 post this week, 1 post 2 or 3 weeks ago. You make it seem like I am on here every other day having a go.

Besides everything I said about Roman is a factual and can't be argued against so that is what really gets to people. Tolerance for differing opinions on this board is 0 when it concerns Chelsea or anything to do with Chelsea

 

If I choose to correct some delusion like the stuff about Roman being a good owner rather than a rich owner it is my opinion based on facts, I dont post it to annoy you lot, there is no wummery