Missing thread

[suityou01]

That just sounds like your victim mentality shining through.



It would never affect me. I couldn't give 2 tulips. It's not real life.

HTH but IDI.

Victim mentality, hardly. I stood up for myself and got an infraction for it!

Troll somewhere else, and get some vowels for **** sake.

[Zippy]

The point here is what is an acceptable post and what isn't. Discounting the sockies coming back as 'different' posters, there does seem to be an inconsistency of treatment depending on the ID of the poster.

Please publish the rules. Now, if the rules are 'we don't like you cos you annoy people' then I believe we should know that. Publically. Just so we all know what consitutes annoying.
I realise this argument may be dismissed because it is well known that I get on fine with SY01.
I do, however, feel that the main issue here is the lack of clarity on the posting rules and I would like it to be addressed.

Shoot!

[fckvwls]

Victim mentality, hardly. I stood up for myself and got an infraction for it!

Troll somewhere else, and get some vowels for **** sake.

If you call whining incessantly about a non event standing up for yourself then well done you.

In the real world, the rest of us will continue to not give a flying fook about your infraction.

[bumgardner]

The point here is what is an acceptable post and what isn't. Discounting the sockies coming back as 'different' posters, there does seem to be an inconsistency of treatment depending on the ID of the poster.

Please publish the rules. Now, if the rules are 'we don't like you cos you annoy people' then I believe we should know that. Publically. Just so we all know what consitutes annoying.
I realise this argument may be dismissed because it is well known that I get on fine with SY01.
I do, however, feel that the main issue here is the lack of clarity on the posting rules and I would like it to be addressed.

Shoot!

Well said. CUK general will otherwise turn into even more of an old boys club. From what I read MF is more than capable of handling himself and him and SY01 have previous form. I find this tedious and wish for a swift conclusion. FWIW the mods do seem to have something against SY01 and this may or may not be without just cause. That said, if they want rid then why not just ban him FFS? To carry on needling and pissing about is just childish and pointless. Admin or the mods, please take action you're late on this one.

HTH

BG

[NotAllThere]

... why not just ban him FFS? ...

As soon as we spotted he was back online after his flounce, that's exactly what we did. Sorry it took so long.

Just for a few days, to hopefully regain a sense of proportion.

[cojak]

The point here is what is an acceptable post and what isn't. Discounting the sockies coming back as 'different' posters, there does seem to be an inconsistency of treatment depending on the ID of the poster.

Please publish the rules. Now, if the rules are 'we don't like you cos you annoy people' then I believe we should know that. Publically. Just so we all know what consitutes annoying.
I realise this argument may be dismissed because it is well known that I get on fine with SY01.

I do, however, feel that the main issue
here is the lack of clarity on the posting rules and I would like it to be addressed.

Shoot!

Have highlighted this post to admin

[bumgardner]

As soon as we spotted he was back online after his flounce, that's exactly what we did. Sorry it took so long.

Just for a few days, to hopefully regain a sense of proportion.

He flounced?

[wingnut]

As soon as we spotted he was back online after his flounce, that's exactly what we did. Sorry it took so long.

Just for a few days, to hopefully regain a sense of proportion.

We? I thought the decision was your own? Or was this the real/royal we?

[NotAllThere]

We? I thought the decision was your own? Or was this the real/royal we?

No. We discussed it, and agreed it.

The problem with publishing "the rules" is that they are, quite deliberately, not exhaustive. The problem with having a set of rules is that it doesn't allow any flexibility - and there are always individual who will behave really badly "within the rules", and then cry foul. Conversely, there are times when breaching a written rule doesn't really require any intervention.

SY01 got an infraction. Which affects no-one - it's just a record on the database. He then, in my view, totally overreacted, and the considered opinion of the moderators and administrator was that he needed an enforced timeout.

[fckvwls]

We? I thought the decision was your own? Or was this the real/royal we?

I believe it was BGG that said: Admin it is your forum, do with it what you like. This is not government, you don't have to justify your actions or be held accountable for any decisions. The forum is a free service, choose to use it or not. FIFO, simples.