None of my business I guess but I just wondered why he was banned? I don't see any obvious reasons.

I wish people would read what's already been posted instead of keep asking others to go through everything again and again. The easiest way is to look at that person's profile and click on the last lot of posts they made - that way you can catch up without the need to spend ages looking for stuff.

I looked at his last posts but didn't see anything that might warrant a ban. That is why I started this topic.

Fancy that!

to be fair when i looked at his last few posts earlier there were only ones from yesterday - and nothing that looked like a blatant rule break.

I'm not sure if people are aware of this, some of you may have missed this due to not being here, but Mr .... was given his final warning to behave by 'Sketts about six months ago. Frankly, he could have been kicked out many times before yesterday. It's only because there's a reluctance to ban people that it hasn't happened sooner. I can say for the record that I would have kicked him out some time ago, but I don't put my hat in the ring for moderation, so I accept the efforts of those that do unless they're particularly outrageous. Which this isn't, trust me.

I kinda wish people would jump on trolls with similar enthusiasm to their eagerness to hold elected mods feet to the fire.

feather wrote:
Haha! Well said.

Gilly wrote:
odd thats changed quick!!

i was puzzled by his sudden banning though i did know he was on thin ice - mainly because nothing was said about it afaik and that after so long being tolerated i was unsure what the straw was that broke the proverbial back

Gilly wrote:

I think RA liked you Gilly.................
................ I always have, and I was very upset when we had word's

thoreau wrote:
Because I realised I'd made an error so deleted it.

feather wrote:
TBH I'm the first 'facilitator' to post on this thread and the issue seems to have been pretty much dealt with.



(a rather smug look behind those shades)

And I reckon sketti will be quietly pleased with her anniversary prezzie when she sees it.

I understand he was doing people's heads in and seemed to be (at least from what I saw - can't say I go through and scrutinise everyone's posts) kinda deliberately winding people up, but I think it would be far better if he were suspended for a bit. It's like Black Cloud is (still?) technically suspended and he was openly abusive for no reason.

But then I'd never put myself forward to be a mod as I'd never ban anyone unless they posted child porn or something.

dogsmilk wrote:
Personally I agree with the temp. bit, (although you did throw in the exception to the rule too you swine) as permanent bans leads to socks galore, ask

I have to say, I'm glad the mods here don't share your no-ban policy DM, as the place would be an extremely unenjoyable midden with some of the scrotes we've had nipping in.

I mean it!

I don't think asking for a reason is holding anybody's feet to the fire. I still don't see a good reason and this does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I say this to the whole forum,

You and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, act all dumb, we aint having it mate.

Gilly wrote:
I know. That's why I'd never want to be a mod.

If it were up to me you'd have....















SOD!!!