Weeman wrote: I can say with 100% certainty that moderation has definitely erred on the side of leniency with regard to banning. They have been more patient and lenient than I would have been, as I have said previously (before you got here!). But I think it is a sensible policy and I'm happy to go along with it as I know the efforts that have gone into it being fair and transparent.

So how would that conversation go?

Someone gets banned as a sock - they wait ( X ) months and appeal to the people that banned him/her professing they aren't a sock and an unfair decision was made.

The decision to ban (assuming consensus of the members was attained to ban in the first place) would then be heard again?

Same jury - same judge - different outcome? Can't see it myself.

feather wrote:
I didn't see that it was in the rules that I had to.

Blue_Tackler wrote:

Hindsights a bastard eh....

It would have saved all this.

psketti wrote:
It would have saved all that, if I was not being harassed to answer questions, it's hardly what is displayed on the welcome notice above the door.

Blue_Tackler wrote:

You're right, it's not... but you can't deny you went out of your way to antagonize members from there on in, with the result being you shown the door. So what good did it serve?

Mistakes were made on both sides... there's no disputing that. But now we have a bigger mistake than we started off with.

Blue_Tackler wrote:
Come on now Blue - rightly or wrongly you're now in the position of being caught with your pants around yer ankles......

So enough eh?

psketti say's ''
Ok so what's going to happen now?

Blue_Tackler wrote:
No idea.

Have to wait until oi's around at least... and see what everyone else has to say.

It's not the same situation as we frequently get, whereby someone socks up over & over specifically for the purpose of being a twat.

He's admitted (in a round about way) that he came with the wrong attitude originally, due to having a chip on his shoulder because of DIF.

He's not come with a bad attitude this time and we've seen proof of that.

He's now apologised.

I'm not for booting him out.

So why's the cunt not banned?

The reason stated for froths ban may have been, sock. That may have been wrong.
But, frothy was a disruptive trolling twat. I called for his ban for thqt reason. Even started a thread...

There is only one course of action and i am disappointed it hasn't already happened.
Banned members knock on the front door. If they are found to have snuck in, they're banned.

This has happened many times before.

Frothy could appeal saying he was not a sock. I would then counter that by bringing up his behaviour.

Ban.

It is done.

Some of you need to wipe the Mike froth from your eyes, it's blocking your view.

marina wrote: marina wrote:

oi, why can't I edit that news story anymore? I'm locked!

I don't believe he was Mike, and if memory serves, we also accused him of being RA and Irre.

So as much as CF was antagonistic, so were we, as our accusations weren't likely to bring out the best in anyone.

Fuck Mike & Irre & RA to hell for creating this situation to begin with.

It's not like BT was a monster such as Droike, slipping in again to focus on his passion of all things Lunar, when his history proves him unfit to be in the company of decent human beings.

Because Mike is a sadistic prick.

And care in the community isn't our responsibility.

Gilly wrote:
Ok.

The bit when he said "I'm a sock"?

As was Knobs, but he wasn't an enemy - there are exceptions.

Are you actually defending a Mike sock?

I give up!

oi, better be careful next time who you guys hand out admin permissions. I wish I mentioned my concerns before, I had a feeling about it. It's a valuable lesson though, trust only the people you know.
I hate it when cocks socks come here only to disrupt the forum, it's pathetic. The length and the determination is unbelievable. B_T wanted to make it clear he's c_f, if he wanted a fresh start he wouldn't have said anything. He was aware of the consequences him coming out. It's pissed me off big time this whole thing, since I wanna contribute to the forum, to make it a better place, but this guy these guys come here and only create chaos. Argh....
See if ya can change the permission on that news article that I can't edit, it's doing my head in. How's it possible to be locked for me?