Behaviour and bans

[Mikey Brown]

I am still a bit bemused by his choice of a rugby union forum as his preferred vehicle for political ranting.

I think possibly my only interaction with the guy was years ago asking if he actually had any interest in rugby, I was genuinely curious, and his response wasn't all that illuminating.

[Lizard]

Yes, I think he does support Australia because he used to get very agitated when I criticised anything Australian, including NRL rape-culture boorishness.

Interestingly, a quick review of his stats shows that on this site, 786 of his 809 posts were in non-rugby fora, of which 743 were on the politics board. Only 23 (less than 3%) were on rugby boards and from a quick look, only one of those was actually about rugby (without being simple abuse of a player, team or poster).

[Lizard]

Goddamnit, Liz.

What?

[Lizard]

You've just got a chip on your shoulder about statistics.

[Zhivago]

I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Indeed. The one sided modding that has led to UG feeling so persecuted is a disgrace. He had plenty of abuse thrown at him and was provoked incessantly. Those abusers felt like they had free reign, and bar a few reluctant modding actions taken for PR type purposes, they did.

That said, he was foolish to think a threat was gonna not get him banned, however lame the threat.

[Zhivago]

Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Oh do enlighten us!

[jared_7]

He used to post about rugby regularly when there was an Australian contingent. Permanent ban is huge overkill, he crossed a line but he was deliberately riled up and if someone felt threatened over the internet (someone who would seem to post in forums most likely much more aggressive than this one, no less) they need to either put him on ignore or just toughen up a bit.

[Zhivago]

It could be argued that this so-called threat was a "sudden loss of control" as a result of the sustained provocation.

[Zhivago]

Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Oh do enlighten us!

It's interesting that suddenly you've decided to begin a campaign to canonise him, and if you want to pretend like he's some sort of martyr to some grand conspiracy, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone to play ball.


myopic [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik]
adjective
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

Are you honestly trying to suggest a guy that felt entitled to heap abuse on anyone that had the nerve and temerity to not conform to his viewswas anything but? Give me a fucking break.

Except that's complete bollocks. I don't agree with his reactions, but his outbursts only really occured when he was mocked and made fun of. It never helped debate here, the only purpose of those attacks on him was to provoke him into getting himself banned. You were chief among those who deliberately and consistently targetted him.

If I was you, I'd pipe down a bit, Sonny Jim.

[Sandydragon]

For the record folks.

We allow a fair degree of mileage when it comes to behaviour on this board. My personal interpretation is that I like to think of this place as a virtual rugby club. Some language that wouldn't be used in church is fine, banter is fine also. When someone becomes abusive and starts to wind up other posters, I'll ask them to wind their necks in. If they don't respond to that encouragement, then they can be barred for a short while.

If that doesn't get their attention, the ban will get progressively longer.

However, there was an incident on here years ago involving Hwntw and Gower, where the latter made detailed threats to harm Hwntw and suggested that he was on his way to his home address to do so. In virtual life, or real life, that is totally unacceptable and is a criminal act. Unfortunately, at the time Gower was allowed to continue on this board. That is not a mistake that the moderators will be making twice.

Whilst the mods do try to show some patience, there are red lines and threatening another poster is one of those red lines. It will not be tolerated. I understand that not everyone is happy with UG being banned permanently, but at some point a line needs to be drawn.

As a moderator, I don't want to spend my life handing out bans or warnings. I would prefer that posters acted with some common sense and a respectful manner towards each other - in other words posters acted in the same way they would if the person they were arguing with were in front of them , face to face in that mythical rugby club.

[Donny osmond]

Oh do enlighten us!

It's interesting that suddenly you've decided to begin a campaign to canonise him, and if you want to pretend like he's some sort of martyr to some grand conspiracy, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone to play ball.


myopic [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik]
adjective
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

Are you honestly trying to suggest a guy that felt entitled to heap abuse on anyone that had the nerve and temerity to not conform to his viewswas anything but? Give me a fucking break.

Except that's complete bollocks. I don't agree with his reactions, but his outbursts only really occured when he was mocked and made fun of. It never helped debate here, the only purpose of those attacks on him was to provoke him into getting himself banned. You were chief among those who deliberately and consistently targetted him.

If I was you, I'd pipe down a bit, Sonny Jim.

Garbage, his outbursts came because he was so utterly incapable of accepting that other people have a right to disagree. Disagree enough and you get abused, its how he works, and has been for the last 10 years that RR has been putting up with him.

The place will be less interesting without him, but there's also a 100% higher chance of a decent, adult conversation.

Who are you to tell anyone else to pipe down a bit?

[zer0]

The place will be less interesting without him, but there's also a 100% higher chance of a decent, adult conversation dull circle jerk.

Would be a more accurate description.

[Donny osmond]

The place will be less interesting without him, but there's also a 100% higher chance of a decent, adult conversation dull circle jerk.

Would be a more accurate description.

Whatever floats your boat chief, we're not here to judge

[Zhivago]

I like chatting with both those guys and have a great deal of respect for their knowledge. Also agree, however, that the transparency is a good thing and, if anything, this forum seems remarkably fair & lenient.

I was banned by the tier 2 & 3 forum totally out of the blue, apparently for being too argumentative (I'd received a couple of warnings, but wtf? - forums are designed for debate and I didn't think they'd actually ban me permanently for it). I suspect the real reason was there were just too many long-standing members who didn't like my views, and one or two of them were refusing to post on the forum while I was there. So they just banned me on a pretext, and when other posters questioned this, the moderator launched into some libelous tirade to justify himself. & that's the basis most rugby forums seem to operate on, so far as I can tell. So it's refreshing to find this one where warnings are given, bans are not permanent, and explanations are provided.

You spoke too soon, Rowan!

[Zhivago]

2nd smartest fellow on this forum

Who is the first? Be credible.

[rowan]

You spoke too soon, Rowan!

Sadly. I'll miss that guys contributions to the political forum and especially some of the great links he posted.

Who is the first? Be credible.

A rhetorical question, surely!

[Mikey Brown]

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Indeed. The one sided modding that has led to UG feeling so persecuted is a disgrace. He had plenty of abuse thrown at him and was provoked incessantly. Those abusers felt like they had free reign, and bar a few reluctant modding actions taken for PR type purposes, they did.

That said, he was foolish to think a threat was gonna not get him banned, however lame the threat.

I don't know that I'd go that far with it but as I say I'm not really active in these discussions. He was often the one that flipped out the most, but the thin-skin argument works both ways. How many times have we seen this same conversation (as is now happening on this thread, without UG's presence) happen on here?

"I think A

I think B

You're wrong

You're ill informed

*Unrelated comment from Len about somebody's mum*

You have no self awareness

No, you have no self awareness

Irony much??? Trololololol etc. etc. for 18 pages"

I quite like Donny, Which, Cashead, Sandy, but I'm sure you've all played (both) leading parts in that conversation at some point.

[onlynameleft]

For the record folks.

We allow a fair degree of mileage when it comes to behaviour on this board. My personal interpretation is that I like to think of this place as a virtual rugby club. Some language that wouldn't be used in church is fine, banter is fine also. When someone becomes abusive and starts to wind up other posters, I'll ask them to wind their necks in. If they don't respond to that encouragement, then they can be barred for a short while.

If that doesn't get their attention, the ban will get progressively longer.

However, there was an incident on here years ago involving Hwntw and Gower, where the latter made detailed threats to harm Hwntw and suggested that he was on his way to his home address to do so. In virtual life, or real life, that is totally unacceptable and is a criminal act. Unfortunately, at the time Gower was allowed to continue on this board. That is not a mistake that the moderators will be making twice.

Whilst the mods do try to show some patience, there are red lines and threatening another poster is one of those red lines. It will not be tolerated. I understand that not everyone is happy with UG being banned permanently, but at some point a line needs to be drawn.

As a moderator, I don't want to spend my life handing out bans or warnings. I would prefer that posters acted with some common sense and a respectful manner towards each other - in other words posters acted in the same way they would if the person they were arguing with were in front of them , face to face in that mythical rugby club.

I remember that thread! Wasn't he quoting street names off an OS map or similar?
Reminds me of Curtis Woodhouse tweeting pictures of some guy's street.

[Donny osmond]

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Indeed. The one sided modding that has led to UG feeling so persecuted is a disgrace. He had plenty of abuse thrown at him and was provoked incessantly. Those abusers felt like they had free reign, and bar a few reluctant modding actions taken for PR type purposes, they did.

That said, he was foolish to think a threat was gonna not get him banned, however lame the threat.

I don't know that I'd go that far with it but as I say I'm not really active in these discussions. He was often the one that flipped out the most, but the thin-skin argument works both ways. How many times have we seen this same conversation (as is now happening on this thread, without UG's presence) happen on here?

"I think A

I think B

You're wrong

You're ill informed

*Unrelated comment from Len about somebody's mum*

You have no self awareness

No, you have no self awareness

Irony much??? Trololololol etc. etc. for 18 pages"

I quite like Donny, Which, Cashead, Sandy, but I'm sure you've all played (both) leading parts in that conversation at some point.

Thanks.

You're wrong.

[Donny osmond]

I don't know that I'd go that far with it but as I say I'm not really active in these discussions. He was often the one that flipped out the most, but the thin-skin argument works both ways. How many times have we seen this same conversation (as is now happening on this thread, without UG's presence) happen on here?

"I think A

I think B

You're wrong

You're ill informed

*Unrelated comment from Len about somebody's mum*

You have no self awareness

No, you have no self awareness

Irony much??? Trololololol etc. etc. for 18 pages"

I quite like Donny, Which, Cashead, Sandy, but I'm sure you've all played (both) leading parts in that conversation at some point.

Thanks.

You're wrong.

You're ill-informed.

Just got a text from Mikey's mum:

You know what they say about men with small hands?? Well that Len character has quite the smallest 'hands' I've ever come across.

[morepork]

You're all cunts.

I'll miss him, frankly.

[canta_brian]

You're all cunts.

I'll miss him, frankly.

This.

Sorry all, but I am not sure this feels remotely right. Now I know that I didn't read the original posts as they were deleted. But prodding someone with a stick until they snap is equally as bad as snapping in my opinion.

[J Dory]

Me too.

[onlynameleft]

Once I figured out he was on a perpetual wind up I found him quite entertaining most of the time.

[Donny osmond]

You're all cunts.

I'll miss him, frankly.

This.

Sorry all, but I am not sure this feels remotely right. Now I know that I didn't read the original posts as they were deleted. But prodding someone with a stick until they snap is equally as bad as snapping in my opinion.

Yes it is. But if you cant even propose an alternative point of view without it being taken as being "prodded with a stick" then something has to give. I would say the ability to say you disagree without being given dogs abuse is more important then keeping someone around for the sake of it.