Feedback Thread READ POST #1 IN FULL

Samich · 23-06-2012 5:11pm

lordgoat wrote: »

Completly wrong.

To be blunt: You're not a SF mod so your opinion is invalid.

Frisbee was the mod in question, he unlike you knows the entire story. He made a call. The vast majority of users seem happy about it. So this is a case of you having an opinion but it not being fully informed and therefore invalid.

Why are you giving your opinion then?

it's a feedback thread, I'm giving my feedback.

I'm questioning the mods, not the normal peasants.

Regards the "I'm back". So a lad who gets banned for 6 months just starts off by acting like he's not been banned 6 months. Oh he's said "I'm back", must be a troll

Samich · 23-06-2012 5:15pm

TheTownie wrote: »

The mods did decide he was a troll. Did you report those posts at the time for back seat modding?

Not saying such post are back seat modding, thats for the mods to decide.

Bateman was banned because posters reported his posts (I was one of them). The mods then decided it was appropriate to act upon those post reports.

I didn't report him because of the "who let him back in" posts nor did the mods act because of such posts.

Yes I did report them posts, as I did with the one who said "Get the fúck over yourself". Where does that comment stand in relation to the forum charter? It's personal abuse if the forum is going to be modded strictly.

Nothing was done to these posts as they were well known posters who made them.

Whenever I don't like someones opinion, shall I reply with a short response and end with "Get the fúck over yourself"? Will I be given reassurances that I won't be infracted?

Mars Bar · 23-06-2012 5:22pm

Samich wrote: »

If you remember, he alluded to the performance against Blackburn, which Itd lost because of DDG. If you add them 3 points to Utds total, they would have won the league.

Once again, they're his views. I don't agree with them. What happens if Kagawa does become a journeyman? Will Bateman be allowed back in?

The whole team was crap for both Blackburn and Newcastle games IIRC, not just De Gea.

If Kagawa does become a journeyman then it'll have been a lucky guess on Bateman's behalf.

If Bateman didn't have an agenda and wanted to be reasonable, I'd say he would have been better off arguing that Evra cost us more points than De Gea.

Bateman just wanted to wind people up. It's so painfully obvious that that's what he was doing.

When the mods decide to ban people, they look at prior history. Bateman has been trouble across the board. I'd imagine he was warned about his future behaviour when he was given the 6 month timeout. He was given a chance to prove himself as a decent contributor, which he is well capable of being, but he decided against it.

EDIT: I agree with you in a sense that some of the responses were quick off the mark in terms of being personal and may have been infractable. However, 6 months ago we attacked his posts over and over and over again that there became such a frustration in the thread that people started attacking the poster. When he returned where he left off, people just knew what was in store. It would have been better if he was ignored but that just doesn't happen on internet forums.

Kess73 · 23-06-2012 5:29pm

gavredking wrote: »

Just given people a heads up, I'll be closing this thread tomorrow at 2pm.

I want to thank you all for the feedback theres a lot for us to go through and digest, trust me we will be taking everything into consideration and will try and deal with all your complaints and queries.

We'll do this as a team, all the mods and possibily cmods will be involved decisions and discussions regarding actions taken.

So any last minute things you want to say make sure you mention it as I said everything will be considered, thats the point of this thread after all, its for your say and opinions on the everything and anyrhing going on in the Soccer Forum.

Well I think Amiable's ban should be something that is looked at sooner rather than later to be honest. The ban in no way reflects his post, and I don't see why a decent poster should not be allowed to post in the forum when he has not done anything wrong of real note.

The very fact that you yourself were active in the forum at the time of the offending post and that you yourself were the mod that responded straight away and did not see fit to hand out a ban speaks volumes for me. It was not seen as a bannable offence by you at the time and was dealt with by you at the time.

But this morning the poster gets banned for it, is still waiting for a reply back on his banning, and nobody seems to be able to give a good reason as to why his post content warranted a red card and ban.

Seems pretty pointless to have a charter system when even the mods for the forum cannot even come close in their decisions on the same offending post. Just means that posters could be disagreeing on something and not know whether or not what they are saying is banter, disagreement or a bannable offence.

If what Amiable said is worth a ban, then a lot of what I have said today is worth a ban. What a large number of people said in this thread is worth a ban. Hell going into a thread and saying someone is a spoofer is technically personal abuse and going by today's ruling should be a red card.

I am just curious if today's red card will just be swept under the carpet, or if it will be seen as what it looks like to many on here.

Modding can be a thankless job, much more so I imagine on a forum as busy as the soccer forum, but bad decisions like that of today will only make modding the forum harder for the good mods as any bad decision that is let stand has to become the new minimum standard for getting that level of punishment. If it does not then it would become obvious the punishment was personal and an abuse of position imho.

The ball, as they say, is now in your collective court, mods. As always how good or bad the forum can be comes down, in no small way, to how you mod your forum.

TheTownie · 23-06-2012 5:29pm

Samich wrote: »

Yes I did report them posts, as I did with the one who said "Get the fúck over yourself". Where does that comment stand in relation to the forum charter? It's personal abuse if the forum is going to be modded strictly.

Nothing was done to these posts as they were well known posters who made them.

Whenever I don't like someones opinion, shall I reply with a short response and end with "Get the fúck over yourself"? Will I be given reassurances that I won't be infracted?

By all means push for a response as to why the posts you reported weren't acted upon. Only the mods can answer your questions.

I think your defense of Bateman though is wrong and you should let that go as it seems to me the majority are happy with the decision.

SantryRed · 23-06-2012 5:36pm

gavredking wrote: »

Just given people a heads up, I'll be closing this thread tomorrow at 2pm.

I want to thank you all for the feedback theres a lot for us to go through and digest, trust me we will be taking everything into consideration and will try and deal with all your complaints and queries.

We'll do this as a team, all the mods and possibily cmods will be involved decisions and discussions regarding actions taken.

So any last minute things you want to say make sure you mention it as I said everything will be considered, thats the point of this thread after all, its for your say and opinions on the everything and anyrhing going on in the Soccer Forum.

For fcuk sake. This is the most fcuking frustrating thing from this fcuking feedback thread. Sorry for aiming this at you Gav but you are the first mod to post since amiable got banned. How can a mod come in and say all that said above without commenting on all the negative feedback on the banning by amiable. This is what pisses everyone off and pisses me off. For fcuksake.

Samich · 23-06-2012 5:36pm

Mars Bar wrote: »

The whole team was crap for both Blackburn and Newcastle games IIRC, not just De Gea.

If Kagawa does become a journeyman then it'll have been a lucky guess on Bateman's behalf.

If Bateman didn't have an agenda and wanted to be reasonable, I'd say he would have been better off arguing that Evra cost us more points than De Gea.

Bateman just wanted to wind people up. It's so painfully obvious that that's what he was doing.

When the mods decide to ban people, they look at prior history. Bateman has been trouble across the board. I'd imagine he was warned about his future behaviour when he was given the 6 month timeout. He was given a chance to prove himself as a decent contributor, which he is well capable of being, but he decided against it.

EDIT: I agree with you in a sense that some of the responses were quick off the mark in terms of being personal and may have been infractable. However, 6 months ago we attacked his posts over and over and over again that there became such a frustration in the thread that people started attacking the poster. When he returned where he left off, people just knew what was in store. It would have been better if he was ignored but that just doesn't happen on internet forums.

I'm afraid DDG was at fault for some of the goals. My view is that DDG is and will be a great signing, but I can see where Bateman is coming from.

Saying every player was at fault for the Blackburn game is like saying every player was at fault for Irelands games in the euros when Shay Given was at fault for some of the goals.

i.e the italian first goal, if Given hadn't flapped for a corner and there was no goals scored for the rest of the game then Given would be responsible for not getting a point.

Let's go back to the earlier Evra debate, someone said Evra had regressed unbelievably in the last year. There was no facts given with this comment.

How come this is allowed without being called a troll, is it because the majority of people agree with it?

Samich · 23-06-2012 5:38pm

TheTownie wrote: »

By all means push for a response as to why the posts you reported weren't acted upon. Only the mods can answer your questions.

I think your defense of Bateman though is wrong and you should let that go as it seems to me the majority are happy with the decision.

Ok, I won't post anymore about the Bateman situation.

Kess73 · 23-06-2012 5:43pm

SantryRed wrote: »

For fcuk sake. This is the most fcuking frustrating thing from this fcuking feedback thread. Sorry for aiming this at you Gav but you are the first mod to post since amiable got banned. How can a mod come in and say all that said above without commenting on all the negative feedback on the banning by amiable. This is what pisses everyone off and pisses me off. For fcuksake.

In fairness to Gav, he really cannot comment as he was the mod that dealt with the "issue" yesterday and he really cannot give a reason as to why the other mod gave a ban today for the same "issue".

Only one mod can give a reason as to why Amiable was banned, and he is the only mod that can come out and say what exactly about Amiable's post made it worthy of a red card and worthy of a ban. It will be up to him whether he does so in this thread, or just keeps it between him and the other footy mods.

But if it does stand, then the goal posts will have moved with regards the modding of the thread and I would expect him and the other mods to mod based on the standards he set.

Mars Bar · 23-06-2012 5:45pm

Samich wrote: »

I'm afraid DDG was at fault for some of the goals. My view is that DDG is and will be a great signing, but I can see where Bateman is coming from.

Saying every player was at fault for the Blackburn game is like saying every player was at fault for Irelands games in the euros when Shay Given was at fault for some of the goals.

i.e the italian first goal, if Given hadn't flapped for a corner and there was no goals scored for the rest of the game then Given would be responsible for not getting a point.

Let's go back to the earlier Evra debate, someone said Evra had regressed unbelievably in the last year. There was no facts given with this comment.

How come this is allowed without being called a troll, is it because the majority of people agree with it?

The whole Ireland team was crap apart from Andrews and Given was at fault for a few too. Given got more stick because he is far more experienced and a standard was expected of him that we have been used to. I'm sure he'll be disappointed in himself.

Bateman said that De Gea is "an unmitigated disaster". That was wrong. Simply wrong.

On Evra, I can't remember who did the diagrams of the amount of space Evra left behind him and between the attacking players during crosses but there was more examples of it than there should have been from a pro footballer. The fact he has been dropped from the France XI is pretty good evidence of his regression.

I got to go now so I'll leave it at that. I hadn't intended in getting into such a debate but here we are anyway!

I think there was most certainly enough evidence to justify Bateman's banning and I agree with the mods.

Al Capwned · 23-06-2012 5:49pm

Samich wrote: »

Bateman was targeted though..

The level of abuse Bateman got was outrageous.

Couldn't be any more wrong if you tried, imo. He constantly tried to get a rise and was called on his sh!te every time.

Edit - Wrote this comment after reading yours, without reading the rest of the thread - I now see you've dropped it (fair play) and we should just move on.

Professional Griefer · 23-06-2012 6:05pm

Samich wrote: »

Bateman was targeted though..

The level of abuse Bateman got was outrageous.

You can't see why?

You said yourself that Homer has 17000+ posts, his time here hes discussed the side, along with other teams, and used different forums. Had a positive input and is clearly not here to take the piss. Bateman on the other hand, from the start he was taking the piss, everyone seen it, and the second he came back he started pissing again.

edit: +1 above.

Onwards and upwards.

niallo27 · 23-06-2012 6:06pm

Spot On

Kess73 wrote: »

In fairness to Gav, he really cannot comment as he was the mod that dealt with the "issue" yesterday and he really cannot give a reason as to why the other mod gave a ban today for the same "issue".

Only one mod can give a reason as to why Amiable was banned, and he is the only mod that can come out and say what exactly about Amiable's post made it worthy of a red card and worthy of a ban. It will be up to him whether he does so in this thread, or just keeps it between him and the other footy mods.

But if it does stand, then the goal posts will have moved with regards the modding of the thread and I would expect him and the other mods to mod based on the standards he set.

We are all ****ed if thats the case though, you need a bit of give and take in this place and you need to learn to not get upset at things, the best thing about this forum is having opposition fans on here and having a bit of needle when their teams are playing each other.

GavRedKing · 23-06-2012 6:23pm

Too Lenient

Kess73 wrote: »

Well I think Amiable's ban should be something that is looked at sooner rather than later to be honest. The ban in no way reflects his post, and I don't see why a decent poster should not be allowed to post in the forum when he has not done anything wrong of real note.

The very fact that you yourself were active in the forum at the time of the offending post and that you yourself were the mod that responded straight away and did not see fit to hand out a ban speaks volumes for me. It was not seen as a bannable offence by you at the time and was dealt with by you at the time.

But this morning the poster gets banned for it, is still waiting for a reply back on his banning, and nobody seems to be able to give a good reason as to why his post content warranted a red card and ban.

Seems pretty pointless to have a charter system when even the mods for the forum cannot even come close in their decisions on the same offending post. Just means that posters could be disagreeing on something and not know whether or not what they are saying is banter, disagreement or a bannable offence.

If what Amiable said is worth a ban, then a lot of what I have said today is worth a ban. What a large number of people said in this thread is worth a ban. Hell going into a thread and saying someone is a spoofer is technically personal abuse and going by today's ruling should be a red card.

I am just curious if today's red card will just be swept under the carpet, or if it will be seen as what it looks like to many on here.

Modding can be a thankless job, much more so I imagine on a forum as busy as the soccer forum, but bad decisions like that of today will only make modding the forum harder for the good mods as any bad decision that is let stand has to become the new minimum standard for getting that level of punishment. If it does not then it would become obvious the punishment was personal and an abuse of position imho.

The ball, as they say, is now in your collective court, mods. As always how good or bad the forum can be comes down, in no small way, to how you mod your forum.

SantryRed wrote: »

For fcuk sake. This is the most fcuking frustrating thing from this fcuking feedback thread. Sorry for aiming this at you Gav but you are the first mod to post since amiable got banned. How can a mod come in and say all that said above without commenting on all the negative feedback on the banning by amiable. This is what pisses everyone off and pisses me off. For fcuksake.

On the phone so its hard to multi quote and what not.

Ill try answer both points but if i miss something ill come back on thread.

Kess, ive been onto amiable through pm. Regards his ban, ive gone through it with him on my stand point on the matter. I can answer for the mod that issued the ban. If it comes up for discussion and by the looks of things it probably will ill gove my opinion on it, something ive outlined to amiable myself.

The forum has seen the decision as a joke, for want of a better word and if this is the genral feeling of the masses id be happy to engage with posters and mods alike about the possibilty of looking at the red and possibily reversing it. It os however upto the mod that issued it. I hope it does get sorted as the worse thing that could and probably already hss happened is that the forum thinks we as mod are out to get them which isnt the case.

As all of you know its a tough gig modding especially such an active forum and slme mlds are more able to interact then others due to real life commitments so hopefully amiable will get an answer sooner then later.

Santeyred, i didnt comment on it as ive been onto amiable, as i mentioned in the above. Trust me as this is pretty serious feedback regarding a matter that the majority of the posters feel as harsh we'll be looking into it.

This will certainly not be the last you hear of it anyway.

Kess73 · 23-06-2012 6:45pm

gavredking wrote: »

On the phone so its hard to multi quote and what not.

Ill try answer both points but if i miss something ill come back on thread.

Kess, ive been onto amiable through pm. Regards his ban, ive gone through it with him on my stand point on the matter. I can answer for the mod that issued the ban. If it comes up for discussion and by the looks of things it probably will ill gove my opinion on it, something ive outlined to amiable myself.

The forum has seen the decision as a joke, for want of a better word and if this is the genral feeling of the masses id be happy to engage with posters and mods alike about the possibilty of looking at the red and possibily reversing it. It os however upto the mod that issued it. I hope it does get sorted as the worse thing that could and probably already hss happened is that the forum thinks we as mod are out to get them which isnt the case.

As all of you know its a tough gig modding especially such an active forum and slme mlds are more able to interact then others due to real life commitments so hopefully amiable will get an answer sooner then later.

.

I do think that the reason as to why that post was seen as being worth a red card and ban should be given. It looks such a bad decision that it really does need an explanation.

As for thinking that all the mods are out to get people. I don't think that is the case at all, but I think that one or two posters, myself being one, may have voiced something that a number of people may have already thought about one or two mods. Des' long grass comment being the best example of this.

As for hoping that Amiable gets an answer sooner rather than later. That I think really is a joke. If a decision is seen as a bad decision by any on duty mod of the forum, surely that mod can go upstairs so to speak and get a second opinion from a C Mod or an Admin in order to rectify the problem. Makes it pointless to have 6,8, or a 100 mods for a forum if they are all powerless to do anything with suspect decisions until the person that handed out the ban comes online.

From experience a pm to a footy mod can sometimes take a day or two to even get a reply from because of having to go through one person, and I have experienced times when the footy mod I am trying to contact is active, is using the forum and posting on it but just not replying to mails, which makes the process of having to pm the mod you have an issue with a pretty pointless exercise at times. Fair enough in cases where there is little doubt as to what a person has done wrong, but in borderline cases surely common sense could kick in and a poster could be given access back on a temp basis until the original mod surfaces to give his side of things.

Having to wait for any one mod to come back really leaves the system open to be abused by the type of mods who don't bother to pm back or the type that reply with glib little "whatever" type responses.

Not much good to a poster who gets wrongly banned to have to wait for one mod to return. Maybe there should be a system put in place that if a mod gives out an unfair ban that the mod gets nbanned from the forum for the same length of time as the poster was banned for, or if a mod is handing out punishments to people he does not like the mod just gets kicked from the site.

_blank_ · 23-06-2012 7:12pm

Fair play to you Gav for responding, but it's a pattern we've seen before where long-term mods leave the newer wetbacks to face the masses.

It's a horrible way of going on.

Leiva · 23-06-2012 7:15pm

I totally understand what an un-rewarding job being a mod can be but I think Amiable's ban needs to be overturned or explained as to why it was issued.

I really can't see the level of punishment 'vs' the offensive post in question balance ?

It has raised more questions than answered .

_blank_ · 23-06-2012 7:18pm

I can't quite work out how many "points" amiable has built up towards a ban with his yellow/red cards, but at first glance it doesn't seem to be enough.

I could be wrong in that, and would hope a mod of the SF would correct me on that.

TheTownie · 23-06-2012 7:22pm

Kess73 wrote: »

I do think that the reason as to why that post was seen as being worth a red card and ban should be given. It looks such a bad decision that it really does need an explanation.

As for thinking that all the mods are out to get people. I don't think that is the case at all, but I think that one or two posters, myself being one, may have voiced something that a number of people may have already thought about one or two mods. Des' long grass comment being the best example of this.

As for hoping that Amiable gets an answer sooner rather than later. That I think really is a joke. If a decision is seen as a bad decision by any on duty mod of the forum, surely that mod can go upstairs so to speak and get a second opinion from a C Mod or an Admin in order to rectify the problem. Makes it pointless to have 6,8, or a 100 mods for a forum if they are all powerless to do anything with suspect decisions until the person that handed out the ban comes online.

From experience a pm to a footy mod can sometimes take a day or two to even get a reply from because of having to go through one person, and I have experienced times when the footy mod I am trying to contact is active, is using the forum and posting on it but just not replying to mails, which makes the process of having to pm the mod you have an issue with a pretty pointless exercise at times. Fair enough in cases where there is little doubt as to what a person has done wrong, but in borderline cases surely common sense could kick in and a poster could be given access back on a temp basis until the original mod surfaces to give his side of things.

Having to wait for any one mod to come back really leaves the system open to be abused by the type of mods who don't bother to pm back or the type that reply with glib little "whatever" type responses.

Not much good to a poster who gets wrongly banned to have to wait for one mod to return. Maybe there should be a system put in place that if a mod gives out an unfair ban that the mod gets nbanned from the forum for the same length of time as the poster was banned for, or if a mod is handing out punishments to people he does not like the mod just gets kicked from the site.

IMO that is a little too much an 'eye for an eye' solution and would have an inhibiting effect on the mods but I like the fact you're putting forward a suggestion to try and improve their decision-making process.

daithijjj · 23-06-2012 7:27pm

Amiable's red is brutal harsh, reminds me of the red the greek lad got in the first game of the Euro's. If anything its a dodgy yellow at best imho.

djPSB · 23-06-2012 7:37pm

I got an infraction for calling John Terry a bad name which I thought was quite harsh.

And it was even that bad. I was holding back.

Big Knox · 23-06-2012 7:41pm

That red is an absolute joke dear jesus.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 23-06-2012 7:42pm

Des wrote: »

Fair play to you Gav for responding, but it's a pattern we've seen before where long-term mods leave the newer wetbacks to face the masses.

It's a horrible way of going on.

Des, you go on about people waiting in the grass to catch a guy with an infraction but most of your comments in the last few pages are exactly that which you are accusing a mod of. Waiting for little things to get a dig on on one or many of the mods that you have fallen foul of (or just plain don't like). Unlike you some of us mods spend some time away from the internet. Today my little boy was off playing a tournament for West Brom against a bunch of other top teams from the midlands. I am not going to miss that just on the off chance that something kicks off on the soccer forum. But of course an event that occurred this morning (on a Saturday out of season when there are not a lot of games going on) and that has only had one mods input (be they new, old or otherwise) is a very good reason for you to jump up and down and complain about people leaving the greener mods getting dumped with all of the rubbish. We have got in new mods (something you often complained about as I recall) to have cover and one of them has posted and made some points on this thread, providing cover across the day when others of us are not about. We know that we are approx 1.5 mods down this weekend and so things would be a little stretched but over the course of the Euros we have not had much trouble over the Euros, people have been well behaved and our reported posts and infractions are down significantly in comparison to a PL week/weekend. Today, if some of the longer standing mods had posted first then it is fairly likely that you would have found a different reason to complain, maybe the longer standing mods not letting the newer mods air their opinions on the forum or somesuch. As is said a lot and has been said a lot in this thread, we are often damned if we do and damned if we don't.

As for the amiable infraction. I saw it and did not action it. I do not know why PHB did infract it but I assume that he had his reasons. What I do know is that this will not be resolved here. The infractee (is that even a word) and the mod will either resolve it by PM or it will be dealt with through DRP. There will likely be engagement on the Soccer Mods forum too and generally where we come to a consensus the action we agree on is the one that will be taken. Personally I feel that amiable and PHB should discuss this first and that if ami has commenced this process, that he should give PHB some time to respond.

Des wrote: »

I can't quite work out how many "points" amiable has built up towards a ban with his yellow/red cards, but at first glance it doesn't seem to be enough.

I could be wrong in that, and would hope a mod of the SF would correct me on that.

In this instance you do not require correcting.

GavRedKing · 23-06-2012 8:34pm

Too Lenient

Just given ye a quick heads up. The infraction for amiables is been discussed by the mods.

Given the reaction across the board I feel this may run for a day or two but just be aware we're not sitting back here and doing nothing.

Just thought I'd give ye an update without going into specifics.

Leiva · 23-06-2012 8:50pm

gavredking wrote: »

Just given ye a quick heads up. The infraction for amiables is been discussed by the mods.

Given the reaction across the board I feel this may run for a day or two but just be aware we're not sitting back here and doing nothing.

Just thought I'd give ye an update without going into specifics.

Your a breath of fresh air Gav.

Mr. Guappa · 23-06-2012 9:11pm

Is there anything to be said for requiring a 2nd mod to approve a ban before it's set in stone?

monkey9 · 23-06-2012 9:14pm

Al Capwned · 23-06-2012 9:16pm

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for requiring a 2nd mod to approve a ban before it's set in stone?

That makes sense.

Xavi6 · 23-06-2012 9:24pm

alproctor wrote: »

That makes sense.

It would if mods worked in a full time capacity and getting a second authorisation would take a matter of minutes.

As it is, they aren't so it could take hours for that to happen. Would you want it applied for every ban? If so then you could have a troll running about the place for a good while before that second auth comes in. If not, how do you define what does need a second opinion and what doesn't?

The simple solution is for the mods to not be so trigger happy over frivilous things, which would have worked in this particular instance.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 23-06-2012 9:25pm

alproctor wrote: »

That makes sense.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) it doesn't. If we were going to do that then we would double the workload required and maybe even more. As it is we have a group check on perm/long term bans whereby we go over infractions to see if they all had merit before we okay the ban.

As it is, no bans are set in stone and that is why we have so many safeguards. Infractees/the banned can pm the mods. The mods can discuss within the SM forum and there is always DRP too and past that the admins can even get involved if the infractee/banned is still not happy. Of course there are many many times where a ban is as clear cut as any can be but these ones are often fought for with as much rigour by the banned as any others that we have.

To have mods going around rubber stamping other mods work would increase by a considerable amount and also sort of means that we do not trust one another as a group. If amiables appeal is upheld then the most he will have suffered is a day or two away from the forum and if he and PHB sort it out then it could be less. It is not that much of an inconvenience that sometimes people who feel they do not deserve a ban/infraction get one and can subsequently have it overturned particularly when you have many people complaining a lot that we do not ban people quickly enough when they are obviously trouble makers or are skirting the rules.

Feedback Thread **READ POST #1 IN FULL**

Comments

Feedback Thread READ POST #1 IN FULL