Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…1011131516

Comments

  • #602
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Samich wrote: »
    Next time you're auld lady asks ya something like "How are you?" Answer her with "I'm fúcking ok, why the fúck do you ask?" Is that alright?

    Middle aged women being offended by something does not make it indecent.


  • #603
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    I've never understood why people go to the ****ing trouble of bypassing the swear filter. You wanna say "****", type "****". You think something is ****, type ****.


  • #604
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    I've never understood why people go to the ****ing trouble of bypassing the swear filter. You wanna say "****", type "****". You think something is ****, type ****.

    Because starred out words quickly become confusing and annoying. Pressing control+alt takes zero effort.


  • #605
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    ctrl+alt :confused:

    I use the [nofilter] tag


  • #606
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro. F wrote: »
    Because starred out words quickly become confusing and annoying. Pressing control+alt takes zero effort.

    ....but the starred out words don't change the meaning of a sentence?



    Think of a sentence where fúck, typed as **** changes the meaning of a sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Samich wrote: »
    ....but the starred out words don't change the meaning of a sentence?



    Think of a sentence where fúck, typed as **** changes the meaning of a sentence.

    **** you

    fúck you

    fúck you you fúcking fúck


  • #608
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    maude_flanders.bmphelen-lovejoy-pic.jpg


  • #609
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,399 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Pro. F wrote: »
    Because starred out words quickly become confusing and annoying. Pressing control+alt takes zero effort.

    Confusing and annoying? :confused:

    Ultimately, there should be a sitewide policy that circumventing the swear filter is bad, otherwise what is the ****ing point of same?


  • #610
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro F, why is the swear filter incorporated into boards? And don't give a smart arse answer.


  • #611
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Confusing and annoying? :confused:

    Ultimately, there should be a sitewide policy that circumventing the swear filter is bad, otherwise what is the ****ing point of same?
    Confusing and annoying because I want to read what a person is saying, not try and guess myself.

    The swear filter is pointless. But I seriously hope the site never bans swearing.
    Samich wrote: »
    Pro F, why is the swear filter incorporated into boards? And don't give a smart arse answer.
    Samich wrote: »
    ....but the starred out words don't change the meaning of a sentence?

    Think of a sentence where fúck, typed as **** changes the meaning of a sentence.
    You are very demanding of other people who you want to do your thinking for you. I am not amused.


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro. F wrote: »
    Confusing and annoying because I want to read what a person is saying, not try and guess myself.

    The swear filter is pointless. But I seriously hope the site never bans swearing.



    You are very demanding of other people who you want to do your thinking for you. I am not amused.

    I'd like clarification on why there is a swear filter, what's a filter for? To stop the crappy stuff going through. If there's a swear filter, and people find a loophole then something should be done, or get rid of the the filter.


  • #613
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Samich wrote: »
    I'd like clarification on why there is a swear filter, what's a filter for? To stop the crappy stuff going through. If there's a swear filter, and people find a loophole then something should be done, or get rid of the the filter.

    You'd be better off directing your concerns to a mod than demanding that I answer questions for you.


  • #614
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro. F wrote: »
    You'd be better off directing your concerns to a mod than demanding that I answer questions for you.

    Eh
    Look at my first post in this thread today.

    It was aimed at the mods!

    And one of your posts was used as an example. You brought yourself into this!


  • #615
    Frisbee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,569 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    Yeah, I'm definitely not going to start banning people for swearing.


  • #616
    Felexicon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,424 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    Spot On
    Frisbee wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm definitely not going to start banning people for swearing.
    Thank fcuk for that.


  • #617
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Frisbee wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm definitely not going to start banning people for swearing.

    I'd like some "fúcking" clarification from the fúcking admins on fúcking boards as to why there's a fúcking swear fúcking filter that can be fúcking bypassed. Why have a fúcking filter at all?


  • #618
    Adolf Hipster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Adolf Hipster


    Samich wrote: »
    Frisbee wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm definitely not going to start banning people for swearing.

    I'd like some "fúcking" clarification from the fúcking admins on fúcking boards as to why there's a fúcking swear fúcking filter that can be fúcking bypassed. Why have a fúcking filter at all?
    Then post in the right fcuking forum.


  • #619
    monkey9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,337 ✭✭✭✭monkey9


    What does it matter??


  • #620
    Xavi6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,899 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    Samich wrote: »
    I'd like some "fúcking" clarification from the fúcking admins on fúcking boards as to why there's a fúcking swear fúcking filter that can be fúcking bypassed. Why have a fúcking filter at all?

    Some forums don't allow swearing so there's a swear filter.

    Others don't mind it so people can bypass it if they like.

    Quite simple really.


  • #621
    Frisbee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,569 ✭✭✭✭Frisbee


    Samich wrote: »
    I'd like some "fúcking" clarification from the fúcking admins on fúcking boards as to why there's a fúcking swear fúcking filter that can be fúcking bypassed. Why have a fúcking filter at all?

    Legend.

    As someone has already said, you'll need to go ask the admins that. Not us.


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    SlickRic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,342 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    Samich, are you actually offended by the swearing? or are you just being a bit otherwise?

    because if you are offended, i don't know how you're left roam the Internet unsupervised tbh. on a list of offensive things you can find on the Internet, this has to be way down at the bottom...surely?!

    and yes, there is no point in the swear filter in a lot of cases. obviously. but seen as this part of boards is here to talk about football, it's an emotive topic, and we don't want to take ALL emotion out of posting; it's absolutely fine to swear by getting around the filter in the number of ways you've seen.

    if you have a real issue, take it to the admins.


  • #623
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Good to see the burning issues of the forum being aired.


  • #624
    yomtea98
    Closed Accounts Posts: 941 ✭✭✭yomtea98


    Sean Batemans banning was unfair.He had opinions that the man united thread regular posters did not agree with and started back seat modding calling for him to be banned and that he was trolling.Why were they not banned?


  • #625
    SlickRic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,342 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    yomtea98 wrote: »
    Sean Batemans banning was unfair.He had opinions that the man united thread regular posters did not agree with and started back seat modding calling for him to be banned and that he was trolling.Why were they not banned?

    people have been infracted for back seat modding in relation to moaning about posters.

    but Bateman was a troll. he purposely was otherwise and rude to get a reaction.

    the "don't be a díck rule" - we're trying to enforce it in a stricter fashion at the behest of the masses, and tbh, for the betterment of the forum. for better or for worse, people are just going to have to deal with it now.

    we've no doubt we'll have complaints from many people in due course though if we continue being strict on it.


  • #626
    yomtea98
    Closed Accounts Posts: 941 ✭✭✭yomtea98


    SlickRic wrote: »
    people have been infracted for back seat modding in relation to moaning about posters.

    but Bateman was a troll. he purposely was otherwise and rude to get a reaction.

    the "don't be a díck rule" - we're trying to enforce it in a stricter fashion at the behest of the masses, and tbh, for the betterment of the forum. for better or for worse, people are just going to have to deal with it now.

    we've no doubt we'll have complaints from many people in due course though if we continue being strict on it.
    I don't think he was rude.He was wrong but he was not rude.He did not abuse anyone


  • #627
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Too Lenient
    Agreed Slick, nearly half the people on here, according to the above vote, think the moderation is to lenient.

    In this case we're damned if we do and we're damned if we dont.


  • #628
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    gavredking wrote: »
    Agreed Slick, nearly half the people on here, according to the above vote, think the moderation is to lenient.

    In this case we're damned if we do and we're damned if we dont.



    Not true. 57 from 116 people think that. Even the 116 does not come close to the amount that would use the forum.

    I think the lack of other options in the poll saw a lot of people not voting. I know I did not vote because there was not an option for inconsistency.


    As for what the moderation is like at present, well it is the off season and with the Premier League not on a lot of the squabbles/rows/trolling that normally goes on is not happening. A more accurate picture will be painted once the season begins (I use the EPL because the bulk of the posts on here from August onwards will be EPL related).

    But for what it is worth, I think there has been a big improvement in the modding of the forum since the new mods were appointed, and the new additions - for me anyway - have forced some of the older mods (that needed to) to up their game, and have to date covered up the deficiencies of the inept mod/mods.


  • #629
    Felexicon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,424 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    Spot On
    yomtea98 wrote: »
    I don't think he was rude.He was wrong but he was not rude.He did not abuse anyone

    Ok. So he was previously banned as punishment for what was judged to be trolling. The ban serves as his punishment. People must learn from punishment or there is no reason for it.
    When he came back into the thread and started with the same type of post that he had been banned for the MODS had no choice but to ban him again as he clearly hadn't learned anything from the original ban.
    I think it's quite good moderating as they didn't wait for it to escalate and destroy a very popular thread for 3 or 4 days


  • #630
    yomtea98
    Closed Accounts Posts: 941 ✭✭✭yomtea98


    Felexicon wrote: »
    Ok. So he was previously banned as punishment for what was judged to be trolling. The ban serves as his punishment. People must learn from punishment or there is no reason for it.
    When he came back into the thread and started with the same type of post that he had been banned for the MODS had no choice but to ban him again as he clearly hadn't learned anything from the original ban.
    I think it's quite good moderating as they didn't wait for it to escalate and destroy a very popular thread for 3 or 4 days
    Destroy the thread?The amount of posts on the banning far exceeded the amount of posts had he not been banned.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    yomtea98 wrote: »
    Sean Batemans banning was unfair.He had opinions that the man united thread regular posters did not agree with and started back seat modding calling for him to be banned and that he was trolling.Why were they not banned?

    No, he didn't just have opinions that the regular posters disagreed with. He had opinions which were demonstrably incorrect which he repeated ad nauseam ignoring all counter arguments and proof to the opposite. At the start of last season he said that De Gea would prove to be Fergie's worst ever signing and that he thought he would have fallen out of favour and have been shipped out on loan by the end of the season (or the end of the year or something I can't remember exactly). He then comes back when all that has been proven incorrect and says he was proven 100% correct.

    That type of nonsense wouldn't be so bad if it was just an occasional post, but he had a track record of filling up endless pages of the super thread with it.
    ...

    Could I just get clarification on this:
    gavredking wrote: »
    He wasnt site banned becasue of an over sight on our part. Stooge ban was lifted as a result.
    Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now? And Sean Bateman? Sorry maybe I'm being thick, I'm just not sure what Gav means.


  • #632
    SlickRic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,342 ✭✭✭✭SlickRic


    yomtea98 wrote: »
    I don't think he was rude.He was wrong but he was not rude.He did not abuse anyone

    he wasn't rude, apologies, but he most definitely only had one intention, and it was sorted out first chance Frisbee got.

    Bateman was told clearly before he was banned why he was deemed to be trolling, and in his first post back he does the same thing he got banned for in the first place.


  • #633
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro. F wrote: »
    No, he didn't just have opinions that the regular posters disagreed with. He had opinions which were demonstrably incorrect which he repeated ad nauseam ignoring all counter arguments and proof to the opposite. At the start of last season he said that De Gea would prove to be Fergie's worst ever signing and that he thought he would have fallen out of favour and have been shipped out on loan by the end of the season (or the end of the year or something I can't remember exactly). He then comes back when all that has been proven incorrect and says he was proven 100% correct.

    That type of nonsense wouldn't be so bad if it was just an occasional post, but he had a track record of filling up endless pages of the super thread with it.
    ...

    Could I just get clarification on this:

    Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now? And Sean Bateman? Sorry maybe I'm being thick, I'm just not sure what Gav means.

    You can't say this. Get the fúck over yourself. You're not Fergie.


  • #634
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Pro. F wrote: »
    No, he didn't just have opinions that the regular posters disagreed with. He had opinions which were demonstrably incorrect which he repeated ad nauseam ignoring all counter arguments and proof to the opposite. At the start of last season he said that De Gea would prove to be Fergie's worst ever signing and that he thought he would have fallen out of favour and have been shipped out on loan by the end of the season (or the end of the year or something I can't remember exactly). He then comes back when all that has been proven incorrect and says he was proven 100% correct.

    That type of nonsense wouldn't be so bad if it was just an occasional post, but he had a track record of filling up endless pages of the super thread with it.
    ...

    Could I just get clarification on this:

    Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now? And Sean Bateman? Sorry maybe I'm being thick, I'm just not sure what Gav means.

    How do you know this?


  • #635
    Jax Teller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,763 ✭✭✭Jax Teller


    Samich wrote: »
    How do you know this?

    Can you not read ? He is asking if he is a re-reg.


  • #636
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Samich wrote: »
    You can't say this. Get the fúck over yourself. You're not Fergie.

    Oh, you're not only a middle aged woman who doesn't like swearing, you are also one of these "everyone is entitled to an opinion" people too. Cool.

    Thing is, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, an opinion CAN be wrong.

    It was the opinion of the majority of Spaniards in 1491 that the earth was flat.

    It is my opinion that you are pretending to be offended by inoffensive things because you are bored in work, or at home.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Coletrickle88 wrote: »
    Can you not read ? He is asking if he is a re-reg.

    Yeah I can read.

    And he didn't ask his stooge was a re-reg, he said "Stooge is a re reg. Is he banned now?"


  • #638
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Samich wrote: »
    Yeah I can read.

    And he didn't ask his stooge was a re-reg, he said "Stooge is a re reg. Is he banned now?"

    Selective quoting for the fúcking win.

    You remind me of someone.

    it's SOTS.


  • #639
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Des wrote: »
    Oh, you're not only a middle aged woman who doesn't like swearing, you are also one of these "everyone is entitled to an opinion" people too. Cool.

    Thing is, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, an opinion CAN be wrong.

    It was the opinion of the majority of Spaniards in 1491 that the earth was flat.

    It is my opinion that you are pretending to be offended by inoffensive things because you are bored in work, or at home.

    Good man Des. Having to go back over 500 years.

    Not bored at all. Just eating some cake.

    An opinion can be wrong, but Batemans couldn't be wrong for definite.

    It's all the usual names I've expected to be seeing on defending the banning.


  • #640
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Des wrote: »
    Selective quoting for the fúcking win.

    You remind me of someone.

    it's SOTS.

    Fine, I'll break it down in foundation English for you.

    "Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now?"

    Here, he is not asking if Stooge is a re-reg. If he was, he'd have asked "Is Stooge a re-reg of Sean Bateman?"

    Even just putting a ? at the end of the first part would be wrong as he is assuming Stooge is a re-reg of Bateman.

    He's asking is Stooge sitebanned as he's a re-reg of Bateman.


  • #641
    Adolf Hipster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Adolf Hipster


    Samich wrote: »
    Des wrote: »
    Oh, you're not only a middle aged woman who doesn't like swearing, you are also one of these "everyone is entitled to an opinion" people too. Cool.

    Thing is, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, an opinion CAN be wrong.

    It was the opinion of the majority of Spaniards in 1491 that the earth was flat.

    It is my opinion that you are pretending to be offended by inoffensive things because you are bored in work, or at home.

    Good man Des. Having to go back over 500 years.

    Not bored at all. Just eating some cake.

    An opinion can be wrong, but Batemans couldn't be wrong for definite.

    It's all the usual names I've expected to be seeing on defending the banning.

    He said he was proven right that de gea was fergies worst signing ever.

    That is an opinion which is wrong, anyone who thinks otherwise is either trolling or plain stupid.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Jax Teller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,763 ✭✭✭Jax Teller


    Samich wrote: »
    Yeah I can read.

    And he didn't ask his stooge was a re-reg, he said "Stooge is a re reg. Is he banned now?"

    He's is asking what Gav meant as it wasn't very clear .


  • #643
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    He said he was proven right that de gea was fergies worst signing ever.

    That is an opinion which is wrong, anyone who thinks otherwise is either trolling or plain stupid.

    Why is it wrong?

    20 million for a young keeper, who in his view cost Utd the title (he gave his opinions on why he thought this i.e costing Utd against Blackburn.)

    Once again, that's a view that is backed up.

    He should be allowed his opinions, rather than being bullied.


  • #644
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    Samich wrote: »
    Fine, I'll break it down in foundation English for you.

    "Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now?"

    Here, he is not asking if Stooge is a re-reg. If he was, he'd have asked "Is Stooge a re-reg of Sean Bateman?"

    Even just putting a ? at the end of the first part would be wrong as he is assuming Stooge is a re-reg of Bateman.

    He's asking is Stooge sitebanned as he's a re-reg of Bateman.

    Selective quoting for the win.


  • #645
    Adolf Hipster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Adolf Hipster


    Samich wrote: »
    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    He said he was proven right that de gea was fergies worst signing ever.

    That is an opinion which is wrong, anyone who thinks otherwise is either trolling or plain stupid.

    Why is it wrong?

    20 million for a young keeper, who in his view cost Utd the title (he gave his opinions on why he thought this i.e costing Utd against Blackburn.)

    Once again, that's a view that is backed up.

    He should be allowed his opinions, rather than being bullied.


    Bebe, was a far worse transfer, do you not agree?


  • #646
    Samich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭Samich


    Adolf Hipster wrote: »
    Bebe, was a far worse transfer, do you not agree?

    He cost Utd 7 million, didn't cost Utd the league.

    DDG is one of the most expensive keepers in the world and in his view cost Utd the title.

    Not my views.


  • #647
    Felexicon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,424 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    Spot On
    Hey, who changed the title of the Man Utd thread


  • #648
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Too Lenient
    Samich wrote: »
    Fine, I'll break it down in foundation English for you.

    "Stooge is a re-reg of Sean Bateman so has Stooge been site banned now?"

    Here, he is not asking if Stooge is a re-reg. If he was, he'd have asked "Is Stooge a re-reg of Sean Bateman?"

    Even just putting a ? at the end of the first part would be wrong as he is assuming Stooge is a re-reg of Bateman.

    He's asking is Stooge sitebanned as he's a re-reg of Bateman.


    Ill expalin this aa best I can, Frisbee banned Stooge believing it was a re-reg of Sean Bateman. It turned out not to be a re-reg at all.

    Sean Bateman is still perma banned.
    Stooge ban has been lifted and we are awaiting the admins to overturn the red card.

    Clear for everyone??


  • #649
    TheTownie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,177 ✭✭✭TheTownie


    Samich wrote: »
    He cost Utd 7 million, didn't cost Utd the league.

    DDG is one of the most expensive keepers in the world and in his view cost Utd the title.

    Not my views.

    Samich, he is a troll. Just accept it.

    His first two sentences after his return;
    I'm back...

    Shame I was proved 100% correct re David De Gea

    So what did he say? See here. Lets pick one out of that plethora of nonsense.
    David de Gea has shown absolutely nothing in these first two games to indicate that he won't be laughed out of Manchester before Easter.

    How can he be 100% right when he came out with gems like that? (One of many off the wall predictions)

    I don't care if in the rest of his post he disproved the theory of relativity, he has still shown himself to be a troll.

    He was clearly on a mission to troll with regards to DDG so all the rest of it is just padding.


  • #650
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    I didnt see much wrong with his "comeback" post tbh but Im not familiar with his posts that led him to being banned


  • #651
    Pro. F
    Registered Users Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Samich wrote: »
    You can't say this. Get the fúck over yourself. You're not Fergie.

    Yes I can say it. I can say it by demonstrating how the opinions are incorrect. Try reading a few lines further into my post that you quoted and you will see an example of one of his opinions which turned out to be incorrect. Stop pretending that this is only about whether a player is good or bad or worth his transfer fee or not. I gave an example of something which Bateman said which can now be proven incorrect by observation, with no reference to judgement of the player's ability.

    All of that is just a minor detail in the general thrust of Bateman's soapboxing which deservedly got him banned.
    Samich wrote: »
    How do you know this?

    I reported Stooge as a re-reg because he has the exact same posting style as Bateman; frequents the same forums as Bateman; had only a handful of posts in the United Superthread over his six year history and then all of a sudden started posting to respond to and agree with Bateman when Sean returned to the thread. Then a while later Frisbee banned him and left a mod note saying he was a re-reg. I didn't realise the mistake Gav was talking about was the re-reg ban itself.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement