Banned for being "off topic"

kaimera

Wait, he got banned for a comment 8 months ago because someone else dragged up the thread?

If it was so bad, the mod who issued the warning back then should have been him at the time.

fs. Guess we should all be trawling thru old threads banning folks.

Yakuza

kaimera wrote:

Guess we should all be trawling thru old threads banning folks.

Statute of Limitations FTW!!

stooge

Seems very unreasonable to ban someone for a post 8 months ago. I'm sure I could randomly search posts from last year and see multiple off topic posts that didnt result in bans or even warnings.

Mods, less of this power trip stuff and stop trying to make a name for yourself! Like referees, the better you are if we don't notice you're there!

** (seems like a relative point made by Matt earlier in this thread that two mods went off topic yet no warnings were made to them. **

As for Gordons avatar, valid point by Matt, theres no real need for it. As a Mod you should be setting an example. If you think its acceptable does that mean we can all try to push the boundaries of what is and isnt nudity?

delly

stooge wrote:

Seems very unreasonable to ban someone for a post 8 months ago. I'm sure I could randomly search posts from last year and see multiple off topic posts that didnt result in bans or even warnings.

Mods, less of this power trip stuff and stop trying to make a name for yourself! Like referees, the better you are if we don't notice you're there!

** (seems like a relative point made by Matt earlier in this thread that two mods went off topic yet no warnings were made to them. **

As for Gordons avatar, valid point by Matt, theres no real need for it. As a Mod you should be setting an example. If you think its acceptable does that mean we can all try to push the boundaries of what is and isnt nudity?

Wow good point Stoogy, maybe you could be mod and show us how its done?

Now, what was your previous user name again?

The Hill Billy

Delly - You could do with sorting out your avatar too.
It is a bit too "Windowsie" for my liking.
As a die-hard DOS 4.1 user it offends me.

delly

Hill Billy wrote:

Delly - You could do with sorting out your avatar too.
It is a bit too "Windowsie" for my liking.
As a die-hard DOS 4.1 user it offends me.

Does the fox not give it away ?

stooge

delly wrote:

Wow good point Stoogy, maybe you could be mod and show us how its done?

Gladly.

delly wrote:

Now, what was your previous user name again?

dunno what youre on about.

r3nu4l

stooge wrote:

Seems very unreasonable to ban someone for a post 8 months ago. I'm sure I could randomly search posts from last year and see multiple off topic posts that didnt result in bans or even warnings.

Yes but again the PI forum is different to most other forums on boards.ie. I do think that pulling someone up 8 months later can be seen as harsh but it is only one week and if it stops anyone else from going off-topic on PI threads, it's for the greater good and matt can be a martyr to the cause

stooge wrote:

Mods, less of this power trip stuff and stop trying to make a name for yourself! Like referees, the better you are if we don't notice you're there!

Come on, Neither Gordon or Beruthiel, need to make names for themselves at this stage of their boards.ie life.

stooge wrote:

** (seems like a relative point made by Matt earlier in this thread that two mods went off topic yet no warnings were made to them. **

Again, this isn't PI and feedback is notorious for this anyway, nor has anyone in this thread been punished for going off-topic, mod or not.

stooge wrote:

As for Gordons avatar, valid point by Matt, theres no real need for it. As a Mod you should be setting an example. If you think its acceptable does that mean we can all try to push the boundaries of what is and isnt nudity?

Look, studies have shown that in the attacehd pictures, most kids see 9 dolphins not an erotic drawing of a couple. It's how your mind works that interprets the image, not what the image represents. Young kids may indeed see an Odlums owl in Gordons avatar

EDIT: Looking at it I can only see 8 dolphins! Dang!

matt-dublin

I can only see 8 dolphins?

aidan_walsh

matt-dublin wrote:

I can only see 8 dolphins?

Young children see 9 dolphins, but small people only see 8.

CuLT

stooge wrote:

As for Gordons avatar, valid point by Matt, theres no real need for it. As a Mod you should be setting an example. If you think its acceptable does that mean we can all try to push the boundaries of what is and isnt nudity?

lollin'

Have you sent in a petition to aer lingus complaining about the breast surgery given to their logo?

stooge

r3nu4l wrote:

Yes but again the PI forum is different to most other forums on boards.ie. I do think that pulling someone up 8 months later can be seen as harsh but it is only one week and if it stops anyone else from going off-topic on PI threads, it's for the greater good and matt can be a martyr to the cause

Fair enough, point taken.

r3nu4l wrote:

Come on, Neither Gordon or Beruthiel, need to make names for themselves at this stage of their boards.ie life.

r3nu4l wrote:

Again, this isn't PI and feedback is notorious for this anyway, nor has anyone in this thread been punished for going off-topic, mod or not.

Same as above, point taken, but it deserved a mention.

r3nu4l wrote:

Look, studies have shown that in the attacehd pictures, most kids see 9 dolphins not an erotic drawing of a couple. It's how your mind works that interprets the image, not what the image represents. Young kids may indeed see an Odlums owl in Gordons avatar

Firstly you didnt answer my question. Secondly, enough with the 'studies have shown' stuff, the (off topic ) issue I raised here is a Mod having an avatar that 'could' cause offense. There is no need for it and he/she should know better.

sprinkles

the fact that it was 8 months ago should have no bearing on whether he got banned or not. It's not the mod's fault that that one got under the radar at the time nor tha fact that it was dragged up recently. Fact of the matter is that the mod set out a rule, which was then broken. Be in now or in 8 months time that rule was still broken and if the Mod wants to issue a ban then they are right to do so.

And why are people getting their nickers in a bunch over an avatar.... it's not hardcore pron or anything

ps: Could cause offence... who would be offended by it and why?

I really hope no decepticons look at mine..... :rolleyes:

r3nu4l

sprinkles wrote:

And why are people getting their nickers in a bunch over an avatar.... it's not hardcore pron or anything

ps: Could cause offence... who would be offended by it and why?

I really hope no decepticons look at mine..... :rolleyes:

QFT

Aidan Walsh - you could be right... I'm only 5' 7", you're onto something I tells ya!!!!1111

Matt - see my edit on the previous post, you're not alone oh martyred one!

Stooge - Push the boundries by all means, I'm sure the admins/mods will let you know what is or isn't acceptable, probably via a ban or PM if you're really lucky Try it with your sig first and see what the SIGPO think...I SIGPO

EDIT: Maybe the ninth dolphin got caught in a Tuna net

Nevyn

Fuuny how gordon's avatar get's pick on and not Femmys and Femmys clearly has naked breasts/boob/tits in it.

kaimera

sprinkles wrote:

the fact that it was 8 months ago should have no bearing on whether he got banned or not. It's not the mod's fault that that one got under the radar at the time nor tha fact that it was dragged up recently. Fact of the matter is that the mod set out a rule, which was then broken. Be in now or in 8 months time that rule was still broken and if the Mod wants to issue a ban then they are right to do so.

Different mod banned than issued the off topic warning.

The time does have bearing imo. The user hadn't done anything since to warrent a ban but on the dumb luck that a thread was dragged up he got banned for 3/4 year old thread. wtf like?

Last post in the thread at the time. Action should and could have been taken then.

'forgetting' is cock tbh. Busy lives etc etc any excuse to let a ban slide but 8 months is taking the piss.

stooge

sprinkles wrote:

the fact that it was 8 months ago should have no bearing on whether he got banned or not. It's not the mod's fault that that one got under the radar at the time nor tha fact that it was dragged up recently. Fact of the matter is that the mod set out a rule, which was then broken. Be in now or in 8 months time that rule was still broken and if the Mod wants to issue a ban then they are right to do so.

I disagree. At the time yes, he should have been banned, but 8 months later is a bitstupid and pointless. The chance was missed just accept it and move on.

sprinkles wrote:

And why are people getting their nickers in a bunch over an avatar.... it's not hardcore pron or anything

ps: Could cause offence... who would be offended by it and why?

I really hope no decepticons look at mine..... :rolleyes:

I know its not THAT bad, but my point is he is pushing the bounds and there is no need.

matt-dublin

@ r3nu4l - i welcome you all to the land of martydom!

I will sacrifice my posting needs for everyone to learn...

But, noone will learn, in fact i doubt anyone will listen.

r3nu4l

Thaedydal wrote:

Fuuny how gordon's avatar get's pick on and not Femmys and Femmys clearly has naked breasts/boob/tits in it.

QFT again! I'd forgotten about Femmys arty avatar!:D


Off topic (don't ban me...please, please), I've got to stop this QFT lark, it's getting out of hand, I bloody well said 'QFT' in the pub on friday in a conversation with real-life people! The shame

matt-dublin wrote:

But, noone will learn, in fact i doubt anyone will listen.

But isn't that the tragedy of most martyrs? It's a crying shame as Jack Johnson might say

stooge

BTW, the title of this thread should really be

Banned 8 months later"

Banned for being off topic after being warned, is ok.

Nevyn

What bounds ?
Oh your bounds you find it pushing what you consider to be the bounds of good taste.
You do know that if you wanted to you could turn off sigs and avatar just incase something infringes on your comfort zone ?

Nevyn

Once a thread is live and active ie not locked and not in the recycle bin all posts if they break the site rules or the rules laid down int he charter of a forum are actionible.

Gordon

stooge wrote:

I know its not THAT bad, but my point is he is pushing the bounds and there is no need.

If you subscribe to boards for a year you can make me put any avatar you wish* for a months duration.

*within reason!

stooge

Thaedydal wrote:

Once a thread is live and active ie not locked and not in the recycle bin all posts if they break the site rules or the rules laid down int he charter of a forum are actionible.

Catch a grip... If youre gonna start banning people for comments made 8 months ago, youre obviously on one of those power trips I was talking about earlier.

tba

Gordon wrote:

If you subscribe to boards for a year you can make me put any avatar you wish* for a months duration.

*within reason!

what an offer!

stooge

Gordon wrote:

If you subscribe to boards for a year you can make me put any avatar you wish* for a months duration.

*within reason!

Are you on commision

I may take you up on that offer....in 8 months time

r3nu4l

True, if Matt's post had been actionable in the legal sense, it would make no difference whether the post was made today or three years ago to a court of law, so mods would be right to take action on it when it came to their attention.

However, I think that in this case, as the thread had become active after a long time of inactivity perhaps the best course of action would be to have issued a final warning that since the thread was now active again any further off-topic comments would result in a ban.

So, if I was a mod I would possibly have let it go but (1) I'm not a mod (2) if I was and it was a forum in my care I might feel different (3) all mods are different and are human, devoting their time to the site so users can enjoy it for nothing other than love of the site, so of course they will be a bit protective.

@stooge :rolleyes: Thaedydal is one of the most reasonable and level-headed mods I've come across on boards.ie...no, I don't know her or e-fancy her Don't worry Thaed, I won't be to you what Pighead is to Beruthiel

Gordon

stooge wrote:

Are you on commision

I may take you up on that offer....in 8 months time

This fantastic offer is available until November 15th..

terms and conditions apply

matt-dublin

Qft?

Gordon

Quoted for truth.

matt-dublin that offer extends to yourself also.