mustard madness

cardshark202

Seems like colonel mustard is going a bit power mad with his bannings. If I started a mustard-related thread in the mustard forum would I get banned? I recently had some disgusting cheapo English mustard in Australia and I would like to post about it and warn others of the brand. Didn't know where else it would be safe to post this.

ecksor

Yes, yes you would. Keep away.

oleras

cardshark202 wrote:

Seems like colonel mustard is going a bit power mad with his bannings. If I started a mustard-related thread in the mustard forum would I get banned? I recently had some disgusting cheapo English mustard in Australia and I would like to post about it and warn others of the brand. Didn't know where else it would be safe to post this.

banned from the mustard forum is like getting barred from a pub up the country you will never visit again, does it really matter ?

ecksor

I've been site banning them.

Rb

I found it amusing anyway, well done Ecksor.

Time Magazine

What do people think of potatoes with mustard seeds in them?

Rb

Ibid wrote:

What do people think of potatoes with mustard seeds in them?

Not mad about them tbh.

oleras

ecksor wrote:

I've been site banning them.

Ditches the idea fast of getting banned from the mustard forum....lol...although i did stumple in there looking for motors once....scary place*shudders* :eek:

cardshark202

On a serious note, if HJ for example was not a poker forum regular, or rounders wasn't I'm pretty sure neither would be banned. But anyway, the mustard forum must only be for people with a mustard fetish. One of my friends is a mustard smuggler who has a fetish for english mustard. That last sentence is completely true, his boards name is kinaldo and he will not deny his illness. I think its called a 'lust for mustard'.

nesf

Ibid wrote:

What do people think of potatoes with mustard seeds in them?

Why waste mustard on a potato?

sikes

i xpost this.

IMO, i think the poker forum posters should be allowed a bit of slack, especially the ones with a high post count and contribute a lot to the forum, after all it was a bit of fun and they posted in a forum with little or no traffic.

I'm sure the traffic to the poker forum is one of the highest revenue generators for boards, if not the highest, and by banning some of the highest posters and best contributors you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Rb

rb_ie wrote:

I found it amusing anyway, well done Ecksor.

I was referring to the small bans here, not Reggies 3 month ban.

nesf

sikes wrote:

I'm sure the traffic to the poker forum is one of the highest revenue generators for boards, if not the highest, and by banning some of the highest posters and best contributors you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Looking at forums and users in that way is kind of against the community spirit of this site (at least in my opinion). Users shouldn't be given lee-way just because they happen to post in a popular and busy forum. From an economic point of view, you do have an argument, but I'm not sure if giving preference to such people would not just create even more trouble across the majority of the site (seeing that poker forum users wouldn't make up a majority of the posters or anything).

sikes

nesf wrote:

Looking at forums and users in that way is kind of against the community spirit of this site (at least in my opinion). Users shouldn't be given lee-way just because they happen to post in a popular and busy forum.

Is this not already happening? Someone with a low post count will get a life ban for trolling while one with a very high post count might get a week.

Boston

So the poker forum regulars own boards now and can do what they want?

nesf

sikes wrote:

Is this not already happening? Someone with a low post count will get a life ban for trolling while one with a very high post count might get a week.

That's not discrimination based on which forum they post in though. What exactly do you mean by trolling anyway? Trolling rarely ends up the user site banned, or at least that's from what I've seen. Just a forum ban usually.

sikes

Boston wrote:

So the poker forum regulars own boards now and can do what they want?

Who said that?

Boston

You implied it.

sikes

nesf wrote:

That's not discrimination based on which forum they post in though.

I think that any high volume contributor to any forum should not be looked upon in the same fashion as someone with a low post count and doesn't offer anything to the community.

nesf wrote:

What exactly do you mean by trolling anyway?

I don't really know the definition. Its just something I have seen in the ban list a few times.

Though I would classify this as trolling:

BOSTON wrote:

So the poker forum regulars own boards now and can do what they want?

ShoveAllIn

ecksor wrote:

I've been site banning them.

pld.

on all the levels.

sikes

Boston wrote:

You implied it.

Where?

Boston

They don't own the site, Ecksor is one of the owners, they feiced about on his forum, they got banned. Those are the facts, end of story, carriage return.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote:

Why waste mustard on a potato?

I was served it in the canteen recently. I wasn't aware the little brown bits were mustard seeds at the time, I thought they were just some little herb or something.

I must say, it was vomit-inducing. Not that I've anything against mustard in small doses, but would you have it with ice-cream? Or more accurately in this case, with chicken stir-fry? Chicken stir-fry and mustard potatoes do not go well.

Faith

I just visited the Poker forum for the first time, seeing as it's been in Feedback so much recently. It's like a different world! Full of numbers and words that make no sense!

There goes my belief that I vaguely understood the game .

sikes

Boston wrote:

They don't own the site,

No one said they did. This is getting tiresome. You cant put words in someones mouth then use it in your argument when you are getting the worst of a discussion. All you did in this thread is jump in with two feet, making a wild assumption without clearly understanding what had been written.

Boston wrote:

Ecksor is one of the owners, they feiced about on his forum, they got banned. Those are the facts, end of story, carriage return.

I appreciate all the work both the owners and the mods do to keep boards running. However, i think he has made a bad judgment call on this one, for the reasons I have already outlined before. But yes, this is his forum and he and the owners can do as they please.

shoutman

sikes wrote:

I appreciate all the work both the owners and the mods do to keep boards running. However, i think he has made a bad judgment call on this one.

I absolutely agree. I mean it was all a bit of harmless fun, the first set of bannings were for a day and I'm sure everyone took it all in good humour and jest. But to ban someone for three months for posting about mustard in a mustard forum is just madness.

I mean if I didnt know Solskjer and read his post for all I know it could of been absolutely true and it could of been a very sincere (albeit rather strange) post.

Boston

It's pretty clear whats going on here. You think you and the banned users are big shots because your tiny part of boards.ie is a) popular with some admins and b) relates to something that potentially generates money. As such you should be allowed special treatment and free rein. Is that pretty much it?

RasTa

Jesus chirst just ban them from the mustard form, ffs.

shoutman

Boston wrote:

It's pretty clear whats going on here. You think you and the banned users are big shots because your tiny part of boards.ie is a) popular with some admins and b) relates to something that potentially generates money. As such you should be allowed special treatment and free rein. Is that pretty much it?

Are you being serious here?

Since when has trolling in one forum required a site wide ban?

Its absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I mean it was a bit of harmless banter at the expense of no one. It was not offensive to anyone and in no way would it effect other users of the site. No one objected and (regardless of whether ecksor took quick and decisive action) I dont think anyone would of objected if the threads remained open.

Can you people honestly tell me that the Mustard forum is not in someway a joke? Thats like having a salt forum of a tabasco sauce forum, it makes no sense and the vast majority of people (I would assume) who post in said forums must be taking the piss.

Boston

Mustard forum is ecksor's baby. If you mess with it you'll get what coming to you.

Time Magazine

Boston wrote:

It's pretty clear whats going on here. You think you and the banned users are big shots because your tiny part of boards.ie is a) popular with some admins and b) relates to something that potentially generates money. As such you should be allowed special treatment and free rein. Is that pretty much it?

FFS stop for once.

He/she/it thinks it's unfair that people/tribes/nations get sitebanned for three months for trolling on a single forum. I imagine ecksor is having a bit of laugh and knows that's unfair too. Whether he's going to cut the ban short or continue the joke by creating his pet forum a Defended Zone of Zero Penetration, who's to know.

sikes

Boston wrote:

It's pretty clear whats going on here. You think you and the banned users are big shots because your tiny part of boards.ie is a) popular with some admins and b) relates to something that potentially generates money. As such you should be allowed special treatment and free rein. Is that pretty much it?

This is a pretty pathetic post on many levels. First of all, could you please not make this personal. Theres no need to tell me what I think. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.

I will repeat myself, in case you have missed my point. I think posters who post in high volume and are major contributors to any forum, should have special treatment ahead of one with a low post count or not contributing.

I have no idea how much the poker forums generate, but purely from a business point of view, it would be bad practice to remove the best posters from a high traffic forum if it were avoidable.

If you wish to reply, can you please quote me so I can see where you are drawing you assumptions from so I can clear up any misunderstanding.

Boston

Ibid wrote:

FFS stop for once.

He/she/it thinks it's unfair that people/tribes/nations get sitebanned for three months for trolling on a single forum. I imagine ecksor is having a bit of laugh and knows that's unfair too. Whether he's going to cut the ban short or continue the joke by creating his pet forum a Defended Zone of Zero Penetration, who's to know.

From what I remember, this isn't the first time Ecksor has site banned people for messing about on his forum. Maybe it's a laugh maybe not, but things like "WE MAKES YOU DA MONEY" are more then likely going to just piss people off.

Boston

sikes you've been around long enough to know you shouldn't call peoples post pathetic. No more talking to you...

RasTa

Well the poker forum is more important then the mustard form. fact. Don't see why they just can't be banned from that.

sikes

Boston wrote:

sikes you've been around long enough to know you should call peoples post pathetic. No more talking to you...

I have been around long enough to know that you should attack the post not the poster. Thats what I did.

Boston

You know, I'm going to stop posting on this, with people like RasTa there making the case, I'm sure Ecksor will unban the users in question any year now.

Skies, pathetic people make pathetic posts.

opr

Boston wrote:

pathetic people make pathetic posts.

QFT

Opr

sikes

Boston wrote:

Skies, pathetic people make pathetic posts.

If thats your belief..

RasTa

Grand cya so Boston. No case to be made, it's so black and white.

Gordon

Colonel Mustard - lol.

phantom_lord

maybe I;m a little off here cause I spend the vast majority of my time in poker where we don't deal with this kinda stuff, but is boston not trolling in this thread?

Terry

sikes wrote:

I will repeat myself, in case you have missed my point. I think posters who post in high volume and are major contributors to any forum, should have special treatment ahead of one with a low post count or not contributing.

So do you think that I should have preferrential treatment over you?
How many posts constitute a high post count?
How do you know that a new user knows nothing about a specific subject? They might be an expert in the field, yet you seem to think that you are better than them because you have a higher post count.
Boards.ie is a benevolant dictatorship. Remember that and you'll be fine.

Lafortezza

lol, are they really banned for 3 months? Can someone link to the ban list?
edit: found it.

Date of Ban  	Banned Tard  	Date of Ban Lift  	Reason  	Righteous Admin
18-02-2007, 4:49 	cardshark202 	18-05-2007, 4:00 	Trolling. 3 months. 	ecksor
18-02-2007, 12:04 	rounders123 	18-03-2007, 12:00 	Banned. One month. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:52 	Hectorjelly 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:33 	Solksjaer 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor

ShoveAllIn

Faith wrote:

I just visited the Poker forum for the first time, seeing as it's been in Feedback so much recently. It's like a different world! Full of numbers and words that make no sense!

There goes my belief that I vaguely understood the game .

I dont know what is more funny. your eagerness on yousuckassness.

Its all good.

faith for super Smod....

ShoveAllIn

lafortezza wrote:

lol, are they really banned for 3 months? Can someone link to the ban list?
edit: found it.

Date of Ban  	Banned Tard  	Date of Ban Lift  	Reason  	Righteous Admin
18-02-2007, 4:49 	cardshark202 	18-05-2007, 4:00 	Trolling. 3 months. 	ecksor
18-02-2007, 12:04 	rounders123 	18-03-2007, 12:00 	Banned. One month. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:52 	Hectorjelly 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor
17-02-2007, 7:33 	Solksjaer 	24-02-2007, 7:00 	Banned. One week. 	ecksor

He likes it that way. best to leave it alone.

shoutman

Its ridiculous that someone is site-banned for three months for posting in an admins "pet forum" as Boston put it.

Its plain and obvious to see. Some people posting on this thread are reminding me of my girlfriend during that time of the month.....

sikes

Terry wrote:

So do you think that I should have preferrential treatment over you?

If we were to do a scoring system whereby we take into account post counts as the major factor, obviously you would come out top.

Terry wrote:

How many posts constitute a high post count?

I haven't thought this through enough to make any guidelines, and I don't have any data to draw those conclusions.

Terry wrote:

How do you know that a new user knows nothing about a specific subject? They might be an expert in the field, yet you seem to think that you are better than them because you have a higher post count.

I'm not sure where these idea of betterness came from. I hope it wasn't from me. But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

Time Magazine

sikes wrote:

But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

In fairness, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Boards isn't a for-profit company. They're only Boards Ltd so that they could claim www.boards.ie. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have any formal structure.

For the sake of the community, you're treated just like everyone else.

Now of course some common sense is applied here. If somebody trolls with their post they'll be nuked straight away. If you or I trolled, you'd be banned from that forum and maybe get another slap on the wrist. But that's the only postcount discrimination. From what I can see, there is a bit of a gradient for non-established posters (<100 posts, or no articulate posts etc).

You are not your postcount. You are not your join date.

Terry

sikes wrote:

I'm not sure where these idea of betterness came from. I hope it wasn't from me. But i do think I am more valuable than a random new poster to the boards company and as such should be treated differently to new ones, for business and community reasons.

Well you say that your are more valuable than a new member and that, to me, reads that you somehow feel you are superior to these people.

sikes wrote:

The practice of favouring people with higher post counts when getting banned already takes place afaik. But, as with most things in life, we are going to let our emotions effect our decision making.

I banned a moderator from a forum that I moderate the other day.
He has a postcount similar to mine.
you break the rules, you get a ban. Simple as that.
I actually tend to take it easier on newer members as sometimes they haven't gotten the feel of the place. This isn't always the case. Sometimes a New member can be a complete ****tard and I'll ban them right away, but that is more the exception than the rule.
Some of the people I have banned have ended up being very valuable contributors after having their ban lifted.

It's all about quality and not quantity.

amp

This thread is stupid. Let's bring on the pictures of animals.