Post in this thread again and your banned

ntlbell

Can a few cmods look at this post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59013701&postcount=42

I would like to continue to post on the thread but the mod has said i will be banned if i do so.

can the mod in question explain why and maybe seamus explain how he can do this?

as far as i can see i have done nothing wrong in the thread no abuse no nothing

feedback welcome

dr.bollocko

You are banned from that thread because your constant low level trolling has very successfully derailed the thread.

Steve

ntlbell wrote: »

feedback welcome

You were trolling and upsetting everyone.

mike65

ntlbell trolling and upsetting people, this is news?

ntlbell

I'm not trolling my opinion doesn't sit well with some that's not trolling.

I'm not deliberately changing my opinion to get a rise there is the difference.

ntlbell

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You are banned from that thread because your constant low level trolling has very successfully derailed the thread.

how is it derailed every post was about the original topic?

tbh

have to say - I thought that he had a valid opinion, even if it's unpopular. At least he's prepared to stand over and defend it, not many trolls do. But in fairness ntl, you know yourself you like winding people up, you can't be surprised when it bites you on the ass from time to time.

Dudess

Saying "tough sh1t if you've pissed away your money" in relation to a bunch of people being laid off at Dublin Airport isn't even relevant, hence it looked like trolling - to a number of people, not just me.
It would be a valid point in a thread about people being stupid with their money but it was just downright crass in this instance.

Steve

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not trolling my opinion doesn't sit well with some that's not trolling.

I'm not deliberately changing my opinion to get a rise there is the difference.

For what it's worth, I agree (partly) with your opinion in that thread, however, I didn't post it there because I felt it inappropriate and off topic.

The topic was sympathising with people who had just lost their jobs and the OP was expressing his sympathy for them, coming in and giving them a simpsons HAW-HAW only serves to píss people off and nothing is gained by it.

tbh

yeah but poor taste isn't exactly a banable offense in ah tho, right? I know what Mairt wanted to do by posting in AH and I applaud him for doing so, but you're always going to get opinions like that in AH.

ntlbell

SteveC wrote: »

For what it's worth, I agree (partly) with your opinion in that thread, however, I didn't post it there because I felt it inappropriate and off topic.

The topic was sympathising with people who had just lost their jobs and the OP was expressing his sympathy for them, coming in and giving them a simpsons HAW-HAW only serves to píss people off and nothing is gained by it.

There was no haw-haw it was a simple point that if they have been careful and sensible they will be in a position to get over it.

if they haven't well there's no real need for sympathy.

that was the point and it wasn't a deliberate attempt to antagonise people

Dudess

No, poor taste isn't a bannable offence. Stirring up sh1t - i.e. trolling - is.

But to be fair ntlbell, your subsequent posts aren't of a similar nature - ditto on the other thread.


Being careful and sensible is not at all necessarily going to put you in a position where you'll be ok if you lose your job - that's utter nonsense. Not all of those people in Dublin Airport are on great money, and they have families to support. If you just earn enough to get by from week to week well then you're hardly gonna have a whole lot saved - and that's not exactly the same category as some idiot who was stupidly flash with the cash during the boom.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

Saying "tough sh1t if you've pissed away your money" in relation to a bunch of people being laid off at Dublin Airport isn't even relevant, hence it looked like trolling - to a number of people, not just me.
It would be a valid point in a thread about people being stupid with their money but it was just downright crass in this instance.

a guy posted earlier in the week about losing 5k all he got was

tough **** etc etc etc

it's AH.

Did I miss a sensitivity work shop?

jaffa20

I've always found Dr.Bollocko to be quite a reasonable mod. Perhaps he could have been a little less abrupt but i think he was right in what he did. You were trolling. He gave you a warning. Just take head and don't do it again.

RoundyMooney

Think ntlb got a harsh ride this time, for little more than holding and defending a controversial opinion.

Like stevec, I partially agree with him, but that's beside the point.

dr.bollocko

The thread ban was based on a long history of trolling in AH and not just this thread. I just don't want to see it anymore.
EDIT:
But look I dont want to be unreasonable. If you can post reasoned responses and make non-abusive comments on that thread I am not gonna ban you just cos I said I would. Perhaps it was overly abrupt and for that I apologise however my point still stands. Your posts in that thread and recent threads have been nothing but trolling. Ease up FFS.

Dudess

ntlbell wrote: »

a guy posted earlier in the week about losing 5k all he got was

tough **** etc etc etc

it's AH.

Did I miss a sensitivity work shop?

Because it's not comparable to someone being devastated by losing their job - and you know it.

RoundyMooney

jaffa20 wrote: »

I've always found Dr.Bollocko to be quite a reasonable mod. Perhaps he could have been a little less abrupt but i think he was right in what he did. You were trolling. He gave you a warning. Just take head and don't do it again.

Bollocko is indeed reasonable, but I'd hate to see him turn into another "angry" AH mod.

Seriously guys, busiest forum on boards, we really need the whole STFU all the time?

Silverfish

I'm going to have to side with ntlbell on this one.

While his opinion was a bit controversial, he did have a point.

Its very easy to label someone who has a differing opinion and who defends that opinion as a 'troll' but I think its important to be sure if they are actually saying it to be offensive and cause argument, or if this is their actual opinion.

I don't think ntlbell was trolling here at all.

Dudess

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Think ntlb got a harsh ride this time, for little more than holding and defending a controversial opinion.

I have to strenuously disagree with you Roundy - he got a harsh ride, not for his opinion, but for posting it in a completely inappropriate place where it was only gonna cause aggro.
Bunch of people lose their jobs in Dublin Airport - he posts "tough sh1t if you weren't careful with your money". Come on!

At the same time though, his posts after it weren't of a similar nature so maybe a warning would have been sufficient.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

Because it's not comparable to someone being devastated by losing their job - and you know it.

but i was talking to mairt he has a job?

dr.bollocko

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The thread ban was based on a long history of trolling in AH and not just this thread. I just don't want to see it anymore.
EDIT:
But look I dont want to be unreasonable. If you can post reasoned responses and make non-abusive comments on that thread I am not gonna ban you just cos I said I would. Perhaps it was overly abrupt and for that I apologise however my point still stands. Your posts in that thread and recent threads have been nothing but trolling. Ease up FFS.

Quoted for the purposes of highlighting the EDIT.
Roundy you are right. The STFU was perhaps OTT. But after having to ban a user who had just been made redundant because he was firing abuse at a troll I wasn't too happy... I dont intend on this being the start of angry mod syndrome.

RoundyMooney

Dudess wrote: »

I have to strenuously disagree with you Roundy - he got a harsh ride, not for his opinion, but for posting it in a completely inappropriate place where it was only gonna cause aggro.
Bunch of people lose their jobs in Dublin Airport - he posts "tough sh1t if you weren't careful with your money". Come on!

At the same time though, his posts after it weren't of a similar nature so maybe a warning would have been sufficient.

You're quite welcome to disagree, of course.

However, it wasn't as Mairt posting his commiserations on the maintenance people losing their jobs and ntl jumping in. ntl only responded when tradespeople were mentioned, and having worked with many of them, he does have a certain validity in that respect.

As you say, he did not follow through or escalate his train of thought.

Thing is, if this is a forum wide issue with this poster, then why ban him from one thread alone?

Dudess

ntlbell wrote: »

but i was talking to mairt he has a job?

And obviously in reference to the people who got laid off in Dublin Airport.

Terry

Stop trolling and you will not get that warning.

Your first post was a valid opinion, but your posts after that were just trolling and you know it.
you can come here and try to fight the power, but you were in the wrong.
I reviewed the thread before making a comment and my conclusion is that you didn't get the reaction you were first lookig for, so you decided to step it up a bit.

you have a history of trolling on this site, so it should really come as no shock to you that people will see most of your posts as trollish.

If a time comes when you decide to make valuable contributions to the site without throwing around snide remarks, then maybe people will take you a bit more seriously. Until that time you really have to prove yourself.
It's not like you're new here. You know how that site runs, so stop trolling and then you will be treated with a bit of respect.

RoundyMooney

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I dont intend on this being the start of angry mod syndrome.

I know you didn't man, and believe me I can empathise with the frustration, having vented it many times myself, both here and elsewhere, and for both similiar and dissimiliar reasons

I apologise if I appeared to single you out with that remark, as that wasn't and isn't my intention.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

And obviously in reference to the people who got laid off in Dublin Airport.

It's not tough sh|t you lost your job

tough **** if losing your job finds you in a a whole load of trouble because you have been living far far beyond your means.

i dont want to see anyone lose a job who does.

tbh

it's a given that if you post sensitive stuff in AH, at least one person is gonna have a harsh thing to say. If you don't want that, then post in humanities.

Dudess

tbh, nothing wrong with harsh truths... when relevant. That point is relevant to the recession, it's not however, necessarily relevant to a bunch of people who have been laid off/an electrician who can't get any work - unless they were all living beyond their means, which we don't know.

ntlbell wrote: »

tough **** if losing your job finds you in a a whole load of trouble because you have been living far far beyond your means.

And nothing wrong with that point - but why did you say it there? It's not as if Mairt said anything to indicate the guy was living beyond his means.
It was the way it appeared so out of context that got people thinking you were stirring up sh1t.

ntlbell

Dudess wrote: »

tbh, nothing wrong with harsh truths... when relevant. That point is relevant to the recession, it's not however, necessarily relevant to a bunch of people who have been laid off/an electrician who can't get any work - unless they were all living beyond their means, which we don't know.

And nothing wrong with that point - but why did you say it there? It's not as if Mairt said anything to indicate the guy was living beyond his means.
It was the way it appeared so out of context that got people thinking you were stirring up sh1t.

Well considering they're laid of can't get any work is due to the recession then it is relevant?

but as i said the point wasn't really suppose to be directed at that one electrician it's my over all opinion on the situation.

but i didn't just decide to have this opinion an hour ago so i could antagonise people this is the main issue.

Terry

tbh wrote: »

it's a given that if you post sensitive stuff in AH, at least one person is gonna have a harsh thing to say. If you don't want that, then post in humanities.

Listen, I'm all for laughing at those who lived beyond their means, flaunted in front of their peers and are now borked.
That thread wasn't about that though.
It was about the job losses at Dublin airport and one guy trying to get his son a bit of work.

There was also a lot of implied hatred towards tradesmen and the percieved belief that they over-charge.
I am biased being that I am a tradesman myself, but I can tell you that most of us charged reasonable rates in accordance with earnings at the time.
I, and most of the tradesmen I know, would price a job and take into account the earnings of the people we were doing the job for before giving them a quote. This wasn't the only thing we would take into account, but if we saw that someone was living on the breadline and just wanted to dickey their house up a bit, then we would lower the price. If it was someone making millions, then we would charge normal prices.

If you want a good price, then shop around and stop blaming tradesmen for over-charging if you are willing to pay ridiculous prices.

ntlbell

julep wrote: »

There was also a lot of implied hatred towards tradesmen and the percieved belief that they over-charge.
I am biased being that I am a tradesman myself, but I can tell you that most of us charged reasonable rates in accordance with earnings at the time.
I, and most of the tradesmen I know, would price a job and take into account the earnings of the people we were doing the job for before giving them a quote.

If you want a good price, then shop around and stop blaming tradesmen for over-charging if you are willing to pay ridiculous prices.

You obviously didn't read my reply i never claimed they were dishonest. I specically followed up with that to make sure that's not what came across

There's a thread in AH dedicated to biggest wan*ers in X profession and now tradesman are getting upset when someone points out they were making extremely good money?

I shopped around for months and after time after time not turning up or what i considered to be crazy prices I gave up.

Now, they're crying to come out and quote and ones that do are up to 60% less than they were previously.

the demand was high the price was high, but I was trying to demonstrate the astronimical amount of money they were earning and if they were wise with it they would have very little problems right now.

I'm no way claiming they were cowboys or trying to rip me off

Overheal

Just because theyre doing it for 60% less now doesnt mean that its what they should have been charging all along - its a reflection of how sharply demand has dropped off for trades.

the demand was high the price was high,

Erm, no. The Other Way Around. Economist much?

Orion

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not trolling my opinion doesn't sit well with some that's not trolling.

There's a difference between opinion and off-topic trolling bull****. You were practicing the latter.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

You obviously didn't read my reply i never claimed they were dishonest. I specically followed up with that to make sure that's not what came across

There's a thread in AH dedicated to biggest wan*ers in X profession and now tradesman are getting upset when someone points out they were making extremely good money?

I shopped around for months and after time after time not turning up or what i considered to be crazy prices I gave up.

Now, they're crying to come out and quote and ones that do are up to 60% less than they were previously.

the demand was high the price was high, but I was trying to demonstrate the astronimical amount of money they were earning and if they were wise with it they would have very little problems right now.

I'm no way claiming they were cowboys or trying to rip me off

You are going to get flack on a general thread on politics if you post something like that. There are a couple of threads over there at the minute were personal responsibility is being pointed out and still nobody wants to take it on.

Anyway, I think there are plenty of threads on the site to voice that opinion, you picked an emotional one. Bad choice.

Time for you to take a little personal responsibility, ironically NTLBell!

brendansmith

NTLBell, stop trolling and let the rest of us enjoy threads will ya?

DeVore

NTL, you can post there again.

That sort of post looks pretty tacky and classless. My folks didnt have much either but my mother taught me that if you havent anything good to say, say nothing.

You feel free to post but within the rules, which you are stretching.

DeV.

Time Magazine

Overheal wrote: »

Erm, no. The Other Way Around. Economist much?

I am a bit, and unless I can't read (it is 0119) I think he's right.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Oh right i thought he said the demand was high because the price was. speed reading fail

K-9

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And you don't have to pay it, hence personal responsibility!

Anyway, best Economic thread in months!

ntlbell

Overheal wrote: »

Erm, no. The Other Way Around. Economist much?

No, you?

Overheal

ntlbell wrote: »

No, you?

I made a retraction already. sheesh.

Pighead

Overheal wrote: »

I made a retraction already. sheesh.

If you're going to make snide smart arsed comments then you should really make sure you've got all the information right.

You made a rookie error and it's only right you should be made squirm by apologising to ntlbell. It's character building. Your retraction was weak and Pighead didn't sense much squirming.

Overheal

Im not one of your Prison Bitches :rolleyes:

DeVore

Thread locked. :rolleyes:

DeV.