Why is Scholesy banned?

[Alex]

So has there been a resolution?

 

[TheReligion]

So has there been a resolution?

A UN one

 

[Sultan]

Oh I agree completely that all views should be allowed, my point is the response every one of his posts received with countless posts of "Delfouneso > Pato" and "modric" is nothing short of unbelievably blatant wummery, which led to scholesy quite understandably reacting.

Which I'm not denying.

The problem became too big. How many posters should I/we go round infracting or banning - we would have had the same or worse reaction in here had this been someone banned for abusing Scholesy.

 

[Alex]

I don't give a feck.

I didn't ban him.

His posts never bothered me enough to ignore him.

If anything, I enjoyed sparring with him. He was a very odd, yet strangely interesting character.

I'm just explaining why he's wound people up the wrong way. Bit surprised it needs so much explaining tbh.

The same could be said about an Ewok

 

[jeston]

Hey, i don't know what happened here.. nor do i know any of the circumstances.. But I'd like to say this banning was completely out of line and all you mods and admins are a joke and you should just have a wank instead of banning people left, centre and wide right!

feck the system!

 

[golden_blunder]

So has there been a resolution?

whats the question?

 

[noodlehair]

He was repeatedly used as the butt of a large groups jokes, for no reason in particular, other than that he made comments that in retrospect aren't that eccentric, instead they were repeatedly dragging threads off topic rather than actually offering anything to the debate, often unlike Scholesy himself.

Surely that is worse than holding some slightly eccentric views, which is the opposite of how this has panned out.

Seriously, what point does posting "modric" in lots of threads have other than trying to evoke a reaction? Surely that is more blatant wummery than anything scholesy can be accused of?

He was used as the butt of jokes because of his silly views which were in some cases worthy of piss taking. FOr example, when he claimed that it's impossible for players to improve technically once above the age of six (or whatever age it was).

This has always happened on here. It happened to the Chief when he claimed Kieran Richardson was as talented as Ryan Giggs. It happened to me when I claimed Heinze was a rubbish defender (whos laughing now, cockfaces?). It's hardly vindictive or nasty in the grand scheme of things.

Were you in here crying injustice when everyone used to respond to Gillespie's posts by posting what they planned to have for dinner? Or when he was perma banned much in the same way as Scholesy after throwing a hissy fit?

Handing out 50 odd infractions and upsetting half the forum is hardly a wise move when the route of the problem is one poster bringing attention on themselves and then not being able to deal with it.

Supposing we had decided to take that route, spend significant amounts of free time dealing with the mess that insues, and inevitably someone ends up incurring an infraction that sees them banned, for posting the word "Modric"...can you HONESTLY say there wouldn't be a massive thread in here crying injustice? can Brad HONESTLY say he wouldn't be in here spearheading it?


Plus at the end of it all, Scholesy would still be here, probably still getting mocked, and almost certainly still posting the provocative drivel which invites said idiocy upon himself in the first place. This way he's either gone, or gets a genuine chance to start over underneath the radar, and debate football without being hounded.

 

[Sultan]

So has there been a resolution?

Yes

He remains banned.

 

[Wibble]

It's not rebelling, its pointing out when something doesn't sit well

If some of you weren't as defensive, you'd take it a little more in the spirit intended, maybe ever take something constructive from it

Perhaps it is worth noting at this point that if there is one thing that confirms to the modmins that a descision is appropriate it is you throwing your toys out of the pram about it. It is a bit like The Chief's opinions on things football related.

 

[Wibble]

and we dont give a monkeys what you think of the Scholesy banning

move along

no, it will all be forgotten in a few days

I honestly dont care what people think of me TR. I generally admin the stuff on this board quietly, but it gets my heckles up when the usual faces turn up, to question a ban (doesnt even matter who is banned). Those people need to accept that we take the decisions, rightly or wrongly and they dont get changed because posters doesn't agree with it

Agreed.

 

[Sultan]

Can't believe I had a restless night feeling sorry for Scholesy.

Might bring him back with his 10th final warning.

 

[Hectic]

I'm pretty sure he had a lot more then 10 warnings though.

I reckon the forum is better already!

 

[Sultan]

I'm pretty sure he had a lot more then 10 warnings though.

I reckon the forum is better already!

How about we limit him to posting to a few forums until he reforms himself? I'll start a thread in the Mod forum to see how everyone else feels on the matter.

 

[Hectic]

It can work, and it was more what I had in mind when he was originally banned, but then we've done this before with him, and it made very little difference in the past.

I don't know. I gave him some final advice in my pm as a sort of last resort or be banned thing, but then I wasn't sad at all to see it made permanent either.

Yeah a consensus is right for this one, although I think you made the right decision initially.