Tamb - where did it all go wrong Part II?

[TAMB2]

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action (probably cos they're all huns).

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

[vanderark14]

18 minutes ago, TAMB2 said:

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action (probably cos they're all huns).

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

Maybe leave out the part in brackets because thats the most ridiculous part in there

[TAMB2]

5 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Maybe leave out the part in brackets because thats the most ridiculous part in there

Thank you.

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

[dandydunn]

23 minutes ago, TAMB2 said:

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action (probably cos they're all huns).

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

Camp C - It’s the internet, it’s not real life. People hide behind a keyboard or openly have their profile pictures linked to other social media accounts. 

It’s a bit of fun, nothing more, nothing less. 

I’ve fell out with some posters more times than I care to remember, it doesn’t upset me though and I’m sure it doesn’t upset them either, infact I’m sure @Big Ramy 1314 actually has a bit of a man crush on me  

If people get offended by comments made on a website, then the 21st century probably isn’t for them. 

Dont ban anyone*, there’s a block function that everyone can freely use.  

 

*unless there’s been some pretty serious comments being made towards them/families etc or some bigoted/racist/homophobic** slurs, which I dont think I’ve ever really seen on here to be fair. 

** feel free to add anything else

[Rolling hIlls]

Camp D.  People growing up would be a start. (huns in brackets forever).

[Auchinyell Sox Change]

Sid James

 

[kumnio]

Id have thought that the whole two logins being banned would be to stop aaaaa posting stuff and bbbbb being a troll, trying to wind people up etc. By having a username, and another username the same, and admitting it, would be just having a laugh, he wasnt trying to hide his identity, but thats just my take on it.

[aaid]

3 minutes ago, kumnio said:

Id have thought that the whole two logins being banned would be to stop aaaaa posting stuff and bbbbb being a troll, trying to wind people up etc. By having a username, and another username the same, and admitting it, would be just having a laugh, he wasnt trying to hide his identity, but thats just my take on it.

I could be wrong here but my reading was the first account got a suspension but he created a new account to get around the suspension.    I'm pretty sure that the Hibs fan did the same thing - and may have done that first - has he been banned as well?  If so, good.

I used to prefer it when accounts that were banned had it plastered across their avatar - easy to know where you were then.

[kumnio]

Both accounts were active yesterday, Id have thought if he did that, he would have been banned at the time, but dont know.

Seems strange that he was OK, until someone brought it up, then he was banned. Im not really for banning people, unless its an extreme case, or a troll at it massively.

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, TAMB2 said:

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action (probably cos they're all huns).

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

Is this a serious question ?

[kumnio]

30 minutes ago, aaid said:

I could be wrong here but my reading was the first account got a suspension but he created a new account to get around the suspension. 

Ive been informed that this wasnt the case.

Id have thought that the appropriate action would be to ban one of the accounts, not both.

[aaid]

1 minute ago, kumnio said:

Ive been informed that this wasnt the case.

Id have thought that the appropriate action would be to ban one of the accounts, not both.

Fair enough but I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the other guy.  He started the thread about the dwarf that got closed then immediately started another thread with a new account complaining about the thread being taken down which wasn't the smartest thing to do, mind you with that guy...

 

[Eisegerwind]

2 hours ago, TAMB2 said:

Thank you.

We encourage feedback.

To help us out, which camp would you pitch your tent in.

Camp A - It's ridiculous that these lazy-arsed, biased mods let the trolls and multiple login muppets run riot with no action

OR

Camp B - It's ridiculous that these mental mods have banned these guys for just having a laugh.

We're open to persuasion

Is the correct answer, the Luftwaffe.

[Orraloon]

Free the TAMB Two ! 

Or three depending on how you look at it.

[Auchinyell Sox Change]

24 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Is the correct answer, the Luftwaffe.

Those Fokkers shot up my grannys house

[TDYER63]

Neither of them should have been banned IMO. You cant ban someone for being annoying, and how can you suddenly ban someone for having 2 logins when it has been clear for weeks it is the same person. 

Temporary bans are pointless, they are hardly a deterrent. Make bans permanent but only for serious misconduct such as the examples Dandydunn mentioned. You cant avoid people creating new logins but you can reduce it by keeping bans to a minimum. 

[TAMB2]

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Neither of them should have been banned IMO. You cant ban someone for being annoying, and how can you suddenly ban someone for having 2 logins when it has been clear for weeks it is the same person. 

Temporary bans are pointless, they are hardly a deterrent. Make bans permanent but only for serious misconduct such as the examples Dandydunn mentioned. You cant avoid people creating new logins but you can reduce it by keeping bans to a minimum. 

So, would it be the consensus of the membership that the following rule applies?

Dont ban anyone unless there’s been some pretty serious comments being made towards them/families etc or some bigoted/racist/homophobic slurs.

 

[aaid]

10 minutes ago, TAMB2 said:

So, would it be the consensus of the membership that the following rule applies?

Dont ban anyone unless there’s been some pretty serious comments being made towards them/families etc or some bigoted/racist/homophobic slurs.

 

Nope as there are other things that warrant a banning, including but not limited to posting NSFW content and consistent trolling.

For many years the TAMB rules were pinned to the front page, it might be an idea to reinstate that.

[thplinth]

Things is I find it is almost unheard of here that there are 'pretty serious comments being made towards them/families etc or some bigoted/racist/homophobic slurs'. So I would not make a rod for your own back. Trust your judgement on a situational / context basis. There are no hard and fast rules for stuff like this. Ormond was a sweary, very likable rude kid while Chripper was a technically polite, extremely dislikable w**k. 

This place is a lot better without Chripper than it was with him. He was a like a new guy who comes to your local pub and annoys the shit out every person he interacts with. If you cant ban someone like that just for that then your rules are missing something. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by thplinth

[vanderark14]

23 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Neither of them should have been banned IMO. You cant ban someone for being annoying, and how can you suddenly ban someone for having 2 logins when it has been clear for weeks it is the same person. 

Temporary bans are pointless, they are hardly a deterrent. Make bans permanent but only for serious misconduct such as the examples Dandydunn mentioned. You cant avoid people creating new logins but you can reduce it by keeping bans to a minimum. 

I disagree re chripper, you said yourself you never saw his posts on the TA specific forum

[TDYER63]

3 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

I disagree re chripper, you said yourself you never saw his posts on the TA specific forum

You are right I never, but if you are going to ban someone for being a nuisance you need to be consistent. Where on the ‘nuisance’ gauge do you need to be to get banned and who makes that decision ? Chripper has annoyed a lot of people but some have come to his defence. Is it fair for a mod to have to make that decision?  

[Jim Beem]

1 minute ago, thplinth said:

Things is I find it is almost unheard of here that there are 'pretty serious comments being made towards them/families etc or some bigoted/racist/homophobic slurs'. So I would not make a rod for your own back. Trust your judgement on a situational / context basis. There are no hard and fast rules for stuff like this. Ormond was sweary very likable rude kid while Chripper was a technically polite, extremely dislikable w**k. 

This place is a lot better without Chripper than it was with him. He was a like a new guy who comes to your local pub and annoys the shit out every person he interacts with. If you cant ban someone like that just for that then your rules are missing something. 

100% agree.

The people I generally find dull, annoying, repetitive,  dickish or even dislikable on here, I still occasionally find they will say something interesting or amusing.  Chripper appeared to have absolutely zero redeeming qualities whatsoever. Thats quite something. I’m willing to bet that away form the internet  he has zero social skills and even less awareness. Like I said earlier, first and only time I have ever blocked anyone. I think it was Kumnio that suggested he may well have been mentally ill. I think he is probably correct. 

Im happy to let the mods ban who they want. If its ever me then Ill suck it up. 👍 

[TDYER63]

9 minutes ago, aaid said:

 

For many years the TAMB rules were pinned to the front page, it might be an idea to reinstate that.

Whatever is decided re rules I agree with this . 

[vanderark14]

4 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

You are right I never, but if you are going to ban someone for being a nuisance you need to be consistent. Where on the ‘nuisance’ gauge do you need to be to get banned and who makes that decision ? Chripper has annoyed a lot of people but some have come to his defence. Is it fair for a mod to have to make that decision?  

Yes it's absolutely fair for a mod to do that. That's why they moderate the board. They use their own judgement.

[thplinth]

7 minutes ago, Jim Beem said:

100% agree.

The people I generally find dull, annoying, repetitive,  dickish or even dislikable on here, I still occasionally find they will say something interesting or amusing.  Chripper appeared to have absolutely zero redeeming qualities whatsoever. Thats quite something. I’m willing to bet that away form the internet  he has zero social skills and even less awareness. Like I said earlier, first and only time I have ever blocked anyone. I think it was Kumnio that suggested he may well have been mentally ill. I think he is probably correct. 

Im happy to let the mods ban who they want. If its ever me then Ill suck it up. 👍 

I read this board 99% of the time not logged in so I perhaps stupidly assumed that doing the same would make little difference to me. Otherwise that would have been my first ignoree as well (since joining in Dec 2005 i think). It was the most dreadful patter i have seen in a long time. What really surprised me was how many saps were out there taking his pish... FFS.