• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Irate Ian - Life Ban!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Surely though, ultimately, we have to remember we have no rights on this board other than those the owners deem to give us.
Agree with that.

If they got fed up with it all and pulled the plug we would all turn up to work one morning and there be no site here....
Disagree with that. The sites gone through several changes of ownership and with the current base of users, I believe it's more than possible you'll find others willing to take over the ownership in the future.

As you may recall, I questioned the price for ownership of the website over the Christmas period, however this was just ignored. Clearly, there was no intent to sell and good luck to them.


it is not a site that we pay for
Effectively, every time you now click on this website you are now paying for the website. The more hits this website gets, the higher the price it costs to sponsor the website. (Log on with your colleagues laptops/computers for extra unique hits!)

I just dont buy into complaints that the owners treat people badly as being some kind of breach of civil rights. I dont agree with many decisions by the owners but know my place and know they are entitled to make those decisions. It's not like they are making decisions for the sheer hell of it or for personal gain, they do so (As far as I can tell) out of goodwill to keep this running to the best of their ability. Surely if people dont like the way things are run they can just look elsewhere for a site they prefer.
Agree with that as well. It's not for personal gain. However, nobody in any position should be exempt from criticism. Whether that's Ron Martin, Steve Tilson, an SZ Owner or the local Chairman of the Chess Committee! People make decisions to the best of their ability. However, sometimes the decisions are through personal choice and not in the interests of the board. That's the luxury you have (and pay for) as an owner. Is it right? Well, everyone has a different opinion on that.

Therefore constructive criticism should be welcomed. You could just delete it, but what's the point in that? Is that not just continuing to alienate the very supporters who had made this website what it is today? I'm wasn't exempt from criticism when I was Moderating SZ, so why should anyone else be?

Without opinions we would not be anywhere. Ian had an opinion whether you agreed or disagreed with it.

What's the difference in being barred from the local pub or from this forum? Would you not feel slightly aggrieved if you were barred from the Spread despite not doing anything? Same thing IMO.

Incidentally, I wonder how many of those who moan about the owners or this site have made contributions through paypal for the running of the site? I will be honest and admit that I have never donated despite following this site since the day it went online. Not really sure of the reason for that, like many things I just have never got round to it, but certainly, without making such a contribution, I feel even less inclined to criticise the owners who do put their hand in their pocket to keep this site running.
I've never donated through paypal, however I have signed up to various things such as player sponsorship/raffles etc whilst also dedicating my own time moderating over the past four years. Therefore, like Napster, I also believe I'm entitled to my opinion.

I'm fully aware the Owners backs are against the wall sometimes, however do I really think many of the recent decisions have been met with a 5-0 majority in favour? Do I heck.
 
Agree with that.

Disagree with that. The sites gone through several changes of ownership and with the current base of users, I believe it's more than possible you'll find others willing to take over the ownership in the future.

As you may recall, I questioned the price for ownership of the website over the Christmas period, however this was just ignored. Clearly, there was no intent to sell and good luck to them.


Effectively, every time you now click on this website you are now paying for the website. The more hits this website gets, the higher the price it costs to sponsor the website. (Log on with your colleagues laptops/computers for extra unique hits!)

Agree with that as well. It's not for personal gain. However, nobody in any position should be exempt from criticism. Whether that's Ron Martin, Steve Tilson, an SZ Owner or the local Chairman of the Chess Committee! People make decisions to the best of their ability. However, sometimes the decisions are through personal choice and not in the interests of the board. That's the luxury you have (and pay for) as an owner. Is it right? Well, everyone has a different opinion on that.

Therefore constructive criticism should be welcomed. You could just delete it, but what's the point in that? Is that not just continuing to alienate the very supporters who had made this website what it is today? I'm wasn't exempt from criticism when I was Moderating SZ, so why should anyone else be?

Without opinions we would not be anywhere. Ian had an opinion whether you agreed or disagreed with it.

What's the difference in being barred from the local pub or from this forum? Would you not feel slightly aggrieved if you were barred from the Spread despite not doing anything? Same thing IMO.

I've never donated through paypal, however I have signed up to various things such as player sponsorship/raffles etc whilst also dedicating my own time moderating over the past four years. Therefore, like Napster, I also believe I'm entitled to my opinion.

I'm fully aware the Owners backs are against the wall sometimes, however do I really think many of the recent decisions have been met with a 5-0 majority in favour? Do I heck.

Can't disagree with much you say except the bit in bold. One might argue that a differene is this is a board set up for discussion and therefore would be even more reason for different views to be discussed, rather than a pub where the raison d'etre is for getting ****ed. However there is a line between discussion / debate and abuse / nuisance and the owners must decide where that line lies.

If I went into the spread, continually criticised the suppliers of the Ale, in particular the Chairman or MD of the brewery, both in the quality of product they are providing and the way that brewary is run, AND also then criticised the owner of the pub and perhaps even alleged corruption on their part, then yes I would think me being banned was reasonable. I would then drink elsewhere (though that could entail the Nelson!!!).

I was though only looking at the point in discussion on this thread as not on whether the ban was reasonable (I dont know the facts), but whether the right to ban is reasonable. And Im of the view it is if the owners decide as its their right to do so.

If they want to allow healthy debate about the site (which I think they should) then it is their right to decide if this happens. If people want to post elsewhere, resign from moding than that is their right.

If an owner wanted to ban me as they didnt like my views on a player, the club or just didnt like my haircut, then I would just try to find another website to while away my working day. Id prefer not to, but if it happened I guess I would just do more work or find something else in life to do. Its not like there is an ombudsman or commissioner that provides us a right to complain about treatment on a free website funding voluntarily by individuals.


In any event, at least we won again on saturday, and with a good chance of 3 points against Crewe at these the doom and gloom merchants predicting relegation are quiet!
 
I paid for the website for over a year, and so I have every right to criticize. I think this is heavy-handed and have told the owners so. I have also resigned my moderating duties, given that this was something I do not agree with and in fact advised against.

a real shame, seems we are getting through mods at a rate of knots... MK must be rubbing his hands with glee!

I trust there will still be Hip-Hop Tuesday?!
 
I paid for the website for over a year, and so I have every right to criticize. I think this is heavy-handed and have told the owners so. I have also resigned my moderating duties, given that this was something I do not agree with and in fact advised against.

I see you are now a different shade of blue!
 
a real shame, seems we are getting through mods at a rate of knots... MK must be rubbing his hands with glee!

I trust there will still be Hip-Hop Tuesday?!

There will always be Hip Hop Tuesday. Lining up a real corker tomorrow.
 
I think everyone just needs to get a life.

Corruption. ha ha ha ha. That is why I never bothered to read any of Ian's threads anymore, they were getting boring and downright stupid. A lot of the time I didn't even disagree with some of his content, it was just the way he went about everything. He is like the anti-cricko, one believes Ron can't do anything wrong, one believes he can't do anything right. Any sensible person knows it must be in the middle which is why both their posts aI take with a pinch of salt.

However I don't think he should have been banned, if he believes all the stuff he rights then that is up to him, and what he sends in PM should be up to him.
 
Last edited:
Even though I don't know a lot about this latest shenanigan, I do find Irate Ian over the top sometimes but as far as I can see he is pretty harmless. But again, I don't know what has happened this time around.

Life time ban does seem pretty heavy handed but as many have said, the owners can run the site how they please as they are afterall the ones that pay for it.

Peace on the Zone please people, it's depressing when it gets like this.
 
I'm concerned that a lifetime ban is not extreme enough to deter whatever type of behaviour the miscreant exhibited.

Could the moderators look into extending bans to current and future offspring and perhaps airbrushing any trace of the miscreant from history just like they did to Leon Trotsky?
 
Last edited:
Im still confused by the whole thing and it took TFS about 10 mins on Saturday to try and explain what has happened and i/we were still both a bit stumped.

As i know II personally, he really is a top top fella, a huge Southend fan and you can always have a decent conversation with him. Im sure the ban will be over-turned and im sure things will be sorted out soon enough!

Kev
 
Just to clarify a few points.

The owners of the board took the decision to finally ban Irate Ian after much discussion and with a heavy heart full knowing the repercussions of the decision due to his personal connections with a number of posters on here. Those concerns now seem fully justified.

We had been advised by several posters that know Ian well to just ignore his continued cries for attention, but were forced to put him on a moderated posting a couple of weeks ago after having to delete the same thread he started 11 times. It remains the right of the owners and administrators to move or moderate threads. Locking of a thread does not mean just starting it over and over again until the administrators get bored of locking it. The rules of the site are clear on this matter and if people are unhappy with the way the Zone is being run, they should send us a PM. We're not going to debate each and every decision we make with regard to locking threads in the public forums, despite what Irate Ian might prefer.

Ian's Ban
When Irate Ian finally started using this website to send Private Messages to a number of users containing libellous statements about one of the owners of this website, it was seen as the straw that broke the camel's back and the decision was taken with full support from all of the owners to effect a ban. Despite what he might now try to spin, Irate Ian has not been banned for having an opinion.

We have nearly 900 "active users" on ShrimperZone (up from about 600 just two years ago) but nearly twice that visiting the Zone on a daily basis when you include unregistered guests. This website is not about Irate Ian.

Thank you to those Zoners who raised concerns and forwarded the Private Messages in question.

...there is a line between discussion / debate and abuse / nuisance and the owners must decide where that line lies.

If I went into the spread, continually criticised the suppliers of the Ale, in particular the Chairman or MD of the brewery, both in the quality of product they are providing and the way that brewary is run, AND also then criticised the owner of the pub and perhaps even alleged corruption on their part, then yes I would think me being banned was reasonable. I would then drink elsewhere (though that could entail the Nelson!!!).

I was though only looking at the point in discussion on this thread as not on whether the ban was reasonable (I dont know the facts), but whether the right to ban is reasonable. And I'm of the view it is if the owners decide as its their right to do so.

If they want to allow healthy debate about the site (which I think they should) then it is their right to decide if this happens. If people want to post elsewhere, resign from moding than that is their right.

The above represents exactly our view of the approach taken.
Thanks Number11 for your understanding.
 
So Private Messages aren't Private?

Also, when banning someone, shouldn't they really be told why they've been banned as opposed to just "persistent trouble making".

As for the rules of this site, I stated in another topic "Locking threads", that actually the rules aren't clear and that the FAQ which is a useful reference point is pretty much hidden away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top