Irate Ian - Life Ban!

[Irish_Shrimper]

OBL I need to point out your mistake, I don't think you meant to green rep me. And if you did you do know I am still an active member in SZFC don't you.

I think she's drunk, as she also did me.

Is that moaning about rep I hear, by any chance? :D

 

[Einstein]

Firstly, if Ian crossed the line and sent 'dodgy' PMs to people trying to tarnish another posters reputation then it a bit stupid. I have no idea what was included on these PM's (I feel left out now), but I still dispute the fact it wouldn't have come to this IF his posts weren't constantly moved & deleted.

Why did he resort to PMs? Because his view was constantly blocked on the board.

It remains the right of the owners and administrators to move or moderate threads.

Now I agree with this comment to an extent. However, what is the actual point of this messageboard if one of the owners is just going to close a thread if he/she disagrees with it? That is the fundamental question in all of this.

We can have the whole "this is my ball", but having met all of the owners, are they really this childish? I've met all of the Owners in the past, and they did not ever come across as power hungry warriors. Which is why I find it baffling why they cannot just let Ian have his view.

after having to delete the same thread he started 11 times.

I saw these "deleted" threads when I was still a mod. I saw the threads moved as well. There was nothing abusive in Ian's views. Controversial, yes. Abusive, no. There was also nothing in these threads which would have resulted in a law suit against SZ.

Irate Ian has not been banned for having an opinion.

At the end of the day, PMs or no PMs, it all stemmed from his opinion being blocked. Ian's first thread should not have been locked, deleted, whatever. He merely had an opinion.

Other posters (including me) got frustrated by seeing him constantly open new threads, but if his opinions were not locked in the first place then he wouldn't have needed to open more threads. And thereby most people on this board wouldn't even find him frustrating in the first place!

And I've never even met the bloke.

Basically Ian, my advice would be, go to the Spread, have a drink with Cricko. You can both become best buddies and like other posters you can then do what you like :)

Fail in this. I recommend a charity boxing match. All proceeds go to buying a player for SZFC.

 

[Einstein]

I think she's drunk, as she also did me.

And me. Pubey's stolen her password! ;)

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

she also did me.

:O Dirty little strumpet !!!!

 

[Einstein]

Thank you to those snitches who forwarded the Private Messages in question.

I'm surprised no-one else picked up on the typo in the post either.... :O

 

[davewebbsbrain]

I'm surprised no-one else picked up on the typo in the post either.... :O

So if someone slagged you off to me via a PM to the point of near slander, I should just keep quiet then!!

 

[Einstein]

So if someone slagged you off to me via a PM to the point of near slander, I should just keep quiet then!!

You mean it doesn't happen every day anyway then?! :p

Near slander? It's either slander or it's not though.

If it's slander, then the person should seek legal advice.

If it's not, then the person should just pick up the phone and ask why they have such a problem.

 

[Perth Bambi]

So if someone slagged you off to me via a PM to the point of near slander, I should just keep quiet then!!

Er yes. It is a person's opinion on a website not a national newspaper.

 

[Perth Bambi]

I am tending to agree with Einstein (becoming a bit too regular for my liking)

No Ian's posts probably shouldn't have been blocked. Like i have said I don't read his stuff anymore because it bores me but if it wasn't abusive then if people didn't like it they should just do what i do and don't read them.

However once it had been blocked a few times he II should have been a bit more mature and not tried to keep opening up new threads. I have had brief chats with a few of the owners and mods in my time and although i can't say i know any of them very well they all seem decent enough people (even Cricko who abuses me all the time)

Two wrongs don't make a right and I believe both sides have been wrong in the whole long story that is II.

The only solution I can see is that SZFC take over the board, ban OBL, AS, MK and the Big Shrimp and then everyone will be happy. ;)

 

[South Bank Hank]

I saw these "deleted" threads when I was still a mod. I saw the threads moved as well.

Actually, that's not true Glen. It happened so often with Ian that you may have seen some early ones but this has been wearing us down on for a long time. The final 11 threads in question that saw him put on moderation were during the last few weeks and just prior to the ridiculous Private Messages which saw him banned.

The bottom line is, we're not changing the policies on a successful website with a rapidly increasing user-base just to suit Irate Ian. If we accept that one user can just pick and choose which rules he follows, then we have to do that for all users. Otherwise, there's no point in having rules and our website quickly becomes the joy that is Rivals.net

 

[South Bank Hank]

...and now I've deleted the last four posts from DaveWebb'sBrain and Essex Bambi since there's no point in repeating the initial allegations. Let's move on.

 

[Perth Bambi]

I hope you never get accused of something you haven't done. If it's not nipped in the bud and put straight very early on, it could have serious repercussions.

You may realise that when you grow up!

I have often been accused of something I haven't done. If it effected in any serious way of course I would nip it in the bud, but I fail to see how II irrational ramblings would have had serious repercussions. But hey ho each to their own.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Er yes. It is a person's opinion on a website not a national newspaper.

It was a serious allegation!

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I disagree wholeheartedly that Irate Ian's been banned for having an opinion that differs from those of the Owners. If everyone had to toe the party line, then surely there would be no diversity of opinion on here. If you look at some of my posts, and some of Lord Football's posts, you will quickly realise that's not the case. You could argue that Ian's opinion related to a more sensitive topic, but there are a number of posters on here, myself included, who aren't big fans of Mr Martin and have made absolutely no secret of that.

I can't claim to speak for Cricko and the other owners, but surely the biggest problem with the Irate One was that he was an overbearing know-nothing with a hugely inflated sense of his own self-importance. As an example, who remembers the thread regarding the moral dilemna of finding a wallet full of cash? Many Zoners advised the finder (seany t, if my memory serves me correctly) to keep the cash, but were then admonished by Ian, who threatened to report them all to the police, despite not knowing their real names or locations and the fact that they hadn't committed a crime.

Another example I would mention is the Frank Gill thread, where someone had the temerity to disagree with Ian's nomination, and was basically told: 'read what I said, because you're obviously too stupid to have understood it'. It's not as if Ian has endeared himself to the Zone as a whole, let alone the Owners. His 'crusade' strikes me as tedious self-promotion and his attitude towards his fellow fans fluctuates between contempt and vitriol. Good riddance.

 

[Firestorm]

I see this as almost seperate issues.

1) The Mods should not have to spend all of their time clearing up the site to make it more readable etc , by constantly having to delete / amend posts (And if you were going to say , don't bother, go and have a look at some unmoderated forums and see how tedious it is to wade through crap threads to get to something interesting)

2) Cricko got slagged off to a mymber of members in a PM by II.

Personally, if one individual poster is causing an inordinate amount of work (issue 1) then a warning , temp ban and then complete ban if they persist would seem to me to be the only course.

I go on a few forums for different topics and generally the stricter the moderation the more popular the site.

As for Issue 2 , I too got one of those PM's and promptly ignored it, However a warning about abuse of the PM function might well have been an option, but given the already
High maintainance of the particular poster I can see why it was decided that the board could do without him.

If one wants to be treated with common sense and flexibility by the mods you should really expect it to apply reciprocally and post with some common sense too.

 

[Yer Blues]

I disagree wholeheartedly that Irate Ian's been banned for having an opinion that differs from those of the Owners. If everyone had to toe the party line, then surely there would be no diversity of opinion on here. If you look at some of my posts, and some of Lord Football's posts, you will quickly realise that's not the case. You could argue that Ian's opinion related to a more sensitive topic, but there are a number of posters on here, myself included, who aren't big fans of Mr Martin and have made absolutely no secret of that.

I can't claim to speak for Cricko and the other owners, but surely the biggest problem with the Irate One was that he was an overbearing know-nothing with a hugely inflated sense of his own self-importance. As an example, who remembers the thread regarding the moral dilemna of finding a wallet full of cash? Many Zoners advised the finder (seany t, if my memory serves me correctly) to keep the cash, but were then admonished by Ian, who threatened to report them all to the police, despite not knowing their real names or locations and the fact that they hadn't committed a crime.

Another example I would mention is the Frank Gill thread, where someone had the temerity to disagree with Ian's nomination, and was basically told: 'read what I said, because you're obviously too stupid to have understood it'. It's not as if Ian has endeared himself to the Zone as a whole, let alone the Owners. His 'crusade' strikes me as tedious self-promotion and his attitude towards his fellow fans fluctuates between contempt and vitriol. Good riddance.

i love you

 

[Sean 2]

I disagree wholeheartedly that Irate Ian's been banned for having an opinion that differs from those of the Owners. If everyone had to toe the party line, then surely there would be no diversity of opinion on here. If you look at some of my posts, and some of Lord Football's posts, you will quickly realise that's not the case. You could argue that Ian's opinion related to a more sensitive topic, but there are a number of posters on here, myself included, who aren't big fans of Mr Martin and have made absolutely no secret of that.

I can't claim to speak for Cricko and the other owners, but surely the biggest problem with the Irate One was that he was an overbearing know-nothing with a hugely inflated sense of his own self-importance. As an example, who remembers the thread regarding the moral dilemna of finding a wallet full of cash? Many Zoners advised the finder (seany t, if my memory serves me correctly) to keep the cash, but were then admonished by Ian, who threatened to report them all to the police, despite not knowing their real names or locations and the fact that they hadn't committed a crime.

Another example I would mention is the Frank Gill thread, where someone had the temerity to disagree with Ian's nomination, and was basically told: 'read what I said, because you're obviously too stupid to have understood it'. It's not as if Ian has endeared himself to the Zone as a whole, let alone the Owners. His 'crusade' strikes me as tedious self-promotion and his attitude towards his fellow fans fluctuates between contempt and vitriol. Good riddance.

Whilst i agree with you in most of that, i do feel that II was subject to a lot of ridicule himself and turned the other cheek quite maturely. I myself caned him in the early II days for persistant self-quoting, yet F holm pointed out to me quite recently that i need to leave a space after a full stop or apostrophe!!

II is a cantankerous old bugger who enjoys digging his heels in at the slightest of unjust and i quite enjoyed that side of him. Of course if you've been naughty with the owners then you must not persist if you want your voice heard on here, as the owners find his persistence the epitome of annoyance and do not enjoy keep checking up on people from what i can see, fair enough they'd rather enjoy the banter and expressing their points of view like everyone else does when we have the time in the day.

At the end of the day, it was II's persistence in being cantankerous that ended up in the ban and if someone can't understand that then there is no hope for them.

The big question is now, who will take the mantle of questioning every move by the Chairman of SUFC?
It is good to keep someone like that on their toes no??

 

[OldBlueLady]

Is that moaning about rep I hear, by any chance? :D

I know, terrible isn't it? :whistling:

 

[Lester Bangs]

Meh, just sounds like censorship to me.

Either non-conformists must change their ways or they will be eliminited.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

Meh, just sounds like censorship to me.

Either non-conformists must change their ways or they will be eliminited.

You mean something like in the words of Thom Yorke and Radiohead ...

"When i am King you will be first against the wall
With your opinion that is of no consequence at all" ??