Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Forum discussion

Decentric said:
I didn’t advocate ‘them’ generally as being given a ‘limited enrollment’, but Lupi in particular.

The rest of your ‘mates’ are more guilty of premeditated stalking, doxing, cat fishing, trolling, bullying, multi identities, sock puppets, etc.

IMO the G and G staff have done a superb job minimizing their impact on this forum.

The rest of your ‘mates’ could emulate your demeanor on G and G, Beretta.

Conversely, I categorize Lupi differently. He might be deemed a forum ‘character’. He has a sense of humour too.

Apart from you, and me, there is probably no other support for Lupi’s limited reinstatement on G and G.
Click to expand...

No one should have been banned in the first place. Period. If you can't defend whatever position you may have in the first place without resorting to banning then your position is precarious and you are having doubts about it. Banning isn't about the other person it's about you & your house of cards positions. Like Churchill said ' Jaw,jaw,jaw is better than war,war,war '. So if whoever isn't here anymore and they want to come back then why not. I enjoy the musings of clowns and idiots because it's easy to pick apart.
 
erogenouszone said:
No one should have been banned in the first place. Period. If you can't defend whatever position you may have in the first place without resorting to banning then your position is precarious and you are having doubts about it. Banning isn't about the other person it's about you & your house of cards positions. Like Churchill said ' Jaw,jaw,jaw is better than war,war,war '. So if whoever isn't here anymore and they want to come back then why not. I enjoy the musings of clowns and idiots because it's easy to pick apart.
Click to expand...
You might have to think of the forum in general, over your subjective preferences, EZ.

I'm sure many of the long term, thick-skinned members of old 442 who post here aren't worried about 'rugged' posters whose intent is to bully and troll. However, most don't like them.

One currently banned member from G and G appears to have 'bullied' some poor new member who posted some good comments about football. I think the poster's name was Medellin. I belatedly saw them after Medellin had had a hard time and no welcome.

I'd much prefer a plethora of Medellins posting, than accommodating a few cyberbullies and keyboard warriors, whose intent is to drive some 'less robust' members away and sabotage G and G. Some of them even try to find out info offline about members' identities and then post them publicly. Banning these characters is endorsed by me.

As for Lupi, I don't think he resorts to these nefarious courses of action. Also, Lupi posts in his own name, not a continuously changing/evolving posting name. Even if I'd like to see Lupi return for a limited enrolment, if the vast majority of G and G posters don't want him back, I'm very content to adhere to the democratic process.

I thought Lupi was good for a laugh. I'm not sure the majority on G and G agree?
 
Slave, bring me my soapbox:
I don't care if posters troll in the public forums, or express radically or ridiculously different opinions to mine. The range of opinions and agendas is what changes this space from a sharing of commonly held beliefs to a discussion.

When posters troll the club threads and the like they get asked not to and they deserve to get suspended/banned if their posts continue to bring dirt into other people's houses. Plenty of threads to troll without ruining the enjoyment of specific interest threads.

If a poster crosses that very grey line of personal attack or aggression - and I exclude the ongoing battles of Mono, Sutho, Muzi, Lupi and the like as robust debate and their own personal entertainment - then they deserve to be suspended/banned. Grownups know there are lines. You don't need to be given a second chance before suspension/banning if you fail the pub test badly enough.

Anyone undertaking genuinely malicious activity has to be banned. There is a legal obligation as I understand it on forums to take some steps to protect members, and regardless - we just don't want malicious activity on here. It provides no value at all. All it takes for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing. And no matter how much it is disguised, real malicious behaviour is wrong and should be stopped at any level by anyone who can (that's a big one for me personally).

On a personal level, a poster who is simply annoying can be Ignored as we know - the power is with the individual should they want to use it. I can proudly say I now have no Ignored users - having gotten over my own personal annoyance with their continuous obvious trolling. Easy to put back on at the click of a button too.

I don't see Pasquali as a malevolent overlord, and I trust that bans are deserved without having to see the evidence. The forum is not a democracy - someone paid money for it so we can all play together - they get to choose where the lines are drawn and individuals get to choose whether they want to be part of that or walk. The ban lines are pretty broad and you really have to put in effort to cross them.

What a waste of a beautiful morning that post was.
 
Might there be an option to turn on that people can delete their own created threads in case they duplicate or become redundant? Can always ask mods too I suppose.

More of an aesthetics thing.
 
JS96 said:
Might there be an option to turn on that people can delete their own created threads in case they duplicate or become redundant? Can always ask mods too I suppose.

More of an aesthetics thing.
Click to expand...
Then what happens if someone deletes Aussies Abroad, or South Melbourne thread? It's probably best in the hands of admin
 
Pasquali said:
Then what happens if someone deletes Aussies Abroad, or South Melbourne thread? It's probably best in the hands of admin
Click to expand...
Yeah sure. I was referring to self created ones but that wouldn't necessarily stop anyone going rogue :D
 
grazorblade said:
there does appear to be modest growth looking at monthly posts. If I remove socceroos months there appears to be constant growth

MonthRegular posters (30+ a month)Unique posters
Oct 202447101
Dec 202447120
Feb 202554126
April 202536123
May 202542130
July 202552135
Aug 202554139
Sep 202559154

Not sure what happened in Feb since there were no roos games then and there was a random boost that month, but otherwise slow and steady growth
Click to expand...
not sure if its a fair comparison since we had roos games, but we continue to grow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top