PDA

View Full Version : Matthew Sweeney - banned?



Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 10:03 PM
Err KB....He is having trouble showing anything at the moment. ;)
Why is that starter.

ursogr8
20-12-2004, 10:12 PM
Why is that starter.

Bill

You need to ask K. direct.
He controls the bb.

Last time I asked about accesses all I got was loud bold font.


starter

Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 10:50 PM
Bill

You need to ask K. direct.
He controls the bb.

Last time I asked about accesses all I got was loud bold font.
You made the comment not Karthick.
Therefore on what did you base it.

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2004, 12:33 AM
Err KB....He is having trouble showing anything at the moment. ;)

I was not aware he had been banned again, if this is indeed the case. If so I am sure he brought it entirely on himself as usual so I would not bother with any attempts to make him sound like a martyr. :P

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 06:51 AM
You made the comment not Karthick.
Therefore on what did you base it.

Bill

The 'mechanical' reason that Matt cannot pursue this matter is that MS, FC, Y, Y2, Y3 (and perhaps Y4) have all been banned. I can't confirm this because when I look at the members list I get
'Sorry! The administrator has disabled the list of members.'
The causual reason that Matt cannot pursue this matter is something you should direct to K.
K. is the admin. that is controlling accesses to the bb.

starter

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 07:05 AM
I was not aware he had been banned again, if this is indeed the case. If so I am sure he brought it entirely on himself as usual so I would not bother with any attempts to make him sound like a martyr. :P

KB
The following accounts owned by Matt: > MS, FC, YAMAHA, Y2, Y3 (and perhaps Y4), have all been banned.
This followed a 48 hour suspension for posting unseemly material.
No further information is publicly available from the admins nor the mods. No obvious new infractions after the 48-hour ban have been sighted. One post had one sentence that Bill tried to beat-up desultory; but that was a tired and transparent response by Bill.
Matt is not a martyr by any stretch of imagination. He is simply a casualty of a policy we can only guess at; (even the policy posts have been removed).
Matt is but a demonstration of what Barry called yesterday "Newton's second law of bb's".

I don't expect he will be able to post again.

starter

Kevin Bonham
21-12-2004, 12:34 PM
Not much sympathy here. Signing up hydra accounts to circumvent a ban would lead to a longer ban on any half-decent bulletin board.

Bill Gletsos
21-12-2004, 01:01 PM
Bill

The 'mechanical' reason that Matt cannot pursue this matter is that MS, FC, Y, Y2, Y3 (and perhaps Y4) have all been banned.
Well he wont get any sympathy from me.


I can't confirm this because when I look at the members list I get
'Sorry! The administrator has disabled the list of members.'
That will change when the board drops back to normal mode from dev mode.

Bill Gletsos
21-12-2004, 01:16 PM
KB
The following accounts owned by Matt: > MS, FC, YAMAHA, Y2, Y3 (and perhaps Y4), have all been banned.
This followed a 48 hour suspension for posting unseemly material.
Yes, well he was squealing about it like a stuck pig.


No further information is publicly available from the admins nor the mods. No obvious new infractions after the 48-hour ban have been sighted.
Unless you are on here 24 hrs a day it would be easy to miss a post of his that was subsequently deleted by the mods or admins.


One post had one sentence that Bill tried to beat-up desultory; but that was a tired and transparent response by Bill.
I assume you are referring to my post #48 in the NECG Australin Junior Chess Squad. His last sentence was uncalled for.


Matt is not a martyr by any stretch of imagination. He is simply a casualty of a policy we can only guess at; (even the policy posts have been removed).
Sounds like some sort of "marketing puff" on your belf here starter.
Matt was nothing more than a casualty of his own behaviour.
A behaviour that was often unacceptable.


Matt is but a demonstration of what Barry called yesterday "Newton's second law of bb's".
As I said Matt had no one to blame but himself.



I don't expect he will be able to post again.
No great loss.

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 01:30 PM
Not much sympathy here. Signing up hydra accounts to circumvent a ban would lead to a longer ban on any half-decent bulletin board.

:eek: :eek:
OOHH
I would not have called the board by that name.


K. ...please take your finger of the EJECT button...it was KB's post not mine.


starter

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 01:43 PM
Yes, well he was squealing about it like a stuck pig.


Unless you are on here 24 hrs a day it would be easy to miss a post of his that was subsequently deleted by the mods or admins.


I assume you are referring to my post #48 in the NECG Australin Junior Chess Squad. His last sentence was uncalled for.


Sounds like some sort of "marketing puff" on your belf here starter.
Matt was nothing more than a casualty of his own behaviour.
A behaviour that was often unacceptable.


As I said Matt had no one to blame but himself.



No great loss.

Bill

Don't bother replying to my posts on this topic.
KB asked was referring rating issues to Matt. I helped KB by telling him not to expects a response.
I am only guessing what happened. I told KB that.
Please address your posts to Kevin (or K.) if you want to pursue.

I am OK with the admins action being irreversible; he is the bb owner.


regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
21-12-2004, 02:34 PM
Bill

Don't bother replying to my posts on this topic.
Sorry I cannot comply, given what you say isnt entirely accurate.


KB asked was referring rating issues to Matt. I helped KB by telling him not to expects a response.
Your post #576 was far more than telling him not to expect a response (you did that in #570 ).


I am only guessing what happened. I told KB that.
Please address your posts to Kevin (or K.) if you want to pursue.
Actually if I did I would do it via PM.


I am OK with the admins action being irreversible; he is the bb owner.
Yes he is.

ursogr8
21-12-2004, 05:00 PM
Sorry I cannot comply, given what you say isnt entirely accurate.


Your post #576 was far more than telling him not to expect a response (you did that in #570 ).


Actually if I did I would do it via PM.


Yes he is.

Bill

Don't read my lips....watch my hands.

:hand: :hand:

starter

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 07:22 AM
The average punter probably is struggling to know why Matt Sweeney was banned. It is not helped by the parts of the story being in various places by senior posters. Those who can read the shoutbox can see some information. Those that can see the Coffee Lounge can see other information. Those that can see your feedback thread can see another version.
This thread title deserves to at least see a summary of all other posts input on this topic.
Unfortunately, I can't provide a 100% coverage because there are parts of the bb that I can't see... for starters...the moderators forum.
What I can help the average punter with is a snapshot of the posts that I thought gave some insight. I include these below. But clearly the moderators know more.

1st useful post

What exactly was Matt banned for this time, Skip?

2nd useful post

Isn't it obvious? He doesn't like him!

3rd post, but probably just speculative

What is more likely is that Matt doesnt know when to keep his mouth shut.
On top of that there was no apology whatsoever by Matt for his behaviour and his unnecessary crude language whilst posting drunk.
Note this post suggests three reasons for being banned:
> MS posted crudely while drunk. Actually I thought Matt got a 48-hour suspension for this offence.
>> no apology for posting crudely when drunk. Pure guesswork by Bill or does he know something. Who asked for the apology?
>>> posted after the 48 hour ban was lifted (or as Bill calls it...didn't keep his mouth shut). Surely it was just not the act of posting, but some offensive single post(s) that got Matt banned; but which? Have they been deleted by mods?

4th post

As with many self-styled internet bad-boys, Matt has always had more pride than sense. Put him in a room with John Howard and see which one learns the word "sorry" first.

This post looks like Kevin believes Bill's >> no apology.


So, you be the judge. Do you know why Matt was banned in the period between the 48-hour suspension was lifted and he started using the hydras (YAMAHAx)?

starter

ps Bill My final lines in post #13 on this thread do not apply to this summary post.

arosar
23-12-2004, 07:32 AM
Yeah . . . why was he banned?

AR

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 10:33 AM
3rd post, but probably just speculative

Note this post suggests three reasons for being banned:
> MS posted crudely while drunk. Actually I thought Matt got a 48-hour suspension for this offence.
It doesnt suggest this was a reason for his ban at all.
I suggested he didnt know when to shut up.
By this I meant that after his 48 hr ban he seemed to go out of his way to annoy the admins. That sort of behaviour was bound to backfire.


>> no apology for posting crudely when drunk. Pure guesswork by Bill or does he know something. Who asked for the apology?
Why should he need to be asked.
Matt of course never apologises for his behaviour. He never apologised for missing Council meetings and he never apologises for his crude langauage.
Common decency would suggest he should have apologised for the crude language he used whilst drunk.


>>> posted after the 48 hour ban was lifted (or as Bill calls it...didn't keep his mouth shut).
Thats not what I called it at all starter.


Surely it was just not the act of posting, but some offensive single post(s) that got Matt banned; but which? Have they been deleted by mods?
I'm suggesting after returning from the 48hr ban that his behaviour was belligerent. He seemed to go out of his way to antagonise STML.


This post looks like Kevin believes Bill's >> no apology.
I dont believe thats the case. Neither Kevin or I suggested he was banned for not apologising.
We were just noting that he didnt.


So, you be the judge. Do you know why Matt was banned in the period between the 48-hour suspension was lifted and he started using the hydras (YAMAHAx)?
He should have had his 48 hr ban extended for trying to circumvent that ban by use of the YAMAHA account.

After he was banned again then his use of multiple hydras to get around it deserved a significant ban.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 11:59 AM
By this I meant that after his 48 hr ban he seemed to go out of his way to annoy the admins.

So that is your answer Bill to Amiel and DR 's question, is it?
Matt was banned after the 48 hour suspension, but before the YAMAHAs, because he was annoying the admin.







The same admin. who asked


Please, I wish to have the same .... rights.... that normal members have.
?

Seems to me that Matt annoyed you, annoyed me, annoyed Kev, annoyed jenni, annoyed CL.
The admin. asked for a share.
And got it.
But didn't like it.




I'm suggesting after returning from the 48hr ban that his behaviour was belligerent. He seemed to go out of his way to antagonise STML.
Seems to be a repeat of 'annoy', so whatever you answer there will probably apply here.






After he was banned again then his use of multiple hydras to get around it deserved a significant ban.

Bill, for some-one who says he doesn't want to be a mod. you sure do give the mods and admins a lot of advice.
Leave the penalties to them; even though you are probably correct.

starter

arosar
23-12-2004, 12:07 PM
Look, the advantage of not having Matt is that now the spotlight is back on MtB. And have youse noticed the pick-up in user activity? It sorta adds a certain deliciousness to watching those 2 MtB fellas trip over themselves.

AR

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 12:28 PM
Look, the advantage of not having Matt is that now the spotlight is back on MtB. And have youse noticed the pick-up in user activity? It sorta adds a certain deliciousness to watching those 2 MtB fellas trip over themselves.

AR

Amiel

Can I just offer you some random comments on your post.
1 If it is so good on the Mt.B. thread then how come you are here?
2 The 2 Mt B. fellas are a daylight loser and a xxxxxx (hey we need a name). They are not Welshers, who are so much more sophisticated.
3 The pick-up in activity coincides with school hols.

starter

Garvinator
23-12-2004, 12:29 PM
Amiel

Can I just offer you some random comments on your post.
1 If it is so good on the Mt.B. thread then how come you are here?
2 The 2 Mt B. fellas are a daylight loser and a xxxxxx (hey we need a name). They are not Welshers, who are so much more sophisticated.
3 The pick-up in activity coincides with school hols.

starter
i think you are looking for croweater or redback arent you ;)

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 12:36 PM
i think you are looking for croweater or redback arent you ;)

I knew about croweater but I thought it impolite until after the national conference when he returns to the field.

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 12:49 PM
So that is your answer Bill to Amiel and DR 's question, is it?
Matt was banned after the 48 hour suspension, but before the YAMAHAs, because he was annoying the admin.
You seem to fail to get the point.
He had just served a 48 hr ban.
Instead of coming back and showing some sort of contrition for his behaviour he continued to argue and abuse the admins.
That was just another example of sheer stupidity on his part.




Seems to me that Matt annoyed you, annoyed me, annoyed Kev, annoyed jenni, annoyed CL.
The admin. asked for a share.
And got it.
But didn't like it.
He didnt ask for Matt's abuse at all.
If you read it that way then you need to improve your comprehension skills.



Bill, for some-one who says he doesn't want to be a mod. you sure do give the mods and admins a lot of advice.
No harm in giving advice.
They can take it ot leave it.


Leave the penalties to them; even though you are probably correct.
I never doubted I was correct. ;)

arosar
23-12-2004, 12:52 PM
You seem to fail to miss the point.

Well, if he failed to miss the point, then he must have got it, right? :hmm:

AR

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 01:14 PM
Well, if he failed to miss the point, then he must have got it, right? :hmm:

AR
Not after I corrected the sentence. ;)

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 01:25 PM
He had just served a 48 hr ban.
Instead of coming back and showing some sort of contrition for his behaviour he continued to argue and abuse the admins.
That was just another example of sheer stupidity on his part.

Bill
Help me here.
Is the reason he was banned ...the bit of your text I have coloured? Do you know? Have you been PM'd by a mod or admin. Is there a post somewhere that says this? Is there an offending Matt post?
I honestly don't know; and neither Amiel or the Doc seem to know.





He didnt ask for Matt's abuse at all.
If you read it that way then you need to improve your comprehension skills.

Of course the admin. did not ask for Matt's abuse.
What the admin. asked for was the right to enter the hurly-burly of the bb debates.
And when each of us (jenni, CL, kegless, BD, a/c, DR, Dorophil, to name some more) does that then we know Newton's second law applies.
Obviously the admin. did not bargain on receiving if he gave.




starter

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 01:44 PM
Well, if he failed to miss the point, then he must have got it, right? :hmm:

AR

This is the New_BILL; he admits when he is in the wrong. ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 02:21 PM
Bill
Help me here.
Is the reason he was banned ...the bit of your text I have coloured? Do you know? Have you been PM'd by a mod or admin. Is there a post somewhere that says this? Is there an offending Matt post?
I honestly don't know; and neither Amiel or the Doc seem to know.
No I dont.
However common sense says that arguing with an admin isnt a wise move, especially over bad behaviour that previously got you banned.


Of course the admin. did not ask for Matt's abuse.
What the admin. asked for was the right to enter the hurly-burly of the bb debates.
Thats rubbish.
STML wasnt referring to Matt in any way.

In fact your supposed quote of STML
Please, I wish to have the same .... rights.... that normal members have.misrepresents what he said because you replace some relevant words with ....

His original quote was
Please, I wish to have the same free speech rights that normal members have.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 03:58 PM
No I dont.

Ah. So you don't know why he was banned between the time that his suspension was lifted and his use of the hydras. You have just been surmising. Well I suppose it has been good for your post count. :rolleyes:





However common sense says that arguing with an admin isnt a wise move, especially over bad behaviour that previously got you banned.

This is just more surmise on your part; and you are certainly entitled to do that.
We just need to separate surmise from fact in order to help out Amiel and DR with their question. We would not want them misled into thinking what you say is the gospel truth (stay away a/c that is just a figure of speech :doh: ).



Thats rubbish.
STML wasnt referring to Matt in any way.

I wouldn't have any problem digging out posts to prove your defence, of admin's total lack of criticism of Matt, is suspect.
But I don't need to because 'the admin. was annoyed' is just a surmise.
What we need is the real reason for banning.


Amiel and the Dr and I will wait for any other poster who knows something about if there a post somewhere that says why Matt was banned? Is there an offending Matt post?

It remains an unknown.



starter

skip to my lou
23-12-2004, 04:31 PM
Matthew Sweeneys posts needed to be moderated after his 48 hour ban expired. A moderator had requested that he be banned permanently, and so did many members. A few of the moderators had asked to give it more time, and so we did. Though Matt wasn't satisfied yet, he decided to post vulgar and rude messages (which you cannot see due to deletion) and provoke the admin. So, he has been banned permanently. Whether he gets unbanned or not is up to the moderators.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 04:45 PM
Matthew Sweeneys posts needed to be moderated after his 48 hour ban expired. A moderator had requested that he be banned permanently, and so did many members. A few of the moderators had asked to give it more time, and so we did. Though Matt wasn't satisfied yet, he decided to post vulgar and rude messages (which you cannot see due to deletion) and provoke the admin. So, he has been banned permanently. Whether he gets unbanned or not is up to the moderators.

Thank you Mr K.
Much more informative than Surmise_BILL.

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 04:49 PM
He has certainly had enough warnings regarding his language not only on this board but the previous ACF board.

I'm surprised that some moderators are prepared to give him yet another chance even with a zero tolerance policy in place.

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 04:50 PM
Thank you Mr K.
Much more informative than Surmise_BILL.
And certainly better than Haventgotaclue_starter.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 04:56 PM
And certainly better than Haventgotaclue_starter.

Good afternoon Bill


Better luck to you when I table question #2.


starter

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 05:32 PM
Ah. So you don't know why he was banned between the time that his suspension was lifted and his use of the hydras. You have just been surmising. Well I suppose it has been good for your post count. :rolleyes:
Actually that should have said "No they dont" not "No I dont".
So I wasnt surmising anything.
After all you will note I did not say if I had or hadnt recieved any information via PM from a admin or mod. I chose not to answer.


This is just more surmise on your part; and you are certainly entitled to do that.
That is not me surmising anything.
I'm was just stating that even someone as silly as Matt would know not to abuse an admin.


We just need to separate surmise from fact in order to help out Amiel and DR with their question. We would not want them misled into thinking what you say is the gospel truth (stay away a/c that is just a figure of speech :doh: ).
I suggested he was being belligerent towards an admin.
Where I sit that is provoking an admin and as STML said Matt decided to provoke an admin by posting vulgar and rude messages.



I wouldn't have any problem digging out posts to prove your defence, of admin's total lack of criticism of Matt, is suspect.
That is irrelevant.
Your post of STML's quote regarding rights was used out of context.


But I don't need to because 'the admin. was annoyed' is just a surmise.
There isnt much difference between the admin being annnnnoyed and the admin being provoked.


What we need is the real reason for banning.
And now you have it.


Amiel and the Dr and I will wait for any other poster who knows something about if there a post somewhere that says why Matt was banned? Is there an offending Matt post?
Common sense , let alone anyone with a brain would realise that any such offending post would have long since been deleted, just like they were deleted when he was hit with the original 48 hour ban.


It remains an unknown.
Only because you were prepared to sit in the dark.

ursogr8
23-12-2004, 07:23 PM
Actually that should have said "No they dont" not "No I dont".

...
.

Sorry for Bill

Touch move applies in the classical game. Your words stand.

Even the Arbiter, K., had to come to your rescue with a mercy ruling against you.

You will get a chance to score when I table the next question.
Look on the bright side...if it was a 7 round SWISS, you have just played the SWISS gambit. ;) :hand:

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2004, 07:53 PM
Sorry for Bill

Touch move applies in the classical game. Your words stand.
Onced you refrain from ever editing your posts you can make that call.
Until then, your opinion doesnt matter.


Even the Arbiter, K., had to come to your rescue with a mercy ruling against you.
STML didnt say anything contradictory to what I said.


You will get a chance to score when I table the next question.
You are not the arbiter, hence you dont get to decide squat.


Look on the bright side...if it was a 7 round SWISS, you have just played the SWISS gambit. ;) :hand:
At least some idiot didnt mention competitive index's. :whistle:

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 07:58 PM
At least some idiot didnt mention competitive index's. :whistle:

Bill,

Did you have anything particular in mind that you wanted to criticise about the competitive index thread?

regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2004, 08:02 PM
Bill,

Did you have anything particular in mind that you wanted to criticise about the competitive index thread?

regards
starter
I think others have adequately criticised it.

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 08:28 PM
I think others have adequately criticised it.

Bill

And you could not have given this generalist answer on the other thread?

I guess this single-sentence-answer is better than the four successive NOs that you posted after I nominated you and K. for a/c's first poll; but only just.

seasons greetings
starter

Bill Gletsos
27-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Bill

And you could not have given this generalist answer on the other thread?
No.
The question had no reason for being on that other thread.


I guess this single-sentence-answer is better than the four successive NOs that you posted after I nominated you and K. for a/c's first poll; but only just.
It was indeed unfortunate that you were not included in that poll as you have demonstrated your undoubted ability in that area.

antichrist
05-01-2005, 11:50 PM
Matt,
If you are still reading, which I doubt, I thank you for the many times you brightened my day, but ones that were indelled into my memory were describing Bill as wingnut (not my type of humour but funny) and querying whether AR's incontinence pads were full.

Who else on the BB can make us laugh -- I can't remember any of the highly-rated players doing so. A few of the lowly-rated players could because they are dopes.

Alan Shore
05-01-2005, 11:57 PM
Matt,
If you are still reading, which I doubt, I thank you for the many times you brightened my day, but ones that were indelled into my memory were describing Bill as wingnut (not my type of humour but funny) and querying whether AR's incontinence pads were full.

Who else on the BB can make us laugh -- I can't remember any of the highly-rated players doing so. A few of the lowly-rated players could because they are dopes.

Surely I've made you crack a smile before AC? I even remember a couple of your posts that have made me laugh!

And I don't know about the 'high-rated' generalisation.. kegless has made some hilarious posts in the past :D

antichrist
06-01-2005, 12:09 AM
In the early days of the weekly bulletin I initiated a discussion called God in the Chessroom (about the first debate ever maybe) that was funny. Someone commented how some up and coming British champ was staring up at the ceiling during a comp and when asked why by the arbiter stated "was asking God for help". The arbiter didn't know whether to penalise him for seeking outside assistance.

RE Kegless before I had a bee in my bonnet about him so did not follow attentively.

BTW what happens when one is reading a post and that the poster decides to edit? Does it get cut off?

Sorry to say but the one I like between you and me was that disgusting one of mine re pigs transferring their waste products... (mates who know me well always warn me that whoever I marry must have a thick skin - so true, I don't do out of malice but because I like excitement)

As I may have stated earlier I was attacked with a knife by someone very close to me because I stirred them in a funny way just for the sake of it.

ursogr8
01-03-2005, 11:41 AM
Frosty
Essentially he is banned for a surfeit of unacceptable words.
Early instances were simply beeped by the MODS.
Later instances were beeped by the MODS.
Future instances could have been beeped by the MODS.

Your 1. was tried, but then the heavy hand of power could not stand a
minor infraction (posting while banned).
The split is still avoidable. And you could number this as option 3. to
go with your 1. and 2.

regards
and top of the morning to you
starter

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 12:56 PM
Frosty
Essentially he is banned for a surfeit of unacceptable words.
Early instances were simply beeped by the MODS.
Later instances were beeped by the MODS.
Future instances could have been beeped by the MODS.Rubbish.
Why should the mods have to carry that out for essentially one user.
He had nummerous warnings. he chose to ignore them.

Your 1. was tried, but then the heavy hand of power could not stand a minor infraction (posting while banned).Posting whilst banned is not considered a minor infraction on the net.

ursogr8
01-03-2005, 01:22 PM
Why should the mods have to carry that out for essentially one user.

The don't have to Bill.
But they could choose to.
They have chosen not to. (For February).


He had nummerous warnings.
True


He chose to ignore them.

True.
Although Woody, and his restraint to one GLOVES off does show two capabilities of discrimatory behaviour. So ignore is a bit strong. Shall we say...continued flout?


Posting whilst banned is not considered a minor infraction on the net.

I will take your word for it.
But, more inclusive choices could still be made.
Remember, I am posting in response to Frosty's comments about a split, and I am highlighting that his 1. and 2. are not the only options. Options are still options even if the prevailing opinion has made its mind up; the option doesn't disappear.

starter

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2005, 01:31 PM
The don't have to Bill.
But they could choose to.
They have chosen not to. (For February).
He is a recividist offender.
Continually slapping him on the wrist was no deterrent.

Although Woody, and his restraint to one GLOVES off does show two capabilities of discrimatory behaviour. So ignore is a bit strong. Shall we say...continued flout?He used that account to bypass a bann and just appeared to be playing a part. It was unlikely he could keep it up. After all his language is still just as bad on his own board.

But, more inclusive choices could still be made.
Remember, I am posting in response to Frosty's comments about a split, and I am highlighting that his 1. and 2. are not the only options. Options are still options even if the prevailing opinion has made its mind up; the option doesn't disappear.No but that doesnt make them good options either. There has been far less abuse on this board since he was banned.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 02:17 PM
Frosty
Essentially he is banned for a surfeit of unacceptable words.

And for driving while disqualified, which is the reason he remains banned - without that his bans for swearing would have lapsed.

Also note it was not only swearing but unacceptably vulgar and disgusting comments that were the problem.


Early instances were simply beeped by the MODS.
Later instances were beeped by the MODS.
Future instances could have been beeped by the MODS.

Your #3 is a ridiculous option. You might as well add 4, namely that the MODS do a whip round and hire a thug to go and intimidate him every time he misbehaves.

You have absolutely got to be joking if you think that the unpaid mods have nothing better to do than to waste their time censoring indefinitely many cases of swearing by people who clearly have no interest in cutting their level of vulgarity.

You have also got to be joking if you think that perennially snipping after the event is any answer to the problem. There would always be a delay between the offending material being posted and it being moderated in such a case.

arosar
01-03-2005, 02:38 PM
What a bloody joke! Let's talk about something else. I mean hello!!! What's wrong with this picture? You ban the guy and we're all still talking about him. And what does Bill do but create another thread dedicated to that Itsallaboutmemememememe?

What did youse boys think of the Oscars? Where are those resident moms when you need them?

AR

ursogr8
01-03-2005, 03:02 PM
What a bloody joke! Let's talk about something else. I mean hello!!! What's wrong with this picture? You ban the guy and we're all still talking about him. And what does Bill do but create another thread dedicated to that Itsallaboutmemememememe?

What did youse boys think of the Oscars? Where are those resident moms when you need them?

AR

AR

Classic turn of phrase 'Itsallaboutmemememememe'. :clap:

arosar
01-03-2005, 03:13 PM
I stole it from that posh bastard on the other BB.

AR

antichrist
01-03-2005, 03:43 PM
Well in my poll one option was barring him and barring him all posts about him -- now you all know why. And I will probably abuse again for reminding you of the fact.

ursogr8
01-03-2005, 04:22 PM
And for driving while disqualified, which is the reason he remains banned - without that his bans for swearing would have lapsed.
Your call.


Also note it was not only swearing but unacceptably vulgar and disgusting comments that were the problem.
Noted




Your #3 is a ridiculous option.
It operated for about 2.1 years.



You might as well add 4, namely that the MODS do a whip round and hire a thug to go and intimidate him every time he misbehaves.
Your strawman. You knock it over.


You have absolutely got to be joking if you think that the unpaid mods have nothing better to do than to waste their time censoring indefinitely many cases of swearing by people who clearly have no interest in cutting their level of vulgarity.
Your strawman. You knock it over.


You have also got to be joking if you think that perennially snipping after the event is any answer to the problem. There would always be a delay between the offending material being posted and it being moderated in such a case.
It operated for about 2.1 years.


starter

rob
01-03-2005, 04:45 PM
MS deserved to go.
MS shouldn't be coming back.
MS has his own BB to rant and express himself with as much vulgarity as he wishes.
Anyone that suggests the moderators should do more or that he was hard done by should just get over it or go and cry on his BB.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2005, 05:35 PM
It operated for about 2.1 years.

That is rubbish.

Firstly as Sweeney was first banned before the end of last year it was somewhat less than 2 years.

Secondly because of the crossover of users on chesskit it was considered from the start that standards towards bad language, crudity etc here would be harsher, so your 2.1 years becomes less than one.

Thirdly the only reason we were willing to put effort into snipping Matt's nonsense and occassionally warning him was the deluded belief that he might eventually reform - had we known he was a lost cause we would have banned him much earlier.

So your 2.1 years becomes more like 2 months.

Also note that Sweeney received a length ban on the old ACF BB in 2002.


Your strawman. You knock it over.

Actually it was a parody of your position.


Your strawman. You knock it over.

I disagree - you were suggesting constant moderation as a legitimate option. It isn't.