Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:31 pm

you swallowed then?

by **GYBS** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:32 pm

i was lucky i didnt have to do that daws

by **Leonmc0708** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:10 am

bavlondon wrote:So can I assume from Leons unprovoked insult that it is ok to throw abuse at people?

The insult was that you are a total gobsh.ite.

you provoked me into it by being a total gobsh.ite.

simple.

by **Leonmc0708** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:11 am

Judge wrote:he must have a fixation on you cigs

Ever since I met her at the pumphouse I have had one of those on her too.

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:28 am

It's quiet simple: this fella Stu got banned in reply to one of my post which I made to him as a rhetorical question of whether or not I should debate something with him or not if he was going to resort to belittling and condescending remarks. I was fairly civil about it, and was actually thinking that the fella was being likewise and thought we were going to have a sensible discussion about the topic at hand. I was wrong, however. I actually missed the offending post, which he started out fairly decently enough with putting his debate across in a civilized manner, then all of a sudden he veered off into a full scale insulting attack on myself. I'd actually missed that part of the post, as it was further down and was responding to the first half of it first before I read the rest, until I'd noticed he got banned and wondered what for, which Sub kindly brought to my attention.

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me. I don't mind being called names. But, if it's in a patronizing tone and completely out of the blue like that, well, I don't mean to sound like an internet Rambo here but in real life teeth would have been lost. It's fair enough slabbering behind a monitor. I dunno. I obviously got under the fella's skin for being supportive. Or so it seems.

by **babu** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:18 am

supersub wrote:
babu wrote:this thread is gay.

If you mean this thread is happy and cheerful and has a peaceful feel to it, then this can only be a good thing and I declare that everyone shall be gay today...be happy

nah, i meant its truly..

by **Judge** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:45 am

Leonmc0708 wrote:
Judge wrote:he must have a fixation on you cigs

Ever since I met her at the pumphouse I have had one of those on her too.

i never knew

by **dawson99** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:53 am

Judge wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:
Judge wrote:he must have a fixation on you cigs

Ever since I met her at the pumphouse I have had one of those on her too.

i never knew

I only ever 'almost' met her and I got my fixation!

The joys of newkit :buttrock

by **Judge** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:24 am

dawson99 wrote:
Judge wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:
Judge wrote:he must have a fixation on you cigs

Ever since I met her at the pumphouse I have had one of those on her too.

i never knew

I only ever 'almost' met her and I got my fixation!

The joys of newkit

heres dawson with his fixation

by **Owzat** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:08 am

Judge wrote:if he said that stuff in pm then thats bad indeed, but we need to know what response was said back to stu?

2 wrongs dont make a right, however, i think stu was the starter in this debacle.

as long as that doesnt spill onto here then its not our business. A pm, as the mods put it, is for such things so i dont affect the forum. how many times do the mods say, pm that to each other, not on here!!

a total ban should be only for abuse openly put on forum, not in pm.

just my opinion

I think bans should be used in moderation (excuse the pun) and length according to offence.

one day/few days : getting wound up, abusive, but nothing offensive

week(s) : persistent arguing, abuse, targetting members - in a stalking way, like visibly seeking their posts to reply to all the time - and generally making the forum unpleasant and getting threads closed

month(s) - seriously bad attitude, arguing with multiple members all the time in a disrespectful and/or abusive manner if not with abuse itself.

lifetime - coming back from bans and resuming where they left off, consistent unacceptable and offensive remarks about delicate subject areas, spamming, being unable to accept others' opinions without putting them down all the time.

Not sure where to put arguably stu's worst offence, being unable to accept others' opinions. Those are off the top of my head reasons and lengths of bans, but you get the general idea that the ban should reflect the offence and not just be because someone is a bit of a to$$er.

Two things I will say, I feel quite strongly about these :-

1) people being encouraged to go to PMs when having a ding dong is stupid. You will end up with abuse via PM and why should people have to suffer any abuse that is deemed "best done in PM" if people don't want to see it in open forums? I have deleted recent PMs because I don't need crap and a PM could be friendly or not. Apologies to anyone who sent me a PM recently, if you give a gist of content in the title I will consider opening it. If it is to discuss something discussed in the forum then I don't see any point PMing me, or put another way, it would have to be something you don't want to put in the forum so it makes me apprehensive.

2) Match threads are getting like a warzone and I think it may be best to have a Match Days Subforum with bans from that section for members who become abusive and get such threads closed down. It can get VERY boring reading how Kuyt never has a good game and it's implied that it's his fault, or Keane's, or Babel's, or Lucas' that we're playing poorly and in no way the 'stars' like Reina, Carra, Skrtel, Mascherano, Gerrard, Torres, Riera or Alonso who outnumber the few scapegoats (2:1 on those listed), that we didn't win. If Stevie F in G is so fantastic, how come his brilliance is countered by Kuyt, Lucas, Babel and/or Keane?!?!? How is it their fault we concede sloppy goals?

Point is KEEP IT TO DISCUSSING THE MATCH and don't turn the match threads into debates about players who have their own ever-present threads in the forum in which they are supposed to be discussed.

by **GOAT_2.0** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:55 pm

Owzat wrote:lifetime - coming back from bans and resuming where they left off, consistent unacceptable and offensive remarks about delicate subject areas, spamming, being unable to accept others' opinions without putting them down all the time.

stus got his own little category

by **babu** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:10 am

Sabre's banned? :wwww

by **aCe'** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:14 am

babu wrote:Sabre's banned?

yea who gives a fck abt him anyways eh :glare:

baastard

by **aCe'** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:17 am

on a serious note though... stu's been banned long enough dont u think ? surely having him back with a few cards in his pocket like lando had wouldnt harm anyone now would it ? footie discussion could use one or two more like him ...

by **112-1077774096** » Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:22 am

so lando is banned again, is sabre banned? what have they been banned for?

Liverpool FC Forum

Recent bans

Who is online