RugbyRebels

J Dory wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

J Dory wrote:I have a cunning plan. UG, why don't you register under another name? That way the mods can continue to stand in the corner they've painted themselves into with the "death penalty for threats" stance, while quietly allowing the will of the board (except Donny and Cas) to prevail.

"The will of the board" fucking hell, give yourself a crown why don't you

Thanks.

I hereby dub thee, Sir Cryalot.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

J Dory wrote:I have a cunning plan. UG, why don't you register under another name? That way the mods can continue to stand in the corner they've painted themselves into with the "death penalty for threats" stance, while quietly allowing the will of the board (except Donny and Cas) to prevail.

This is really the heart of the issue.

Actually, the heart of the issue is a poster who has repeatedly broken the board rules and has failed to respond to any previous requests to moderate his behavior. The rules apply to everyone, and whilst we don't operate a zero tolerance approach on here, a line has to be drawn somewhere. We have been very tolerant, far more so than many websites, but there are limits.

That is the heart of the issue.

ules

1. By registering for membership, you agree that you shall abide by the laws of any relevant jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, that jurisdiction in which you reside, the law of England and Wales, and the law and policies of the European Union. Members agree to indemnify the owners, administrators and moderators against any breach of criminal or civil law committed by them by posting on the board. Members accept and agree that any dispute will be determined by the law of England and Wales and in the courts of England and Wales.

Sandydragon wrote:From the board rules, acceptance of which is a condition of being able to post on here:

ules

1. By registering for membership, you agree that you shall abide by the laws of any relevant jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, that jurisdiction in which you reside, the law of England and Wales, and the law and policies of the European Union. Members agree to indemnify the owners, administrators and moderators against any breach of criminal or civil law committed by them by posting on the board. Members accept and agree that any dispute will be determined by the law of England and Wales and in the courts of England and Wales.

Threatening behavior on a social media website is contrary to English Law. The line gets drawn at the point where a poster's activity breaches said law.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:From the board rules, acceptance of which is a condition of being able to post on here:

ules

1. By registering for membership, you agree that you shall abide by the laws of any relevant jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, that jurisdiction in which you reside, the law of England and Wales, and the law and policies of the European Union. Members agree to indemnify the owners, administrators and moderators against any breach of criminal or civil law committed by them by posting on the board. Members accept and agree that any dispute will be determined by the law of England and Wales and in the courts of England and Wales.

Threatening behavior on a social media website is contrary to English Law. The line gets drawn at the point where a poster's activity breaches said law.

I trust you also reported him to the police then, right?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

J Dory wrote:I have a cunning plan. UG, why don't you register under another name? That way the mods can continue to stand in the corner they've painted themselves into with the "death penalty for threats" stance, while quietly allowing the will of the board (except Donny and Cas) to prevail.

This is really the heart of the issue.

Actually, the heart of the issue is I'm a right wing fascist and I wanted to get my own back.

That is the heart of the issue.

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

I still find it odd that people consider the only way to have a discussion is with people ranting and screaming from an extreme position. There'd be plenty of disagreement on how to go forward on a great many general policy areas and specifics from the broad mass in the middle

Yeah. Nice one. Stay in the middle or fuck off. "Extreme" is a very relative definition. I think the current political centre that is so in fashion these days to be quite extreme.

Except that "stay in the middle or fuck off" isn't remotely the point digby was making.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

I still find it odd that people consider the only way to have a discussion is with people ranting and screaming from an extreme position. There'd be plenty of disagreement on how to go forward on a great many general policy areas and specifics from the broad mass in the middle

Yeah. Nice one. Stay in the middle or fuck off. "Extreme" is a very relative definition. I think the current political centre that is so in fashion these days to be quite extreme.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:From the board rules, acceptance of which is a condition of being able to post on here:



Threatening behavior on a social media website is contrary to English Law. The line gets drawn at the point where a poster's activity breaches said law.

I trust you also reported him to the police then, right?

A poster could take that initiative if they so wished. That would be their call, the role of the moderators (one of them) is to keep the board out of trouble if such an incident occurs. We do that by removing such posts, handing out sanctions to prevent/deter future occurrences and providing evidence to the police if they so wish to receive it.

The rules on here apply to everyone; a kind of universal justice that I assumed you would be comfortable with. Rest assured, if someone else threatens anyone, the sanction will be consistent.

OptimisticJock wrote:I can't believe I'm about to wade in on this but I'm on the shitter so may as well.

What criteria, if any, do you suggest to permanently ban someone?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I trust you also reported him to the police then, right?

A poster could take that initiative if they so wished. That would be their call, the role of the moderators (one of them) is to keep the board out of trouble if such an incident occurs. We do that by removing such posts, handing out sanctions to prevent/deter future occurrences and providing evidence to the police if they so wish to receive it.

The rules on here apply to everyone; a kind of universal justice that I assumed you would be comfortable with. Rest assured, if someone else threatens anyone, the sanction will be consistent.

There pretty much won't be anything left of a board soon, if you continue!

You didn't report it to the police, and neither would anyone else, because the threat was iirc that cashead should watch his personal abuse of UG (abuse of UG relating to his wife leaving him) as UG could 'find' cashead. It's exceedingly vague, not credible, and doesn't threaten violence, and no prosecution would come even if both parties were in the UK. It's just a nice excuse to ban UG permanently, which is apparently what you guys want.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
A poster could take that initiative if they so wished. That would be their call, the role of the moderators (one of them) is to keep the board out of trouble if such an incident occurs. We do that by removing such posts, handing out sanctions to prevent/deter future occurrences and providing evidence to the police if they so wish to receive it.

The rules on here apply to everyone; a kind of universal justice that I assumed you would be comfortable with. Rest assured, if someone else threatens anyone, the sanction will be consistent.

There pretty much won't be anything left of a board soon, if you continue!

You didn't report it to the police, and neither would anyone else, because the threat was iirc that cashead should watch his personal abuse of UG (abuse of UG relating to his wife leaving him) as UG could 'find' cashead. It's exceedingly vague, not credible, and doesn't threaten violence, and no prosecution would come even if both parties were in the UK. It's just a nice excuse to ban UG permanently, which is apparently what you guys want.

That's your opinion.

If anyone else had a behaviour record over the past months you wouldn't raise a murmur over this ban. This is because it's your mate. Keep the hypocrisy t yourself please. Last time we banned UG the posting rate in here improved so your premonitions of doom and gloom aren't borne out by fact.

He broke the rules. He was given every warning. He crossed a red line. Stop trying to paint him a martyr. Frankly it's pathetic.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
A poster could take that initiative if they so wished. That would be their call, the role of the moderators (one of them) is to keep the board out of trouble if such an incident occurs. We do that by removing such posts, handing out sanctions to prevent/deter future occurrences and providing evidence to the police if they so wish to receive it.

The rules on here apply to everyone; a kind of universal justice that I assumed you would be comfortable with. Rest assured, if someone else threatens anyone, the sanction will be consistent.

There pretty much won't be anything left of a board soon, if you continue!

You didn't report it to the police, and neither would anyone else, because the threat was iirc that cashead should watch his personal abuse of UG (abuse of UG relating to his wife leaving him) as UG could 'find' cashead. It's exceedingly vague, not credible, and doesn't threaten violence, and no prosecution would come even if both parties were in the UK. It's just a nice excuse to ban UG permanently, which is apparently what you guys want.

That's your opinion.

If anyone else had a behaviour record over the past months you wouldn't raise a murmur over this ban. This is because it's your mate. Keep the hypocrisy t yourself please. Last time we banned UG the posting rate in here improved so your premonitions of doom and gloom aren't borne out by fact.

He broke the rules. He was given every warning. He crossed a red line. Stop trying to paint him a martyr. Frankly it's pathetic.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
There pretty much won't be anything left of a board soon, if you continue!

You didn't report it to the police, and neither would anyone else, because the threat was iirc that cashead should watch his personal abuse of UG (abuse of UG relating to his wife leaving him) as UG could 'find' cashead. It's exceedingly vague, not credible, and doesn't threaten violence, and no prosecution would come even if both parties were in the UK. It's just a nice excuse to ban UG permanently, which is apparently what you guys want.

That's your opinion.

If anyone else had a behaviour record over the past months you wouldn't raise a murmur over this ban. This is because it's your mate. Keep the hypocrisy t yourself please. Last time we banned UG the posting rate in here improved so your premonitions of doom and gloom aren't borne out by fact.

He broke the rules. He was given every warning. He crossed a red line. Stop trying to paint him a martyr. Frankly it's pathetic.

He's not my mate. I'd defend anyone against being permanently banned if I thought it was unjustified and bad for debate, and you can't prove otherwise given the fact that nobody else has been treated this harshly yet. Your accusations of hypocrisy based on hypothetical scenarios are pathetic.

Like I said before, you don't have to believe my predictions, just watch it unfold. I said that 2¹/₂ weeks ago, but my god I did not expect the disintegration to take place this rapidly.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: That's your opinion.

If anyone else had a behaviour record over the past months you wouldn't raise a murmur over this ban. This is because it's your mate. Keep the hypocrisy t yourself please. Last time we banned UG the posting rate in here improved so your premonitions of doom and gloom aren't borne out by fact.

He broke the rules. He was given every warning. He crossed a red line. Stop trying to paint him a martyr. Frankly it's pathetic.

He's not my mate. I'd defend anyone against being permanently banned if I thought it was unjustified and bad for debate, and you can't prove otherwise given the fact that nobody else has been treated this harshly yet. Your accusations of hypocrisy based on hypothetical scenarios are pathetic.

Like I said before, you don't have to believe my predictions, just watch it unfold. I said that 2¹/₂ weeks ago, but my god I did not expect the disintegration to take place this rapidly.

I can't quite decide if it's been hilarious or not.

Lizard wrote:(PS: perhaps check out the RygbiRoom first)

zer0 wrote:

Lizard wrote:(PS: perhaps check out the RygbiRoom first)

Huh. It's still going?

Lizard wrote:Don't the rules allow an appeal of a mod's decision to an admin?

If it's that bad without UG, how about you all thank Hammy nicely for his work over more than a decade, and go and set up your own board and issue a gilt invitation to UG to sign up? It's a free world.

(PS: perhaps check out the RygbiRoom first)

Donny osmond wrote:

Lizard wrote:Don't the rules allow an appeal of a mod's decision to an admin?

If it's that bad without UG, how about you all thank Hammy nicely for his work over more than a decade, and go and set up your own board and issue a gilt invitation to UG to sign up? It's a free world.

(PS: perhaps check out the RygbiRoom first)

This is actually a very good plan.

Lizard wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Lizard wrote:Don't the rules allow an appeal of a mod's decision to an admin?

If it's that bad without UG, how about you all thank Hammy nicely for his work over more than a decade, and go and set up your own board and issue a gilt invitation to UG to sign up? It's a free world.

(PS: perhaps check out the RygbiRoom first)

This is actually a very good plan.

Off you go then, son. Post us a link when it's up and running. Reserve username "Lizard" for me.

Just remember, the right to free speech does not imply an obligation to provide a platform.