RugbyRebels

Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There is nothing wrong with being passionate and sticking to one's views. We try to understand that passionate argument sometimes spills over into abuse, which whilst not acceptable is forgiveable.

What is not forgiveable is repatedly threatening another poster. Leaving aside for the moment that it's a criminal offence, it's clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the rules of the forum. People come here to enjoy themselves and we will protect them from threats. A poster who can't be trusted not to threaten someone else can't be on the forum. As for "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter" well that's obvious nonsense, quite apart from the fact that UG suggested threats irl.

Accordingly I've banned UG permanently. I couldn't give a monkey's what his politics were and you can all feel free to be trotskite or anarchist socialists or crypto-fascist for all I care. Just don't threaten other people and expect to stay on the forum.

Permanently?

I guess I missed what happened to cause somebody to feel unsafe, or threatened by typewritten words. Unless, of course, it was written in caps... That surely means yelling right?

Mods judgement call, and I guess if there was a threat of terrorism or death.. Its justified. Take your word that it was serious, although it takes some of the zest out of the posting personalities here. Thats what gave it life imo.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: In which case you owe us 2.7 hours. Can you shut it for a bit Cas?

Hey man, I can't be held responsible for the whims of fate and the odd glitch in the space time continuum.

Were you travelling very very fast for those 45.3 hours? If so we'll let it pass.

Do the respective velocities of the Earth's rotation and its orbit around the Sun count?

Coco wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There is nothing wrong with being passionate and sticking to one's views. We try to understand that passionate argument sometimes spills over into abuse, which whilst not acceptable is forgiveable.

What is not forgiveable is repatedly threatening another poster. Leaving aside for the moment that it's a criminal offence, it's clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the rules of the forum. People come here to enjoy themselves and we will protect them from threats. A poster who can't be trusted not to threaten someone else can't be on the forum. As for "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter" well that's obvious nonsense, quite apart from the fact that UG suggested threats irl.

Accordingly I've banned UG permanently. I couldn't give a monkey's what his politics were and you can all feel free to be trotskite or anarchist socialists or crypto-fascist for all I care. Just don't threaten other people and expect to stay on the forum.

Permanently?

I guess I missed what happened to cause somebody to feel unsafe, or threatened by typewritten words. Unless, of course, it was written in caps... That surely means yelling right?

Mods judgement call, and I guess if there was a threat of terrorism or death.. Its justified. Take your word that it was serious, although it takes some of the zest out of the posting personalities here. Thats what gave it life imo.

Here's the long and short of it - I rustled his jimmies, so he decided to try to attack me based on what I do for a living, so I decided to mash on one of his many rage triggers (which, admittedly earned me a 2-day break, but fuck me, dude's basically a walking trigger), so he said something like "Watch it, or I'll find you." Something asinine like that. He did a ninja edit, but I'd seen it, quoted it and called him out on it because fuck him, if he's going to act like that. After initially trying to half-heartedly backpedal, he doubled down, and repeated the "I wish I was Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry, but someone's written Clint in all caps so it looks like CUNT Eastwood instead" level threats. Then ban, then upgraded to permaban.

So he held a .44 to your head and said "Go ahead... Make my day." ?

Did you honestly feel the fight or flight response surge through your body ?

(Btw, thank you for the explanation)

Coco wrote:So he held a .44 to your head and said "Go ahead... Make my day." ?

Did you honestly feel the fight or flight response surge through your body ?

I'd wager he wishes that were the case.

Honest answer? I found it too sad to be amusing.

Coco wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Devon knows how they make it so creamy

I am still a bit bemused by his choice of a rugby union forum as his preferred vehicle for political ranting.

Lizard wrote:I am still a bit bemused by his choice of a rugby union forum as his preferred vehicle for political ranting.

I think possibly my only interaction with the guy was years ago asking if he actually had any interest in rugby, I was genuinely curious, and his response wasn't all that illuminating.

IIRC, he supports the Wallabies. In the previous incarnation of these boards, he'd have a good moan whenever they lost.

Yes, I think he does support Australia because he used to get very agitated when I criticised anything Australian, including NRL rape-culture boorishness.

Interestingly, a quick review of his stats shows that on this site, 786 of his 809 posts were in non-rugby fora, of which 743 were on the politics board. Only 23 (less than 3%) were on rugby boards and from a quick look, only one of those was actually about rugby (without being simple abuse of a player, team or poster).

Goddamnit, Liz.

cashead wrote:Goddamnit, Liz.

What?

Lizard wrote:

cashead wrote:Goddamnit, Liz.

What?

You're dominating the politics and stuff thread with your SH Board stats talk, sir.

You've just got a chip on your shoulder about statistics.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Coco wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Indeed. The one sided modding that has led to UG feeling so persecuted is a disgrace. He had plenty of abuse thrown at him and was provoked incessantly. Those abusers felt like they had free reign, and bar a few reluctant modding actions taken for PR type purposes, they did.

That said, he was foolish to think a threat was gonna not get him banned, however lame the threat.

cashead wrote:Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Oh do enlighten us!

He used to post about rugby regularly when there was an Australian contingent. Permanent ban is huge overkill, he crossed a line but he was deliberately riled up and if someone felt threatened over the internet (someone who would seem to post in forums most likely much more aggressive than this one, no less) they need to either put him on ignore or just toughen up a bit.

It could be argued that this so-called threat was a "sudden loss of control" as a result of the sustained provocation.

Zhivago wrote:

cashead wrote:Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Oh do enlighten us!

It's interesting that suddenly you've decided to begin a campaign to canonise him, and if you want to pretend like he's some sort of martyr to some grand conspiracy, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone to play ball.


myopic [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik]
adjective
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

Are you honestly trying to suggest a guy that felt entitled to heap abuse on anyone that had the nerve and temerity to not conform to his views was anything but? Give me a fucking break.

jared_7 wrote:He used to post about rugby regularly when there was an Australian contingent. Permanent ban is huge overkill, he crossed a line but he was deliberately riled up and if someone felt threatened over the internet (someone who would seem to post in forums most likely much more aggressive than this one, no less) they need to either put him on ignore or just toughen up a bit.

It's not an issue of "toughening up." I think Eugene put it as well as anyone could, and there really isn't anything more to add.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There is nothing wrong with being passionate and sticking to one's views. We try to understand that passionate argument sometimes spills over into abuse, which whilst not acceptable is forgiveable.

What is not forgiveable is repatedly threatening another poster. Leaving aside for the moment that it's a criminal offence, it's clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the rules of the forum. People come here to enjoy themselves and we will protect them from threats. A poster who can't be trusted not to threaten someone else can't be on the forum. As for "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter" well that's obvious nonsense, quite apart from the fact that UG suggested threats irl.

Accordingly I've banned UG permanently. I couldn't give a monkey's what his politics were and you can all feel free to be trotskite or anarchist socialists or crypto-fascist for all I care. Just don't threaten other people and expect to stay on the forum.

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

cashead wrote:Oh no, now he's going to find me and... something.

If you're getting your jimmies rustled so thoroughly by what someone wrote on an internet forum that you resort to making threats, then you really need to take a break and re-evaluate your priorities, and I stand by what I've said in the past - for someone who feels entitled to abuse others for having the temerity to hold an opinion that doesn't conform to his myopic views, he's got skin that's so thin, it's practically translucent.

Oh do enlighten us!

It's interesting that suddenly you've decided to begin a campaign to canonise him, and if you want to pretend like he's some sort of martyr to some grand conspiracy, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone to play ball.


myopic [mahy-op-ik, -oh-pik]
adjective
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

Are you honestly trying to suggest a guy that felt entitled to heap abuse on anyone that had the nerve and temerity to not conform to his viewswas anything but? Give me a fucking break.

Except that's complete bollocks. I don't agree with his reactions, but his outbursts only really occured when he was mocked and made fun of. It never helped debate here, the only purpose of those attacks on him was to provoke him into getting himself banned. You were chief among those who deliberately and consistently targetted him.

If I was you, I'd pipe down a bit, Sonny Jim.

For the record folks.

We allow a fair degree of mileage when it comes to behaviour on this board. My personal interpretation is that I like to think of this place as a virtual rugby club. Some language that wouldn't be used in church is fine, banter is fine also. When someone becomes abusive and starts to wind up other posters, I'll ask them to wind their necks in. If they don't respond to that encouragement, then they can be barred for a short while.

If that doesn't get their attention, the ban will get progressively longer.

However, there was an incident on here years ago involving Hwntw and Gower, where the latter made detailed threats to harm Hwntw and suggested that he was on his way to his home address to do so. In virtual life, or real life, that is totally unacceptable and is a criminal act. Unfortunately, at the time Gower was allowed to continue on this board. That is not a mistake that the moderators will be making twice.

Whilst the mods do try to show some patience, there are red lines and threatening another poster is one of those red lines. It will not be tolerated. I understand that not everyone is happy with UG being banned permanently, but at some point a line needs to be drawn.

As a moderator, I don't want to spend my life handing out bans or warnings. I would prefer that posters acted with some common sense and a respectful manner towards each other - in other words posters acted in the same way they would if the person they were arguing with were in front of them , face to face in that mythical rugby club.