Mike wrote:

We fucking did all this again a few weeks ago, do you ever actually read the forum?

And no, I ain't searching it out for you this time.

You're severly grating on my last fucking nerve.

psketti wrote:
I think that's the idea.

Mike wrote:
Fuck off you boring , nauseating cunt

Mike wrote: Why don't you go back to pretending to be a Marxist? That was more fun.

'Sketts has the unreserved support of everyone. End of story. There is no issue here at all. There wouldn't even be a forum without her. Bumping up a seven month old thread just makes you look stupid. No-one is ever going to vote for you to do anything!

Also, seeing as you feel qualified to tell other people that they're stupid quite frequently:Mike wrote: 'Facilitators' doesn't require an apostrophe as it's merely a plural.

This total wanker that is Mike.

Can't I just ban this cunt?

jhado wrote: My view is that you would have good grounds to do so, but I am considerably less tolerant than the people who have modded so far. I don't suffer fools at all, let alone gladly.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
We try to moderate fairly, but there is only so much abuse you can take. If this forum was a pub, he'd have had his lights punched out by now.

I would disagree with a permanent banning

thoreau wrote:
I know you don't like anyone being banned thoreau, but I have had to put him on the naughty step for a while.

Mike wrote:
A pop at the whole community as well.

Keyboard Marxist goes postal!

thoreau wrote: Might I ask why?
Because I fully believe that wooly approach is what leaves this site open to continual abuse and trolling which ultimately means that other posters effectively ban themselves rather than put up with it.

Which I am right on the brink of doing.

Meanwhile the dicks who get their jollies trolling and socking will be back in a few after their spell on the naughty step.
Guess who you end up left with?

Oh and Mike, as and when you can read this again; I notice despite all your crying about the matter you've not actually taken the opportunity afforded to you to make a thread asking the community if they share your concerns and putting it to a poll, like any good Marxist slave you wait to be told what to do or let someone else do it for you

feather wrote:

Ok, I find it hard to disagree with any of that. It would appear the problem comes when I have to actually do anything about it. As in press a button.

This in turn, raises more questions than it answers.

feather wrote:
I disagree with permanent banning because it'll just become a fucking sock drawer!

A set period on the naughty step doubled each time it's needed again...they'll soon get the message or bored.

oioioi wrote: and someone who knows how to sock will only do so under permanent ban conditions, not naughty step ones?

c'mon mate.

oioioi wrote:
Possibly...probably much easier however to just ignore any comments you don't like the look of. I know it's boring and terribly old-fashioned, but it really does work. The only way to abate a really bad case of herpies is to stop picking at it. I know this from experience.

If any forum rules (which we have all agreed to and continue to agree to upon sign-up in case people have forgotten) are broken, then we simply go by the book.

Easy.

feather wrote:
I can only speak for myself (and the whole of anarchism, obv.) but I sat out my DIF Warnings.

I see what you are saying but a permanent ban almost guarantees it.

BC is about the only example of this approach 'working' I can give you though.

feather wrote:
I am not in favour of a permanent banning because I am not entirely sure that it is merited. Whilst I cannot deny that it appears as if mike has been on a 'wind up' in places it is not all one sided and some of the responses he has received to not just those but many posts he has made have been equally as disrespectful and unnecessary as his own behaviour.

This has been brewing forever

Y'know I mentioned I'd modded and admin'd a few boards in my time.

I have only banned 3 people over all that time
Why?
Because it was made clear when someone stepped over the line they could apologise and retract, leave or be booted.
Never did suspensions. People knew the boundaries and generally stayed within them.

Here, to be straight, the boundaries are very, very elastic and therefore massively exploited.
Seeing what you can get away with is a sport here and it's like blood in the water to the sharks.
Any attempts to contain that is regarded as oppressive, authoritarian or some other bullshit.

The joint is a mess folks and I have been one of it's strongest defenders for a while, even over different regimes.
but even I gave up being civil and holding back when I observed it was not a universal expectation and others were evidently exempt.
Jhado stepped up to the plate earlier and did the obvious thing, then braced himself for a barage of shit, (the opposite happened).
But that is seriously fucked up folks.

It's time to assess the results of the experiment and decide which way to go.
it's in a rut of arguing now and it's boring, monotomous, and not at all appealing.
Remember the way you used to feel all crap and dark after a day reading DIF?
It's here,
now,
daily
and many of our old posters ain't.

thoreau wrote:
I've just noticed your avatar, lol,