Weeman wrote:

In this situation, I also feel it does.

Although, he ain't helping himself... not by a longshot.

Weeman wrote: We're all (alleged) adults.
If an appeal was made and a mistake was found then for sure, regret is felt and apologies are made.
Mistakes do happen.

I would certainly expect those to be acknowledged if appropriate.

feather wrote:
Psketti say's....
Ok I'm sorry that I was misjudged the first time and so was reluctant to face another misjudgement, however the time has come, so what else can I say?

Blue_Tackler wrote:

Thats exactly what you are.... and no amount of manipulative moves to integrate makes an ounce of difference to me, some state they like you, but who exactly are they liking....you are the same one who was banned, same character different name and m.o in order to play out your agenda...i personally would have booted you out already, as i would not give the rest of the sock freaks like you, a chance to follow the same modus operandi.....so yes woof woof indeed you desperate sock producing-individual....i would not be surprised if barnfish and some others, turns out be you too the lengths people like you go to gain attention,

Enjoy the limelight while you have it attention whore.... ....

What a strange judgement to make?
what are you basing it on?

It's difficult to accredit your claim that you were initially wrongly accused of being a sock
while you're openly admitting to being here as a sock now.
Do you get that?

Your hand is firmly stuck in the cookie jar.

feather wrote:
Yeah sure I'm an evil wolf, a nasty thief piece of shit that's gone out of my way to cause problems.

Basically I did very little against the forum rules when I was here as cousin_frothy, due to a misjudgement of some members thinking that was 'Mike' or someone else, thus banned? that caused the issue itself, so if I came and said who I was 'cousin_frothy' I am sure that the same harassment would have continued, (it's Mike) now that you can see that I'm not who or what you accused me of (Mike), I'd hope that you can see why I might not have wanted to have gone through all that again.

As I say I can apologise for my misjudgements.

By the way - I'm not fighting anyones corner here; because I can't.
I don't know why frothy was banned in the first place but....... and it's a big butt* :

If it was a mistake it should be treated as such.
If in fact BT has been falsely accused of being a sock - I too believe any further plea of innocence wouldn't have gotten him anywhere at that time.

If he was banned for his conduct, fine.
I'm guessing he was banned believed to be Mike though?

Again, this instance ought to be treated on merit and not in an 'It will open the floodgates for calls of foul play' mindset.
The only precedent this should set is an appealing one - a precedent that shows mistakes will be rectified.


Edit: BT replied as I was composing this...... everyone knows it wouldn't only take me three minutes to type this!

Goldenprince13 wrote:
What?

Weeman wrote: IMHO it was a bit of both. It's hard to remember all the people who have come and gone, but I remember the CF account being banned, and I in no way thought that it was unreasonable.

If you go back and look at the last few posts from CF:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/topics/posts/mod...test/userid-555.html

Or possibly more if you can be bothered, I would say that the reason it was suspected CF was Mike is that CF was acting in Mike-esque fashion (read: 'like a twat' where I come from). I therefore think it was not at all unreasonable to ban that account, although it wouldn't have been banned probably if the mods hadn't have thought it was Mike. For me, to come back and pretend to be someone else is not really on. That's nothing personal against BT, for me that's just obvious.

I'm going to disagree weeman mate.
I disagree because there's an assumption made that frothy would not have been listened to or been able to present a convincing case for appeal.

I find that to fly in the face of the people I know here who would initially hear that appeal and who then may put it to a community vote.

Without an attempt to engage that process, Frothy decides what the outcome will be, and decides to subvert the decision making and let himself in the backdoor.

We're now onto a second 'case' with an admission of guilt.
How can that be allowed to pass without censure and any expectation of credibility be retained in either the accepted Terms and conditions of use or the facilitation teams ability to apply them?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yeah, fair play.
I didn't bother looking over his CF account as I presumed any 'twatish' comments would have been edited/deleted.
Anyway it's out in the open now so.................... or ?

feather wrote:
Yes the assumption was there that he wouldn't get a fair hearing.
And please appreciate that I am not unaware of this. However, I have seen how paranoia and a pack mentality can skew things very rapidly indeed. Even in the most rational people at times.

Truthfully BT, you're not helping atm.

Weeman wrote:
Hey easy on mate
I never claimed they were rational ffs.

feather wrote:

Why didn't you simply answer "no"?