That's were it was left

[Steve Bullman]

1 hour ago, trigger_andy said:

 

And what about this Rocket that posted the above in Bold? Is this language acceptable but what Vesp said much worse? Id beg to differ. Both are equally 'naughty' and if one is banned for a period then this Troll should be as well. This guy for no reason what-so-ever picked on Vesp and he in my opinion rightfully replied in the way he did. Yet this weirdo feels he was feeding the Troll? 

 

No, the language isn't acceptable, Connor openly accepted he was partly responsible though and thats something i'm pretty sure the other party would never do

1 hour ago, billpierce said:

I suspect it's a more rounded long term view of his attitude and approach.
 

1

Yep as Bill says

48 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

I understand what you're saying. But the Mod made it clear Vesp was getting banned for this particular outburst. I'll assume it was as others have mentioned due to his language yet this Troll replies in kind and nothing apparent has happened to him even when he was the instigator. His use of swear words and what he said was equally if not more disgusting. So for fairness and balance they should either both be banned or neither of them should. 

 

Personally I dont care for banning. Its childish and we're supposedly grown-ups here and maybe hear naughty words during our every day life...

Nor do I care for banning, which is why in nearly 12 years theres only been about 20 people banned from a site which has over 30,000 users.  That doesn't imply overuse of the banning option in my eyes.

36 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Fair enough, if its just a personal dislike for the guy then he should have just said so. Might as well just ban him completely then as well? Why mask it as breaking forum rules? Why bother posting and enforcing forum rules when ''Steve's site, Steve's rules'' would be a much easier list to abide by. 

 

You really are a Walloper aren't you?  

2

I didn't mention forum rules anywhere.  Swearing aside, I won't put up with anyone suggesting another use should stay out of conversations because they're not a 'regular', especially when the person in question is responsible for putting many off posting.

 

Personal dislike??  I don't need to like everyone of the members, it doesn't mean I ban them for it.

As for banning completely, some of the best members on here were at one point a pain in the backside, some were even banned for a short time, learned what was considered acceptable, and came back with a better attitude and become outstanding and respected members.

 

Sure I could completely ban Vesp, or he can come back and adhere to what is considered socially acceptable.  Or he can just go join another forum(I seem to recall him saying himself he had already been banned from multiple in the past)

 

[trigger_andy]

1 minute ago, Steve Bullman said:

No, the language isn't acceptable, Connor openly accepted he was partly responsible though and thats something i'm pretty sure the other party would never do

Yep as Bill says

Nor do I care for banning, which is why in nearly 12 years theres only been about 20 people banned from a site which has over 30,000 users.  That doesn't imply overuse of the banning option in my eyes.

I didn't mention forum rules anywhere.  Swearing aside, I won't put up with anyone suggesting another use should stay out of conversations because they're not a 'regular', especially when the person in question is responsible for putting many off posting.

 

Personal dislike??  I don't need to like everyone of the members, it doesn't mean I ban them for it.

As for banning completely, some of the best members on here were at one point a pain in the backside, some were even banned for a short time, learned what was considered acceptable, and came back with a better attitude and become outstanding and respected members.

 

Sure I could completely ban Vesp, or he can come back and adhere to what is considered socially acceptable.  Or he can just go join another forum(I seem to recall him saying himself he had already been banned from multiple in the past)

 

So to be clear on your initial comment you banned Vesp not on what he said but how he might not of accepted his part in the altercation?   The Troll who after winding him up replied in an equally sweary and disgusting manor was given the chance to 'apologize' so that makes it all ok.

 

It seems I own that Eggy weirdo an apology, it does seem like you banned him not for what he said and clearly not for breaking forum rules but just because you can and. Your forum, your rules etc. 

 

If you have a genuine reason for permanently banning Vesp then just do it. But the hypocrisy and double standards is quite an eye opener. Dress it up any-which way you like but thats what it is. He was not put in the cooler for what he posted, but what you think his reactions and likelihood of apologising might be. That takes the biscuit.  

[Steve Bullman]

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

So to be clear on your initial comment you banned Vesp not on what he said but how he might not of accepted his part in the altercation?   The Troll who after winding him up replied in an equally sweary and disgusting manor was given the chance to 'apologize' so that makes it all ok.

 

It seems I own that Eggy weirdo an apology, it does seem like you banned him not for what he said and clearly not for breaking forum rules but just because you can and. Your forum, your rules etc. 

 

If you have a genuine reason for permanently banning Vesp then just do it. But the hypocrisy and double standards is quite an eye opener. Dress it up any-which way you like but thats what it is. He was not put in the cooler for what he posted, but what you think his reactions and likelihood of apologising might be. That takes the biscuit.  

Yep thats clearly what I said

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Steve Bullman said:

Yep thats clearly what I said

Yes, it is. 

 

So was it the breaking of forum rules that got Vesp slammed or not? Was it some unofficial,only known to you 'three strike's and you're out' type thing? Im genuinely curious.

[Steve Bullman]

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

Yes, it is. 

 

So was it the breaking of forum rules that got Vesp slammed or not? Was it some unofficial,only known to you 'three strike's and you're out' type thing? Im genuinely curious.

Andy, I already took the time above to explain my reasons.  I haven't the time to waste going over what I have already said.

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Steve Bullman said:

Andy, I already took the time above to explain my reasons.  I haven't the time to waste going over what I have already said.

Yeh, thought as much....

[Gary Prentice]

13 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

So to be clear on your initial comment you banned Vesp not on what he said but how he might not of accepted his part in the altercation?   The Troll who after winding him up replied in an equally sweary and disgusting manor was given the chance to 'apologize' so that makes it all ok.

 

It seems I own that Eggy weirdo an apology, it does seem like you banned him not for what he said and clearly not for breaking forum rules but just because you can and. Your forum, your rules etc. 

 

If you have a genuine reason for permanently banning Vesp then just do it. But the hypocrisy and double standards is quite an eye opener. Dress it up any-which way you like but thats what it is. He was not put in the cooler for what he posted, but what you think his reactions and likelihood of apologising might be. That takes the biscuit.  

Why have you such a bee in your bonnet about this?

Yes, the post that Vesp replied to was near the mark, but did it really require such an outpouring of abuse that followed? 

 

There's no hypocrisy on Steves part. Vesp has a long history of similar aggressive and offensive outpourings which would, on most sites, have seen a permanent ban. On this occasion it appears that it's a case of enough is enough (and not before time IMO)

 

This site is fairly laid back, there's lots of good natured banter, but some people unfortunately just don't learn (or not prepared to learn) where to draw the line and just take advantage.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Gary Prentice

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Gary Prentice said:

Why have you such a bee in your bonnet about this?

Yes, the post that Vesp replied to was near the mark, but did it really require such an outpouring of abuse that followed? 

 

There's no hypocrisy on Steves part. Vesp has a long history of similar aggressive and offensive outpourings which would, on most sites, have seen a permanent ban. On this occasion it appears that it's a case of enough is enough (and not before time IMO)

 

This site is fairly laid back, there's lots of good natured banter, but some people unfortunately just don't learn (or not prepared to learn) where to draw the line and just take advantage.

 

 

I find it grossly unfair and one sided. If there is forum rules then they should be enforced to all, not a select few. People should not also be subjected to hidden three strikes and your out type thing either. Vesp, in this instance anyway, was singled out by a few folk and he retaliated. Big deal. But apparently it was not for breaking the rules, no, it was because the MOD thought he might not apologize where the Troll that started it and also broke forum rules was given the chance to apologize, albeit after Vesp was already thrown in the cooler so it could be construed that this was a factor in not wanting to be banned as well. 

 

I could not care less if Vesp is banned, I dont know him from Adam, but in this instance he was singled out. He never started anything and retaliated. How is that fair to ban someone for that? Because of his choice of words? If so then the Troll should suffer the same. But no, Vesp is annoying therefore he gets banned and the Troll gets to apologies and smugly sit there knowing fine well he caused someone else to get banned because of his actions.

 

But the main thing to know is forum rules do not apply if you're the main Mod. Because clearly mind reading is enough to get a ban.  

 

No, the language isn't acceptable, Connor openly accepted he was partly responsible though and thats something i'm pretty sure the other party would never do

[Gary Prentice]

Andy, I might be wrong but I didn't read or take it that Steve banned him because he thought that Vesp wouldn't apologise. But it's not my place to talk for anyone else.

 

Fair enough if you thought someone has been treated fairly, everyone is entitled to an opinion. You've more than made yours, but now may be the time to let it lie and just enjoy the forum.

[peds]

Slow day at work guys?