Wuddappened?

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:06 pm

What's happened to the international section?

I trawl through the v2 detailed advisory service and find that Adam (two ids) D has chosen to suspend the Intl bit for wumming.

I got banned for two weeks for daring suggesting that there should be some form of democratic representation for wummers. You have at your fingertips Adam, A vote button.

I agree that this is a society and there should be rules an laws.

But not all justice should be summarily handed down.

I await my final red card.

Like you, I'm a man of principle.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:14 pm

Portnoy

The section was in temp lockdown whilst the Admin & Mods team were busy with editing/deleting/banning.
It was closed for about 20 mins and is open again.
Nothing to worry about.

by Cymroglan Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:15 pm

That was quick Very Happy

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:29 pm

But the fundamental worry has not gone away.

Admins and Mods are as nothing if ultimately they conflict with the inherent conservatism of the er (off the record - Kremlinism) Founders.

V2 is brilliant and should not over modded and generally it isns't.

But when bannings are concerned, I believe that they should be supported by a representation of the community.

I got banned for a sin I never committed - I never abused Adam D.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:34 pm

Portnoy wrote:

But when bannings are concerned, I believe that they should be supported by a representation of the community.

Completely disagree. This is a private run forum and if members can not adhere to our site rules that every member signed up to when they joined then temporary/permanent bans will be handed out.

by Cymroglan Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:37 pm

You are on the site now and it's not costing you a penny.
The people running the site have enough on their plate as it is.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:47 pm

Do the site rules extend to dual ids amongst founders YI?

Because I was railing against the fact that Adam D was big brothering with an alternate id was the fundamental reason I got banned - beyond my GG protest.

I'm not sure that I've ever contravened v2 rules.
All I've ever done is question them.

And don't go all Pravda on me.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:50 pm

Portnoy wrote:Because I was railing against the fact that Adam D was big brothering with an alternate id was the fundamental reason I got banned - beyond my GG protest.

If that was your biggest concern, you have bigger problems than I thought.

by Rory_Gallagher Wed 07 Mar 2012, 7:59 pm

Y I Man wrote:
Portnoy wrote:

But when bannings are concerned, I believe that they should be supported by a representation of the community.
Completely disagree. This is a private run forum and if members can not adhere to our site rules that every member signed up to when they joined then temporary/permanent bans will be handed out.

To be honest I think it is as simple as this. When you sign up, you agree to abide by the site rules.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:10 pm

Rev,
All I'm asking for is a degree of democracy.

I don't care if this board is private or publicly owned.

I want a degree of fairness in the community.

When I was banned my contentious post was deleted summarily by those who can.

Is it not at least possible to maintain a board bannings sticky with a charge and reason so that posters can comment?

Hellfire I never even agreed with GG. I just wanted for him to have some words in his defence.

by Cari Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:26 pm

If you agree in principal to abide the rules when you sign up, but then having been posting for some time, decide you don't like it, then go. It's free to join and free to go away as well.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:28 pm

Is Adam D exempt from site rules? Are you Y I ?

I got banned for no reason (look back - I never abused A D).

I got banned for questioning the underpinning philosophy of the site. And I'm probably as I write being considered for a permanent ban.

And so far as the site rules are concerned that'd be the one which says don't question whatever we say.

If you are going to ban me again, would you please have the grace to say goodbye to the community for me - and the reason why (Portnoy's principles)

by Cymroglan Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:29 pm

GG had numerous warnings on the site so he has no defence.
He opted to go one step too far and paid the penalty,

Portnoy you or I are not privy what went on privately between the site owners/admin team and GG and neither is it any of our business.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:36 pm

Cari wrote:If you agree in principal to abide the rules when you sign up, but then having been posting for some time, decide you don't like it, then go. It's free to join and free to go away as well.

Free to express an opinion as well Cari.

You have chosen to stay (almost exclusively?) in the pub just as I have left it.

I'm not prepared to leave the board voluntarily. I want to reform it a bit.

Meanwhile I'll positively contribute.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:39 pm

Portnoy

Give it up chief, you are banging a drum that does not need to banged.

And for the record, no Adam and Y I Man are not exempt from house rules.

Also, a question for you, what do you mean about founders having dual ID's?

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:43 pm

Portnoy,

I dont really understand what the issue is.
Just so that it is clear, would you prefer to spend your time on this site discussing rugby, or discussing what happens with bans, potential bans and the backstage stuff with the admin and mod teams?

Surely you would enjoy your time more on this site discussing rugby etc?

But one thing I will confirm, there will not be a "board bannings sticky with a charge and reason so that posters can comment" because quite frankly, if members can not follow our site rules then they are to blame, it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:48 pm

Well that might have been because Adam told me as much. Check out my deleted post before I was banned,

In fact merge it with this post.

You (personally) are supposed to represent fairness and justice.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:49 pm

Portnoy

If you dont agree with the way this site is run, then I suggest 606v2 is not for you. We have our rules, we have our procedures, either accept them or leave. Its that simple.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 8:52 pm

Portnoy, I was involved on the day you were banned, as I explained to you on Facebook, so I know the thread you are talking about, but at no point did Adam say that he had dual ID's.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:01 pm

Y I,

Yes you have your rules and procedures and your dual standards.

I won't (as I said) leave until I'm banned.

In the meantime I'll continue to post positively.

But I'll continue to be an advocate of those posters who transgress the sacred line.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:07 pm

Portnoy wrote:In the meantime I'll continue to post positively.

by Guest Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:08 pm

Portnoy

We have no dual standards. If you have evidence to the contrary please pm me with details and I will investigate.

Im pleased you will post positively, that is what this forum is all about, but with a bit of fun also.

If you want to advocate posters that have been banned / given temp bans then that is up to you, but it will not ever change the way we run this forum so its a lost cause on your part.

by Cymroglan Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:13 pm

Portnoy wrote:Y I,

Yes you have your rules and procedures and your dual standards.

I won't (as I said) leave until I'm banned.

In the meantime I'll continue to post positively.

But I'll continue to be an advocate of those posters who transgress the sacred line.

Why don't you just volunteer to become a prison visitor? .Why on earth do you want to fight the cause of Wums and trolls when the rest of us simply want a well run fun site to be on.

You seem to just want to be awkward just for the sake of it when there is simply no need to be,

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:15 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:Portnoy, I was involved on the day you were banned, as I explained to you on Facebook, so I know the thread you are talking about, but at no point did Adam say that he had dual ID's.

That post was about trying to find a founder/admin/mod on line and none was present. And I posted a quick satirical post about GG's banning.

And then the shoite hit the fan.

From my PMs Adam was encouraged to increase my ban from his initial two days to an eternal amount. Subsequently reduced to two weeks.

And I still have not been given a reason why I was banned. Apart from 'abuse of Adam D' - which I never did. I abused the Kremlin.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:19 pm

Ozzy/Y I,

Please merge my offending post with this one - for the sake of fairness.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:24 pm

Portnoy

We are not going to resurrect a thread that was taken down for a good reason simply to satisfy your need to portray yourself as the champion of the WUM minority who as far as I can see, do not support your cause.

You know full well why you were banned, and I know you do as I explained it fairly clearly and concisely to you on another platform.

This is tedious.

As Y I Man has pointed out, the rules of the forum are not going to change. If you do not like them but do not wish to leave, then that is your choice, but I am not going to get into any further conversation with you about why people are banned and whether it is fair that you don't get to have a say in it.

Happy posting mate, and good to have you back.

by Portnoy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:31 pm

Unfortunate or embarrassing or controversial history must be expunged.

No conflict with your public duties then Oz?

by Thomond Wed 07 Mar 2012, 9:35 pm

I stopped reading when Portnoy said he was a positive poster

by **Notch** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:40 pm

Risca Rev wrote:
Portnoy wrote:In the meantime I'll continue to post positively.

by **Notch** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:45 pm

Read a really good article on Cracked there recently "The 7 Most Obnoxious Fake Personalities on the Internet"

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-obnoxious-fake-personalities-internet/

Number 4 was "The Spartacus". I must admit to a certain feeling of deja vu when reading that section...

Nobody likes being singled out for some stupid thing they did, and this person's coping mechanism is to create a fantasy where it's not just them. They imagine a whole group of oppressed compatriots they are bravely standing up for.

Say a guy complains about how George Orwell's Animal Farm should no longer be part of high school curriculums because it was about the Vietnam War, and is no longer relevant. (Unlike the other all-animal treatment of the Vietnam War, Apocalypse Meow.)

When he is inevitably informed of how stupid he is, he might figure it out and laugh it off, he might cry and run away or, if he is a Spartacus type, he will create a cause around it. This isn't some people laughing at him for his individual mistakes, this is oppression against newbies, or outsiders, or Orwell haters.
This way he's not a sad little dude who is all hurt and vulnerable, he is a brave voice speaking up for the imaginary throng of new people who, like him, came to this online community looking to express their opinions on how the best scene in Star Wars is when Han Solo has to outrun a boulder. For all the misunderstood people out there quivering in fear, who dared to say Brave New World was better than 1984. Or that Prince's "1999" was better than Apple's 1984 commercial.

It's an easy way to try to convince themselves (and hopefully others) that this is about something bigger than themselves -- a fight for justice -- and not about themselves and getting their feelings hurt. Even though it is.

When he finally makes his impassioned speech about the unfair treatment of newbies/outsiders/men/women/Honda owners/furries that he's decided is endemic to this community, the Spartacus raises his metaphorical fist with a rallying cry of "Who's with me?" and the result is usually dead silence.

by **Biltong** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 10:49 pm

It's an easy way to try to convince themselves (and hopefully others) that this is about something bigger than themselves -- a fight for justice -- and not about themselves and getting their feelings hurt. Even though it is.

On the money.

by nganboy Wed 07 Mar 2012, 11:22 pm

Ban him - he's just being silly now.

by **Notch** Wed 07 Mar 2012, 11:35 pm

nganboy wrote:Ban him - he's just being silly now.

Sure, what would you know. You're just an Adam D multi Wink

by nganboy Thu 08 Mar 2012, 12:35 am

Ban Notch too.
BAN THEM ALL I SAY
BAN THEM ALL

Except Kia and Taylor and Kiwi - not biased mind you.

by Portnoy Thu 08 Mar 2012, 12:55 am

I'm serious about this.

If I lose my popular vote I go.

If I win, I'll stay to fight the cause to request the admins etc. to publish and explain bannings on a sticky.

It's not unreasonable.

https://www.606v2.com/t25434-portnoy-must-be-removed-from-this-board

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 08 Mar 2012, 7:02 am

Ozzy3213 wrote:Portnoy

Give it up chief, you are banging a drum that does not need to banged.

And for the record, no Adam and Y I Man are not exempt from house rules.

Also, a question for you, what do you mean about founders having dual ID's?

Pete, he's not a Chief

, he's a

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 08 Mar 2012, 7:06 am

Notch wrote:Read a really good article on Cracked there recently "The 7 Most Obnoxious Fake Personalities on the Internet"

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-7-most-obnoxious-fake-personalities-internet/

Number 4 was "The Spartacus". I must admit to a certain feeling of deja vu when reading that section...

Nobody likes being singled out for some stupid thing they did, and this person's coping mechanism is to create a fantasy where it's not just them. They imagine a whole group of oppressed compatriots they are bravely standing up for.

Say a guy complains about how George Orwell's Animal Farm should no longer be part of high school curriculums because it was about the Vietnam War, and is no longer relevant. (Unlike the other all-animal treatment of the Vietnam War, Apocalypse Meow.)

When he is inevitably informed of how stupid he is, he might figure it out and laugh it off, he might cry and run away or, if he is a Spartacus type, he will create a cause around it. This isn't some people laughing at him for his individual mistakes, this is oppression against newbies, or outsiders, or Orwell haters.
This way he's not a sad little dude who is all hurt and vulnerable, he is a brave voice speaking up for the imaginary throng of new people who, like him, came to this online community looking to express their opinions on how the best scene in Star Wars is when Han Solo has to outrun a boulder. For all the misunderstood people out there quivering in fear, who dared to say Brave New World was better than 1984. Or that Prince's "1999" was better than Apple's 1984 commercial.

It's an easy way to try to convince themselves (and hopefully others) that this is about something bigger than themselves -- a fight for justice -- and not about themselves and getting their feelings hurt. Even though it is.

When he finally makes his impassioned speech about the unfair treatment of newbies/outsiders/men/women/Honda owners/furries that he's decided is endemic to this community, the Spartacus raises his metaphorical fist with a rallying cry of "Who's with me?" and the result is usually dead silence.

by doctor_grey Thu 08 Mar 2012, 9:52 pm

Portnoy wrote:I'm serious about this.

If I lose my popular vote I go.

If I win, I'll stay to fight the cause to request the admins etc. to publish and explain bannings on a sticky.

It's not unreasonable.

Port, we love ya, man. You keep us honest in ways difficult to describe. Even when I disagreee with you about the on-going modernisation of the sport.

I've spent my whole life fighting the fight, in ways not worth delving into. But this ain't it, mate. Not worth the argument. So, please, let's just get back to the Rugby and telling everyone their countrys are full of cheats and donkeys and their clubs supporters smell like pigs (especially those Tigers).

Sound good?

by HammerofThunor Thu 08 Mar 2012, 10:27 pm

Oh, just go already

by eirebilly Fri 09 Mar 2012, 9:43 am

Is it wrong that i have been laughing my backside off at this thread? Wink

by doctor_grey Fri 09 Mar 2012, 10:13 am

Billy,
Its the Spartacus thing. isn't it mate?
You like gladiator movies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEWqhLiq_IU

by eirebilly Fri 09 Mar 2012, 10:40 am

I am really upset that the Mods removed the thread for the link Portnoy posted here, that would have made for a cracking read Wink

I AM SPARTACUS

by Sponsored content