Nobber

Sid Snot

Manager - East Cheam FC
Patron
Sandpaper will do sid 👍

Ok, this I can get and it should do you...

7JFxS1WU3PmbAb-ngCjcb3F5juPIIMV9zJo-Kp2ircOdwYZmcYuRdblPjULcjM55mmENpzWJkOTNlaamrMmPy-iC-TosnrX__r4uffLDW678B6Dy
 

Muzza

Forum Patron
Patron
Maybe nobber mistakingly sent a dick pic to @Jack Daniels

Maybe it wasn't a mistake.......:eek:
When I was in self isolation for two weeks I noticed a rash 'downstairs' :oops: and obviously couldn't go anywhere so I took a pic to send to the doctor, but I accidentally sent it to everyone in my address book!! 😬



Cost me a fortune in stamps!
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
I wasn't a mod at the time, but my impression is that that was a myth created by Nobber. It's typical Nobber diversion tactics, repeatedly deny something you've never been accused of so that the real reason gets forgotten.

I am not sure your impression is correct. Like I said, I scanned the relevant posts at the time - and going back now to refresh my mind, it’s easy to conclude that Nobber has not created a myth.
The real “trigger” was surely post #26178. You don’t need me to tell you that that post is within the normal range of piss-taking posts we see all the time from a range of posters.

Why the first response #26198 was written the way it was? Take a judgement. For me, it’s a rather large jump to suggest that anybody’s mother had been besmirched!!! And this seems to me to be the root of “myth” which appears not to be a myth!

 

Muzza

Forum Patron
Patron
OK, it seems the mods have now changed the banner that appears when you get banned.

Its changed from, "Banned," to an explanation of what for and a date of return.

Please dont ask me the reason because that is between the mods and nobber.

I don't see anybody else crying out for details.

Just you being a nosey bastard!
Okay, so I wouldn't normally comment on this, and to be honest if Nobber has broken rules then fair do's. Maybe I'm being nosey, but maybe I'm also just wanting to have a bit of clarity as to what constitutes bans. It could possibly prevent others from going down the same road. I know there could be particular details that can't be disclosed, but surely there's a 'forum suitable' response that maybe should be broadcast to all members as and when a ban happens? Just a thought.
 

LostinSpace

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
Staff member
Patron
I am not sure your impression is correct. Like I said, I scanned the relevant posts at the time - and going back now to refresh my mind, it’s easy to conclude that Nobber has not created a myth.
The real “trigger” was surely post #26178. You don’t need me to tell you that that post is within the normal range of piss-taking posts we see all the time from a range of posters.

Why the first response #26198 was written the way it was? Take a judgement. For me, it’s a rather large jump to suggest that anybody’s mother had been besmirched!!! And this seems to me to be the root of “myth” which appears not to be a myth!

So he didn't call anyone a Nazi!

The myth for me isn't so much that, but that Nobber was banned for repeated and multiple reasons, not just one post as claimed by Nobber.
 

stf4ever

Forum Patron
Patron
Okay, so I wouldn't normally comment on this, and to be honest if Nobber has broken rules then fair do's. Maybe I'm being nosey, but maybe I'm also just wanting to have a bit of clarity as to what constitutes bans. It could possibly prevent others from going down the same road. I know there could be particular details that can't be disclosed, but surely there's a 'forum suitable' response that maybe should be broadcast to all members as and when a ban happens? Just a thought.

The lack of clarity and the "our decision is final" posts indicate to me that the moderators do not want us debating their decision making. Indeed, when I questioned a decision the other week, I was informed, by a moderator, that I'd be banned off other forums for questioning the moderating decisions.

To a degree I can understand it, but I do think that they risk more people going the way of Liberation and Raefil. Especially their paying customers.

It's like paying for a monthly subscription to Sky Sports and then they drop football off their coverage without explanation. Do you sit and wait for football to come back, do you go elsewhere to provide you with football or do you think ah well I don't mind missing the football, I'll just cancel my Sky subscription.
 

jakehake

Preachs PA
Staff member
Patron
When the papers publish a “this week in magistrates court” and you find out Billy Boswell got given a 2 week suspended sentence for nicking a packet of crisps from NSS. We don’t know what flavour crisps they were or if they were a decent packet or he only nicked them because his grandma is starving so it was an honourable rather than a bad crime.

Very few users get reported, those that do get spoken too and asked to rein in their behaviour if it’s causing offence, or annoyance or being disruptive. Some take those warnings and change their behaviour. Some challenge those warnings and make it into a bigger thing over and over or continue those behaviours.

Ultimately they end up with some sort of sanction as a way of showing that we’ve asked them to change how they act and they choose not too. This cycle repeats. Much the same as the courts, when people repeat offend, sanctions increase over time. If people really want to think we act over a single post in most circumstances(unless it really is an offensive or legally dodgy single post ) then you’ll be mistaken. Most of the time sanctions happened for prolonged periods of behaviour or multiple reports.

we don’t want it to happen, the ball is entirely in the posters court, everyone has their own personally responsibility to behave and post in a decent manner. It really is that simple and achieved by 99% of posters

we took some action on some recent posts that were beyond the pale, and ultimately made the wrong call maybe in shutting a whole section rather than ejecting some users. That seemed to be a view shared by many that “why punish the majority”? So we took that on board, reopened the section and instead will target the minority.

only now we’re being asked “why punish the minority”?

And so the circle continues
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
So he didn't call anyone a Nazi!

The myth for me isn't so much that, but that Nobber was banned for repeated and multiple reasons, not just one post as claimed by Nobber.
Well no, he clearly didn’t. But someone did the equivalent of squeal and roll round on the floor IMO. And the yellow/red card wasn’t far behind.

As for the second para - yes these bans are normally an accumulation of sins but there is almost always a post or incident that is the main trigger and so it does matter.
 

LostinSpace

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
Staff member
Patron
Well no, he clearly didn’t. But someone did the equivalent of squeal and roll round on the floor IMO. And the yellow/red card wasn’t far behind.

As for the second para - yes these bans are normally an accumulation of sins but there is almost always a post or incident that is the main trigger and so it does matter.
If you say so, but my only point is that that wasn’t the sole reason for the ban. As I said, I wasn’t involved so like everyone else, I’m not really qualified to comment as I don’t know what happened exactly.
 

stf4ever

Forum Patron
Patron
When the papers publish a “this week in magistrates court” and you find out Billy Boswell got given a 2 week suspended sentence for nicking a packet of crisps from NSS. We don’t know what flavour crisps they were or if they were a decent packet or he only nicked them because his grandma is starving so it was an honourable rather than a bad crime.

Very few users get reported, those that do get spoken too and asked to rein in their behaviour if it’s causing offence, or annoyance or being disruptive. Some take those warnings and change their behaviour. Some challenge those warnings and make it into a bigger thing over and over or continue those behaviours.

Ultimately they end up with some sort of sanction as a way of showing that we’ve asked them to change how they act and they choose not too. This cycle repeats. Much the same as the courts, when people repeat offend, sanctions increase over time. If people really want to think we act over a single post in most circumstances(unless it really is an offensive or legally dodgy single post ) then you’ll be mistaken. Most of the time sanctions happened for prolonged periods of behaviour or multiple reports.

we don’t want it to happen, the ball is entirely in the posters court, everyone has their own personally responsibility to behave and post in a decent manner. It really is that simple and achieved by 99% of posters

we took some action on some recent posts that were beyond the pale, and ultimately made the wrong call maybe in shutting a whole section rather than ejecting some users. That seemed to be a view shared by many that “why punish the majority”? So we took that on board, reopened the section and instead will target the minority.

only now we’re being asked “why punish the minority”?

And so the circle continues

With regards to your first paragraph, I think you're wrong there but that's by the by.

I don't see anybody asking why punish the minority. I see a few people questioning the severity of his punishment and a few asking for leniency.
 

PNE Plungy

Manager
I definitely think there ought to be transparency in what constitutes a ban. Not just to avoid threads like this, but so the forum as a whole knows the boundaries.

I've been on the wrong end of a ban myself in the past, and when I asked various mods exactly what I'd done wrong, each played the dumb card and said they didn't know. That resulted in a bit of a fall out with JD.

Its not a case of being a "nosey bastard" - to quote one of the current mods. It's about fairness, transparency and understanding for all.
 
Top