Trolling

Tringreen wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

I took the decision to SUSPEND punchy last night for his trolling. In my opinion trolling is the right word, what he posted was not illegal, it was offensive though. He was disrupting a number of threads by posting irrelevant stuff and being unresponsive to requests both through PM and the forum.

Three of us mods were on duty last night and we discussed at length what to do. I suspended Punchy because he was not responding to requests to tone it down and was warned enough.

I wasn't entirely happy about the decision, because none of what he posted was illegal or technically against ATD rules. However, failure to respond, acting the goat and being generally disruptive, it was the right decision in the end.

There is no way I intend to revoke the ban until next Saturday.

I've had an email exchange with Neal[Punchie] and whilst we both recognise his postings could be construed as distasteful by some, he was in a heated exchange with Knecht and worse things have not resulted in suspensions before on ATD. I do object to the word 'trolling'. It is far too often used as an excuse for branding anyone with extreme and opposing views and is just so Pasoti.

Neal, as he can't speak for himself, is not comfortable with developments and might not return, as in his words ,'It is becoming a bit cliquey and Pasoti'ish'.

I dispute that this site is becoming like pasoti. That's just sour grapes I reckon. C'mon punchy what you posted was out of order. There's not much that offends me, but anything to do with Nazis used like that does.

If they are your political views keep them to yourself and don't post about it on here. Take your 7 days on the chin and come back refreshed.

Greenjock wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

I took the decision to SUSPEND punchy last night for his trolling. In my opinion trolling is the right word, what he posted was not illegal, it was offensive though. He was disrupting a number of threads by posting irrelevant stuff and being unresponsive to requests both through PM and the forum.

Three of us mods were on duty last night and we discussed at length what to do. I suspended Punchy because he was not responding to requests to tone it down and was warned enough.

I wasn't entirely happy about the decision, because none of what he posted was illegal or technically against ATD rules. However, failure to respond, acting the goat and being generally disruptive, it was the right decision in the end.

There is no way I intend to revoke the ban until next Saturday.

I've had an email exchange with Neal[Punchie] and whilst we both recognise his postings could be construed as distasteful by some, he was in a heated exchange with Knecht and worse things have not resulted in suspensions before on ATD. I do object to the word 'trolling'. It is far too often used as an excuse for branding anyone with extreme and opposing views and is just so Pasoti.

Neal, as he can't speak for himself, is not comfortable with developments and might not return, as in his words ,'It is becoming a bit cliquey and Pasoti'ish'.

I dispute that this site is becoming like pasoti. That's just sour grapes I reckon. C'mon punchy what you posted was out of order. There's not much that offends me, but anything to do with Nazis used like that does.

If they are your political views keep them to yourself and don't post about it on here. Take your 7 days on the chin and come back refreshed.

What Jock said.

If PD doesn't understand what the majority would deem as offensive then maybe he should question whether he should be using such public forums.

After thinking it over I must say that I am unhappy over the banning of Punchdrunk. Whilst his posts were in bad taste they broke no laws or rules and IMO people should not be banned because we disagree with the views expressed, if we continue down this road we will become just another PASOTI. On the other hand three MODS agreed and warnings were issued so the correct procedure was followed.

I'm kinda with Pete, if posts are offensive rather than libellous or illegal in some other way then the response should be to ignore them rather than try and argue the point and fan the flames.

So who was offended then Charlie I certainly wasn't.If Punchy didn't break any rules then to ban him for a week was rather harsh.Extremely political yes but as it started with PDC and his salute it was just carrying things forward.

oddball wrote:

So who was offended then Charlie I certainly wasn't.If Punchy didn't break any rules then to ban him for a week was rather harsh.Extremely political yes but as it started with PDC and his salute it was just carrying things forward.

Well I certainly wasn't happy with the use of the symbol of Mosley's British Union of Fascists as an avatar.

Which is why I said what I did about bringing the site into disrepute.

Peggy wrote:

oddball wrote:

So who was offended then Charlie I certainly wasn't.If Punchy didn't break any rules then to ban him for a week was rather harsh.Extremely political yes but as it started with PDC and his salute it was just carrying things forward.

Well I certainly wasn't happy with the use of the symbol of Mosley's British Union of Fascists as an avatar.

Which is why I said what I did about bringing the site into disrepute.

In the context of the discussion it was more a case of bad taste imo and not illegal. Once admin starts dictating and clique forming we are on our way to emulating the farm............ and we all know the thought control and worse, now so clearly emanating from that cesspit of backscratchers and stabbers.

That's your opinion Tring, my opinion differs and I would say your opinion would differ to the vast majority of society, that's good enough for me.

FFS, a bloke's been given 7 days to cool off after posting links and an avatar that were (a) offensive to a number of posters, who complained to me and other Mods, (b) used for some fairly unsubtle trolling after he'd been asked to stop. Thats all. And he didn't stop, when asked - he got worse.

For the record, the 3 Mods who took the decision were me, Gob and Cerbs. I'll admit to being a 'lefty' but the other two hardly qualify as closet Trotskyites. Nor are we into 'thought control' or being a clique. We were acting in the best interests of the site and the posters on it. Don't underestimate the offence that was caused by punchdrunks actions - and I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about those posters who complained because they were wanting to use the site to talk football, not wade through links to film of SS atrocities in world War 2.

If we're talking politics here then I tend to hang in the middle

GOB wrote:

If we're talking politics here then I tend to hang in the middle

And if we're not talking politics? No, on second thoughts.....

I don't care if he's suspended or not. I just don't want stuff like that on here. If that starts how can we possibly say we take a stand against racism? If it wasn't meant in that context fine but don't repeat it. Cerbs warned him so there was no excuse.

GOB wrote:

That's your opinion Tring, my opinion differs and I would say your opinion would differ to the vast majority of society, that's good enough for me.

And I would suggest that had Punchie posted that stuff a few months ago he would not have been suspended.

I would also venture to say Tring, that if the decision we mods took last night was in your opinion the wrong one, then perhaps you should better understand the 'Democratic' bit of this website's name.

We took a position after a lot of requests to him to stop/change his constant Fascist rubbish last night. He didn't break any law, but if you deem that sort of posting as acceptable on here, then perhaps it's time you took a long hard look at 'your' website. If you don't want us mods to moderate, then you are perhaps no better than a certain other person on a certain other website.

The next step potentially, would have been racist postings and that would have opened another whole can of worms, wouldn't it? Where do you draw the line on what common decent people want to read on an Argyle fans website? Certainly not irrelevant Fascist propaganda.

Or are you happy with that?

And just for the record, it would seem the mods last night were left wing, centre and right wing in their political outlook, so a fairer cross section would have been hard to find.

One last thing, he has not been banned, he's been suspended. If he's not man enough to take that, then it's not our fault is it?

Tringreen wrote:

GOB wrote:

That's your opinion Tring, my opinion differs and I would say your opinion would differ to the vast majority of society, that's good enough for me.

And I would suggest that had Punchie posted that stuff a few months ago he would not have been suspended.

If I was moderating and had a majority vote, as per last night, he would have been.

This isn't a pasoti club with one rule for mates and another for everyone else.

My view is that it was a good call ( as ever, for what it's worth!).

The 'aim' of this site has been oft-discussed but whatever iteration is decided upon, I can say with certainty that I would have deleted my ATD tab with no intention to ever return if it had been decided that Nazi / Fascist images & rhetoric be allowed to remain.

The paradox of being tolerant to intolerant ideology has long been the subject of scholarly debate, but I strongly believe that this site would have been terminally damaged if the decisions about actions last night went 'the other way'.

Jon

People have to work quite hard to get themselves banned from most places. By the sounds of it he was hellbent on a course of action that could lead only one way. With the right to free speech comes the responsibility to exercise that right with discretion and consideration and the latter part of that was completely ignored by the poster last night. Good work, I say, to everybody concerned.

JonB wrote:

My view is that it was a good call ( as ever, for what it's worth!).

The 'aim' of this site has been oft-discussed but whatever iteration is decided upon, I can say with certainty that I would have deleted my ATD tab with no intention to ever return if it had been decided that Nazi / Fascist images & rhetoric be allowed to remain.

The paradox of being tolerant to intolerant ideology has long been the subject of scholarly debate, but I strongly believe that this site would have been terminally damaged if the decisions about actions last night went 'the other way'.

Jon

My views also. And I still don't think punchy was doing anything other than attempting to wind people up, just a step too far.

I genuinely believe that the vast majority would agree with the last few post on here, if I thought any different this site would be closed by the morning following what I am sure would be a majority moderator vote.

Greenman wrote:

Lol your no different than the website your obssessed with. Pasoti Argyle Talk. We don't ban anyone. Yeah right

Maybe we should change that to Ban without a reason?

What Punchie did showed poor taste.

Personally I think the decision for a 'cooling off' period (not a ban, Greenman) was the correct one, but I think the period was a little long.

What if Punchie apologises - could he return earlier?

I SUSPENDED him for a week for repeatedly posting Nazi links to YouTube and failing to respond to requests both through the forum from both Andy Symons and myself and at least one PM to stop.

The rules of this site are three strikes and you're out. He had more than three chances and he was being offensive (if not breaking the law). As far as I am concerned a seven day suspension is just that. What's the point in moderating this site at all if we take a decision and the rescind it 24 hours later? The decision wasn't taken lightly.

I don't feel as though I have to justify myself any further, to use a hackneyed expression 'it's been done to death!'

Ricks, Tring, why do you believe that Punchdrunk should be treated differently to others?

Cerbs did the right thing. Its as simple as that.

If nothing had been done last night and the comments, etc had been allowed to stay then I feel the ATD mods would have been as much in the wrong as the Pasoti mods were over the racist chanting issue a while ago.

GOB wrote:

Ricks, Tring, why do you believe that Punchdrunk should be treated differently to others?

I am not saying he should be treated differently to others - have their been any others yet?

I just felt the ban was a little long - that is an arbritary decision.

What's wrong with 48 hrs and an apologie?