As posters are getting banned and re-instated (Dyson, Super Tyke) and others - (Hemsworth) are getting banned can the Administrators tell us exactly what criterion they are following?? By all means ban the racists, the ones who are sexist, the ones who use obscenities and the ones who make personal attacks but to ban someone because they are hijacking threads or criticising players is ludicrous and hints of bullying. By their very nature threads get hijacked - the chances are any thread which gets more than 5 or 6 replies has taken a completely different direction to the initial thread. On a football club web site there will inevitably be criticism of different players -- what's the point of a site if there isn't? So come admin tell us what rules you are following..............
Its clearly more than just hijacking and a bit of player criticism. Im sure admin will clear that up for you though.
Indeed. Calling someone who administers and pays for the upkeep of the site a lovely person is more than worthy of a ban, IMO. A bit of respect is in order.
Not banned. Let's not have a million different posts saying whether people agree or not with what's happened. There is already Gally's explanation on a different post: http://bbs.barnsleyfc.org.uk/showthread.php?193852-Have-some-threads-been-removed-this-morning He's not being bullied, he's being given time off to think more closely about what he posts.
I was under the impression that Gally paid for the upkeep of the site not Hicksy and also I didn't intend to call him a lovely person as a person or in general, more to say that I thought he was behaving like one with his 'I personally don't like those threads so I'll delete them' attitude.
You can act like a prize pr1ck occasionally but it doesn't mean you are one, it just means that on one or two occasions you've acted like one.
Not to be funny but the thread never got going as you couldnt be bothered to read the reasoning in other threas. You may want to start a more informed thread if you want to keep it on track baz. Said with tounge partially in cheek.
What I find odd is that he has clearly gone over the top in the past regarding hassell and steele (and Teixeira amongst others) but the posts today which seemed to get him banned were no worse than other posts today about McNulty. It seems he wasn't banned for todays posts but for posts in the past and today's tame posts were just an excuse/reason to ban him again.
Out of interest Luke why has he been put on ignore rather than banned? What benefit is there to that?
Dyson wasn't properly banned, and SuperTyke did make a personal attack (not a debate for now, but that was the interpretation). Hemsworth has been put on ignore because he is genuinely causing people to not post on the BBS. Gally has already explained the reasons so I'm not sure why you felt the need to start a separate thread on this? Hemsworth isn't a bad lad, but when he goes in to overdrive he makes the BBS a worse place for it. For the record (and I've said this before), it isn't helped by the people that follow him around the BBS as if he's the Pied Piper and mention him in posts he isn't even involved with. I'm not sure if his short comings make them feel better about themselves? By all accounts, he's a nice lad just a bit misguided on here.
I think a lot of the time with various posters its not whats said but more how its said, theres a lot of difference between honest criticism ( in whoevers opinion) and abusive criticism. e.g. " I think X had a bad game" as opposed to "X played like a total lovely person and his wife and kids ....blah,blah,blah"
