Bye all

[markp]

Please don't bait anyone who stonecold may be, may have been, is pretending to be, may yet pretend to be, or isn't and is not.

Thank you.

[stonecold]

Please don't bait anyone who stonecold may be, may have been, is pretending to be, may yet pretend to be, or isn't and is not.

Thank you.

So you remember me then!

[SENsei]

I remember stonecold. Had a thing for Nana and coleslaw, did he not?

[BackFromUSA]

These are the rules. i do't know where you got your version from.

Oh wow, you missed a whole section…
Did you really think editing out the section of the rules that you have broken is going to work?

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

The moderators and administrators (through a majority vote) reserve the right to conclude that the multiple identity policy has been breached by posters that shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates that it is the one individual posting under two or more sign in usernames, even if the posters are posting from different I.P. addresses (by using different devices) or by using multiple I.P. addresses through I.P. masking.

To explain this paragraph - it only defines how we can identify users that have multiple nics but use different IP addresses for each Nic to try to hide the fact that they are operated by the same person. It basically says we have the right to assume it from patterns of behaviour rather than identical IP addresses.

It is not an offence to have multiple nics.

It is only an offence to use them to support the other held nic or nics in the one thread.

Posting in the same thread under 2 names on more than one occasion is a pattern.

[BackFromUSA]

I really don't understand the criticisms of the Moderators. Though I never had trouble with Plugger 66, it is well to remember that though we have the privlige and the right to post our opinions, etc.etc., we also have the responsibility to abide by the rules of the site. It's that simple really. If posters decide not toadied by the rules, they (eventually) forfeit their right.

The problem though, is when the rules are applied to some and not to others.

No the problem is that you and others don't read or understand the rules and like one eyed supporters are blinded by hatred of particular posters because you disagree with their views.

The rules are applied equally - we let some things slide when they are minor offences.

If that creates inconsistency - would you rather we warn for every slight breach. Almost everyone posting within this thread would be banned within a month and reached 3 bans within 6 to 12 months and be deregistered ir have their IP banned.

Is that what you all want?

It would be happy to comply!

[BackFromUSA]

All you detectives better go back to school. There is no member called stinger on this forum. I bet if you click on a plugger post he still comes up with his post count, but he is obviously not a member of this forum. Neither is stinger.

I have broken no rules, no matter what any of you try to make out.

P66 no longer appears in the memberlist. Removed from existence. stinger remains as of five minutes ago.

Stinger was never banned or deregistered. I do see that he is inactive. I shall PM him and see if he wants to be deregistered.

May not want to - may want to come back. I see BigMart has.

[BackFromUSA]

So I just checked, and stinger is still a registered user.

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

Who is holding that account if not the same person as saynta?

If stinger is still a registered user, has saynta been supporting stinger's position?

Show me where he has done so in a thread (that is stinger says something and Saynta lends support to the argument or the other way around) and then Stinger / Saynta (if the same person) will have breached that rule.

[BackFromUSA]

Here's the other part of the Multiple Identity Policy

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

The moderators and administrators (through a majority vote) reserve the right to conclude that the multiple identity policy has been breached by posters that shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates that it is the one individual posting under two or more sign in usernames

Posting in the same threads on the same day from this year

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=88178&p=1531094#p1531094

seb ross is not a maybe

- Fri 27 Feb 2015 8:05am

I think I will wait until after the NAB cup before trying to guess the team for round one.

Fri 27 Feb 2015 9:06am

posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=1531092

fair comments mate....and tot,,,rebecca had some interesting comments re gws....ego driven expansion.!!......yep...spot on......and they aint going to last the distance either...

Fri 27 Feb 2015 7:38am

Wow, what a thread. It has taken me days to just read a porion of it, but it's all very interesting.

- Fri 27 Feb 2015 9:04am

Both usernames clearly active and posting in the same thread on more than one occasion (a pattern)… well within the date of the SS rules which clearly indicate a permanent IP ban for this behavior.

NEW SAINTSATIONAL FAN FORUM RULES (AS OF 18 MAY 2014)

Plenty more examples of baiting, but this example seems pretty cleat cut.

Ok will make an open assessment to help you understand the rule.

- is it the same person - could be but then again may not be (further investigation required if this rule has been breached)

- did the two nics post in the same thread? YES

- did those two nics support each other's position in a debate or argument NO

- did those two nics breach any other rule by working together NO

Conclusion - no breach of rule.

[BackFromUSA]

i am well aware from discussions with you BFUSA that this poster along with several others continually harrassed you with a view to having stinger banned.

I am gazrat ... as maliciously outed yesterday by this double id 'd , double speaking poster
... could someone please explain this bunkum of double speak and double dealing.

Why are Stinger / Saynta 'n Simon as thick as thieves.
WTF is going on in this joint.

None of this is any of your business and neither was the decision to ban plugger. It is purely a matter for the mods

Excuse me?

This is to addressed to everyone reading this thread!!!

I am not thick as thieves with anyone here. Not a single soul. Not a single friend of mine is on here to my knowledge. Hands up if you know me and can say we are mates? I promise not a single person. Well not to my knowledge anyway. The closest connection is one poster here who is a friend of a friend. Good guy too but we are hardly mates. And from memory I warned him. Another here who did some work for my dad. Not my mate but a good guy. Like him. Wouldn't hesitate to ban his arse. Met some posters here and there. All seemed nice.

I merely apply the rules to a set of circumstances and judge an outcome as a moderator and as administrator activate the will of the site owner.

I am giving you fair responses to your questions.

I am being open.

Stinger and Saynta may or may not be the same person but until the 2 entities breach the multiple identity rule which clearly states that it is a breach only if the 2 nics support each other in an arguement or collude to create another breach ... And they haven't ... And if they have then when it is shown to me AND assuming on investigation Saynta is Stinger ... Then they would be deregistered or banned.

There is zero favouritism here. Just fair application of the rules.

And as for these claims by some on here that I allow Saynta to bait (if he is indeed stinger) would you also like me to out everyone else that has had a name change or currently holds multiple nics ... And warn them all too? One in particular baited me!!!

By the way - it is not baiting when someone expresses a view DIFFERENT to yours!!!

It seems to me that there is a huge pack of posters chasing down Stinger ... Would this have anything at all to do with past disagreements? Are these past disagreements with Stinger being continued by these posters??? Is there a rule about ongoing disagreements??? If Stinger is found to Saynta - how would these rules apply to those now arguing with Saynta. I really don't know. Would you all like me to consider the ramifications?

So what if he has changed names (I can see why people believe he has) even some of you changed names ... Big deal.

makes me wonder if he changed nics to get away from a mob chasing him down. If you found him ... Congrats to you ... But I ask myself and do start to wonder whether continuing this ongoing conflict is his doing OR whether it is the doing of the posters chasing him down?

[BackFromUSA]

This rule applies in the Fan Forum:

Do NOT make commentary about the poster - ONLY the post. If you tease, mock or bait another poster, or abuse them, OR repeatedly revisit past disagreements causing or creating an ongoing dispute between one or more posters, this is regarded as a breach of rules in the Fan Forum and will result in the issuing of a Saintsational warning. Such ongoing disputes can result in multiple breaches and can result in multiple Saintsational warnings.

I would hate to have to determine whether or not any of you are breaching this rule in the Fan Forum.

I shall be only warning the aggressors in these instances.

My patience for ongoing CRAP has a limit.

Obviously.

[matrix]

Lol at true colours coming out.
Care to explain to everyone reading this thread armooooooo
Especially to work cover bludgers reading this down the pub
Yeah I'll dig back
You want to start it by spinning total bulls*** I'll fire back and stand up to the total bulls***

Let's see how stupid this is
People leave the site because of one poster yet there is an ignore function and guess what it does?
You wouldn't believe it
It f****** ignores posters you don't like
Wow!!!!!!

If numbers are up on the site, as stated by admin, plugger isn't really a problem then is he. If you use the wait for it.....ignore button

When he pissed me off for a while, guess what I did?
You wouldn't guess in 5 attempts

[dragit]

I am being open.

Stinger and Saynta may or may not be the same person but until the 2 entities breach the multiple identity rule which clearly states that it is a breach only if the 2 nics support each other in an arguement or collude to create another breach ... And they haven't ... And if they have then when it is shown to me AND assuming on investigation Saynta is Stinger ... Then they would be deregistered or banned.

There is zero favouritism here. Just fair application of the rules.

And as for these claims by some on here that I allow Saynta to bait (if he is indeed stinger) would you also like me to out everyone else that has had a name change or currently holds multiple nics ... And warn them all too? One in particular baited me!!!

By the way - it is not baiting when someone expresses a view DIFFERENT to yours!!!

It seems to me that there is a huge pack of posters chasing down Stinger ... Would this have anything at all to do with past disagreements? Are these past disagreements with Stinger being continued by these posters??? Is there a rule about ongoing disagreements??? If Stinger is found to Saynta - how would these rules apply to those now arguing with Saynta. I really don't know. Would you all like me to consider the ramifications?

So what if he has changed names (I can see why people believe he has) even some of you changed names ... Big deal.

The other part of the multiple identity rule is this

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules

I put it to you that by baiting posters under the guise of a different identity is exactly what this rule is about.

We are talking about one of the most volatile posters on here pretending to be a different person and baiting old foes - which would be constituted as a breach in the rules… surely you don't have to do this in tandem with their alter ego to be considered poor forum practice?

We are meant to be a community so I would absolutely accept your offer to identify all the posters that have changed their names. In fact I think it would be basic human decency for us all to be open about changing names… it's just disingenuous to masquerade under the guise of a new name and really poor for forum relations to have people lie about their posting history.

You've flexed your muscles and applied the rules to plugger, are you willing to be open about a deal that you have cut with stinger about using multiple names?

From what you have explained, I can legally make 10 logins, post into any thread with the same position provided I do not literally back-up one of my other user-names?

Is that how we want this place to run? The place would be absolutely ridiculous if everyone behaved like that.

I think people are partly up in arms here because the poster you have banned is obviously his direct nemesis and it's pretty obvious that the majority of reports made against him were from this poster who is pretending to be someone new.

People don't like being lied to or being played for fools. That is the crux.

I shall be only warning the aggressors in these instances.

My patience for ongoing CRAP has a limit.

Obviously.

I find this post to be quite unnecessary, you've asked us to show examples of a breach which I think we have… but now it seems like we are being threatened.

An aggressor to this situation would be Pluggers old nemesis dropping sly digs into all of the threads about him when he has no right of reply. While he may have been de-registered, I don't appreciate the cowardly digs at a friend of mine - current poster or not.

[asiu]

Saynta wrote the following yesterday

i am well aware from discussions with you BFUSA that this poster along with several others continually harrassed you with a view to having stinger banned.

What does it mean then ... if it doesnt mean , you two are as thick as thieves.

Note : i loved the comedy about ... pm'ing an inactive poster !!!

[markp]

So I just checked, and stinger is still a registered user.

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

Who is holding that account if not the same person as saynta?

If stinger is still a registered user, has saynta been supporting stinger's position?

Show me where he has done so in a thread (that is stinger says something and Saynta lends support to the argument or the other way around) and then Stinger / Saynta (if the same person) will have breached that rule.

Why does a 'forum arguement' mean within the same thread?

Haven't some forum arguments crossed (many) threads?

Aren't some ongoing?

Isn't saying something like 'I know stinger had you on ignore, and I'm going to do the same' along with abuse, supporting stingers position in a forum argument?

How is it fair that all of saynta's foes seem to be the same as stingers, and he can bait and argue with them 'anonymously', and when/if called on it abuse them further?

Isn't baiting an old foe using a secondary nic the same thing as using that nic to support the first nic in a forum argument?

And Simon, keeping up the farcical charade that saynta and stinger may or may not be the same person (and offering to pm stinger, etc) is insulting to everyone's intelligence.

[BackFromUSA]

I am being open.

Stinger and Saynta may or may not be the same person but until the 2 entities breach the multiple identity rule which clearly states that it is a breach only if the 2 nics support each other in an arguement or collude to create another breach ... And they haven't ... And if they have then when it is shown to me AND assuming on investigation Saynta is Stinger ... Then they would be deregistered or banned.

There is zero favouritism here. Just fair application of the rules.

And as for these claims by some on here that I allow Saynta to bait (if he is indeed stinger) would you also like me to out everyone else that has had a name change or currently holds multiple nics ... And warn them all too? One in particular baited me!!!

By the way - it is not baiting when someone expresses a view DIFFERENT to yours!!!

It seems to me that there is a huge pack of posters chasing down Stinger ... Would this have anything at all to do with past disagreements? Are these past disagreements with Stinger being continued by these posters??? Is there a rule about ongoing disagreements??? If Stinger is found to Saynta - how would these rules apply to those now arguing with Saynta. I really don't know. Would you all like me to consider the ramifications?

So what if he has changed names (I can see why people believe he has) even some of you changed names ... Big deal.

==> you are like a dog with a bone! I shall patiently answer each part.

The other part of the multiple identity rule is this

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules

==> That is the rule. Please not the words "add support to their own position in a forum arguement" AND "undertake" in the rule regarding "activity that can be constituted as a breach"

I put it to you that by baiting posters under the guise of a different identity is exactly what this rule is about.

==> I see LOTS of defending accusations of being Stinger from Saynta - but that is not baiting. He wouldn't be defending it, if he wasn't accused of it. Baiting would be more him undertaking a string of posts where he specifically teased each of the posters complaining here FIRST ... I don't see that. I see him being accused and responding.
It is also NOT BAITING when he expresses an opinion. EVEN if it does not match your opinion and absolutely infuriates you. That is NOT baiting. That is an opinion.

We are talking about one of the most volatile posters on here pretending to be a different person and baiting old foes - which would be constituted as a breach in the rules… surely you don't have to do this in tandem with their alter ego to be considered poor forum practice?

==> I can think of more volatile posters. In fact after reviewing the Saynta posts prior to their being a suspicion that it was Stinger - nobody went into any sort of conflict with Saynta ... and there was no real argy bargy. flame throwing, beligerant, abusive or even impolite responses ... but once people believed it was Stinger, well all hell broke lose.

We are meant to be a community so I would absolutely accept your offer to identify all the posters that have changed their names. In fact I think it would be basic human decency for us all to be open about changing names… it's just disingenuous to masquerade under the guise of a new name and really poor for forum relations to have people lie about their posting history.

==> firstly that wasn't my offer as such - although I can see how it could be read like that - I meant it in a rhetorical manner - i.e. I know there are many who wouldn't like it as they know old foes would find them and old disputes would flare. I won't do that because the very nature of nics is an entitlement of anonimity.

You've flexed your muscles and applied the rules to plugger, are you willing to be open about a deal that you have cut with stinger about using multiple names?

==> I hgave not flexed my muscle - I have moderated and administered this site with no feafr or favour. Plugger66 had adequate warning - years of them - one specific.

==> as for Stinger using multiple names - are you unable to comrehend the fact that he is NOT USISNG MULTIPLE NAMES - Stinger is not in use even if Saynta is AND even if it was (which it isn't) having multiple names IS NOT AN OFFENCE in itself ... so if he has two nics then he is allowed to JUST LIKE EVEYONE ELSE if they stay within the Multiple Nic rule.

==> that is the deal ... FOR EVERYONE!

From what you have explained, I can legally make 10 logins, post into any thread with the same position provided I do not literally back-up one of my other user-names?

==> no you cant - if you post in the same thread in an arguement with 10 nics with same position in the arguement and theose nics backing up one of your names then you are

using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument

which is a breach of rules

Is that how we want this place to run?

==> No

The place would be absolutely ridiculous if everyone behaved like that.

==> that is why the rule against that exists

==> please note that I still have not seen a thread where Saynta / Stinger breached this rule

I think people are partly up in arms here because the poster you have banned is obviously his direct nemesis and it's pretty obvious that the majority of reports made against him were from this poster who is pretending to be someone new.

==> actually Stinger / Saynta was only one of MANY that reported Plugger66 and that doesn't count the many who wrote PMs regarding Plugger66 or quit because of him

==> I think Plugger66 had more than one "direct nemisis"

People don't like being lied to or being played for fools. That is the crux.

==> agreed - however there is no rule against lying - ummm if there was then we would have to issue many more warnings!

==> I have tried to read as much of this argy bargy "Saynta you are Stinger" rubbish as any one busy human can manage and I am yet to find an instance where he BAITED the mob to come after him ... Saynta posts opinions and then is chased down a rabbit hole by the same posters over and over again crying YOU ARE STINGER, YOU ARE STINGER! Do you have any idea how boring that is? how childish it sounds? Who cares if it is Stinger or not? Stinger is exactly who? Certainly not on the election role.

==> my point is NONE of you were in conflict with Saynta before you thought he was Stinger ... it was only a problem once you thought it was Stinger

===> you may all hate this "stinger" for whatever reason (my guess is his politcal views which I also don't agree with at all) BUT unlike Plugger66 he is NOT BREACHING RULES

I shall be only warning the aggressors in these instances.

My patience for ongoing CRAP has a limit.

Obviously.

I find this post to be quite unnecessary, you've asked us to show examples of a breach which I think we have… but now it seems like we are being threatened.

==> show me the breaches to the FULL RULE .... not just the parts that you want applied ... show me where the 2 nics supported each other in a thread arguement? Show me an actual BIAT other than the nics meere existence or his denials when accused. These are not baits because he did not ACTIVATE the debate - he didn't undertake it.

An aggressor to this situation would be Pluggers old nemesis dropping sly digs into all of the threads about him when he has no right of reply.

==> poor form indeed but please note he was not the only one

--> also please note that Plugger66 got lots of support too

==> and finally he can read this forum AND rejoin it too (even as Plugger66v2) and stay as long as he POSTS WITHIN THE RULES

While he may have been de-registered, I don't appreciate the cowardly digs at a friend of mine - current poster or not.

==> Noted but not sure what he wrote is much different to what others wrote eyt you dont seem on a vendetta against them

==> Also you don't seem to be on a vendetta against the others that have new nics and have tried to have fresh strarts to get away from boring back & forward bickering

==> and you do seem to be perpetuating the problem

==> I am making no threats AND we can debate this here in the admin forum BUT in the Fan Forum ongoing bickering is a breach ... SIMPLE

[BackFromUSA]

So I just checked, and stinger is still a registered user.

MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

Who is holding that account if not the same person as saynta?

If stinger is still a registered user, has saynta been supporting stinger's position?

Show me where he has done so in a thread (that is stinger says something and Saynta lends support to the argument or the other way around) and then Stinger / Saynta (if the same person) will have breached that rule.

Why does a 'forum arguement' mean within the same thread?

Haven't some forum arguments crossed (many) threads?

Aren't some ongoing?

Isn't saying something like 'I know stinger had you on ignore, and I'm going to do the same' along with abuse, supporting stingers position in a forum argument?

How is it fair that all of saynta's foes seem to be the same as stingers, and he can bait and argue with them 'anonymously', and when/if called on it abuse them further?

Isn't baiting an old foe using a secondary nic the same thing as using that nic to support the first nic in a forum argument?

And Simon, keeping up the farcical charade that saynta and stinger may or may not be the same person (and offering to pm stinger, etc) is insulting to everyone's intelligence.

I ask WHO are the instigators in the YOU ARE STINGER / NO I AM NOT farce?

Have a good look at Saynta's posts PRE the discovery that it was thought to be Stinger. Calm waters. No one had an issue. What he was posting wasn't regarded as baiting.

Once the mob thought it was him they were a pack hunting for blood. Every one of his posts argued. every one of his posts a BAIT!

The people with an issue IMHO are the members of this mob.

The instigators in every post I have read have been the mob members and not Saynta.

They are causing the ongoing dispute. They are the one's continuing the conflict.

Have a good read of Saynta's posts before he was identified as Stinger through his political points of view in the threads of Goodes and Gat pride etc

NOBODY HAD AN ISSUE with Saynta. the moment it is seen as Stinger - well then OMG the crap conflict starts again.

As for a charade - I am not going to confirm ANY poster that has asked to change their NIC. Once their NIC is changed then all we ask forum members to do is refer to them by their current NIC and not former NICs. That is not too much to ask. People do that with their REAL NAMES too Beau Wilkes / Beau Maister and it is courtesy to respect that.

Some here have changed their NICS for the reason that they wanted to get away from the conflict that had been involved in - 4 spring to mind - 2 well known now BUYT the crucial thing is that they tried to get away from the conflict whereas I see a mob that has wanted to CONTINUE the conflict.

Just how i see it.

Maybe I have missed that all important BAIT that he instigated that has you all upset.

Or maybe I have missed the time he has supported Stingers arguement on a subject as Saynta - or the other way around.

I am not going to judge Saynta "on the vibe" of what he writes. Do I agree with his views ... NO! Do I think he has a right to express them ... YES! Would I debate them with him ... MAYBE, but i can't imagine that anything i could say would change his view on the world so I probably wouldn't bother. Would I get into a war of waords with him? WHY BOTHER????

As I say - if you want me to judge it on the basis of WHO is causing the ongoing conflict across threads - then the instigators to be WARNED from what i can see will not include Saynta ... or Stinger.

[markp]

It's got nothing to do with his political views (geez).

Everything to do with his prolonged trolling, baiting, and most of all vile abuse, over a period of years.

Just look how he acted whenever he went off the leash in the AE, and you saw the real person behind the nic.

But we're a 'mob', after 'blood' now?

Ordinary.

I won't bother.

[Enrico_Misso]

It's got nothing to do with his political views (geez).

Everything to do with his prolonged trolling, baiting, and most of all vile abuse, over a period of years.

Just look how he acted whenever he went off the leash in the AE, and you saw the real person behind the nic.

But we're a 'mob', after 'blood' now?

Ordinary.

I won't bother.

No not after blood.
Just celebrating that a great pestilence has been removed.

And hopeful that
- interesting threads won't continually be hi-jacked so satisfy an ego.
- posters will not be continually personally abused for simply holding a different opinion
- we won't have to endure "big noting" look at me contributions
- this forum won't be used simply to satisfy a posting target mentality
- well respected posters that simply had had enough will come back with their valued contributions
- Saintsational will recover from the damage done by the petulant prima donna antics of one self centred poster

In truth I think the said poster has some serious mental health issues as evidenced by
- his continual presence,
- desire to always be the centre of attention,
- and his aggressive demeaning put-down style.

His expulsion (assuming it is not just a token and he won't simply bob up with another nic) is actually a win-win situation.
- Banishment from here may help him get some badly needed focus or direction in his life.
- And certainly this forum might now be resurrected to the vibrant place it once was.

[dragit]

Okay Simon, while I disagree with plenty that you have said, I won't address every point now - but I will say that your idea of a mob is offensive, there seem to be plenty of people annoyed, but they are not organised or in cahoots.

Are you willing to enforce the rules that you have brought in?

You have asked for examples of breaking them, here are some more


Both stinger & saynta have been strong supporters of Seb Ross and his position in the best 22… while the posts are subtle, they clearly show two usernames adding support to the same argument in the same thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=88200&p=1531844#p1531844

i just don't agree with you on Ross. Curran? Maybe, but too early in the season to say.

I'm pretty happy with Seb, he isn't showy but just quietly goes about his business.

fair comment

There's also both user names supporting a move back to moorabbin and not the junction oval.

Both identities adding support to the same argument in the same thread

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=86939&p=1532311#p1532311
plenty of posts in this thread, but here are a couple

when the saints were last at the junction oval..they were being screwed over by the cricket club ,whose ground it really was....very unhappy times dave...very unhappy.....through the foresight of huggins and drake, the saints moved to morrabbin where they promptly went on to win their first flag......happy times, dave...happy times....eventually the vfl/afl forced us out to waverley, then again to the dome.....s*** times dave and then a period of success...at the dome..but..we are still being screwed...by the afl and the creeps at etiad....we are basically paying off the ground for the afl and the other 17 clubs benefit.....the sooner we get ourselves back to moorabbin the better dave...forget all that pie in the sky wank about returning to our spiritual base ffs......it,s just not on the cards

Good, we can now concentrate all our efforts on Moorabbin. Anybody who feels gutted about the JO and who voted for Labor or the Green monsters has only themselves to blame. You there Dave?

Interpret the nature of the posts however you like, it's a crystal clear breach of the rules exactly as you have written them Simon.

One poster adding support to their own position within a forum argument on multiple occasions.

The penalty is this:

will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

[dragit]

btw - i didn't set out to have anyone banned…

Simon asked to see any breaches, and they have now been provided.

[gringo]

btw - i didn't set out to have anyone banned…

Simon asked to see any breaches, and they have now been provided.

Awww Dragers, you are like the smart girl at the front of the class who dobs everyone in. If any one can be f^%$ed backing up their own position by jumping between 2 names they are entitled to their crazy right wing opinions. Straynta like the last of the forums crazy old drunk uncles. Are you trying to kill off the last of forums badass appeal? SS is like a frontier society where the laws have fallen down. After a few cucumber sandwiches over on Big Footy it's good to down half a bottle of bourbon and slip the knuckle dusters on and hit main street on saturday night.

[asiu]

its not really about Stinker though , is it.
... its about the HYPOCRACY , that see's Plugger killed off
by an Admin Captains call
and the drunk uncle left happily smelling like Admins aftershave.

[saynta]

It's got nothing to do with his political views (geez).

Everything to do with his prolonged trolling, baiting, and most of all vile abuse, over a period of years.

Just look how he acted whenever he went off the leash in the AE, and you saw the real person behind the nic.

But we're a 'mob', after 'blood' now?

Ordinary.

I won't bother.

No not after blood.
Just celebrating that a great pestilence has been removed.

And hopeful that
- interesting threads won't continually be hi-jacked so satisfy an ego.
- posters will not be continually personally abused for simply holding a different opinion
- we won't have to endure "big noting" look at me contributions
- this forum won't be used simply to satisfy a posting target mentality
- well respected posters that simply had had enough will come back with their valued contributions
- Saintsational will recover from the damage done by the petulant prima donna antics of one self centred poster

In truth I think the said poster has some serious mental health issues as evidenced by
- his continual presence,
- desire to always be the centre of attention,
- and his aggressive demeaning put-down style.

His expulsion (assuming it is not just a token and he won't simply bob up with another nic) is actually a win-win situation.
- Banishment from here may help him get some badly needed focus or direction in his life.
- And certainly this forum might now be resurrected to the vibrant place it once was.

You're talking about plugger, aren't you?

[markp]

Spooky how interchangeable it is, huh....

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Ok read them now. Filled with humour and banter. Nothing horrible there to my eye although I believe that Gordo Summers nic was banned for constantly starting threads and posting stuff purely aiming to bait posters. Both those threads are in the right place - because whilst the OP were warning worthy the subsequent banter was mostly very good. Not of a spat between wind sister and plugger66. But nothing too major IMHO.

Certainly different to the inflammatory poll although as I have said it could have been moved to the Animal Enclosure but there should have been a warning issued to whoever started that poll - was there??? Maybe they has a lucky escape?

sorry to go all the way back to this but ... You say the fighting with plugger thread is ok cause it was filled with fun banter yet the how to deal with stingers thread was locked swiftly even though it also was only filled with fun banter....
We then get told that the poll on plugger is allowed because he isn't a member and Saynta comes out saying it's not baiting cause plugger is not a member then we have the poll on stinger get locked (and Saynta pleads that stinger isn't a member) plugger gets banned for baiting stinger (again Saynta claims is not a member).. The dealing with stingers thread can't be baiting cause stinger isn't a member ?!?!?!? So what way is it ? It seems very clear there are rules for some but not for others....

My personal opinion and I'm going out on a limb here... BFUSA suddenly throws his support behind posters like Stinger/saynta and even Citywest after he has spoken to these posters .... Do we need to have a phone call with BFUSA to get the gold class treatment ??
BFUSA just put a nail in this coffin bring back plugger and out Saynta as stinger then we can all go back to talking about the saints... Otherwise this favouriting and rule bending/ignoring stuff will see this site die cause the real contributors of this site have had enough of the double dealing

so again why was the dealing with stingers thread locked ?? It was in the so called bait all you want zone of the AE it wasn't about any posting member (so say ta points out) ... Why was it shut ?