Rules Clarification

[saynta]

It seems fair that if it was deleted before it was reported then it is play on.

I would consider that akin to a flasher… make a disgusting post, then delete it an hour later hoping to shock some poor victim before being caught out.

Surely that isn't a good approach for a family friendly forum?

As I said, I never read it and still dont know what the description of the definition was but I can see it has upset you. Do you feel you have been ignored?
I am an inductee of a club football tradition of doing a nudie run around the bus half way home from Boyne Island to Rockhampton after a win, so I better not speak any more. Lol.

Mock outrage mate. I deleted it pretty much straight away and apologized to the forum and the mods, but certain posters copied the post and refused to delete their posts, so they weren't really concerned about the younger more sensitive posters at all.

I however, achieved my aim and certain posters who had mud in their eyes and were caught out, don't like it.

[degruch]

It seems fair that if it was deleted before it was reported then it is play on.

I would consider that akin to a flasher… make a disgusting post, then delete it an hour later hoping to shock some poor victim before being caught out.

Surely that isn't a good approach for a family friendly forum?

As I said, I never read it and still dont know what the description of the definition was but I can see it has upset you. Do you feel you have been ignored?
I am an inductee of a club football tradition of doing a nudie run around the bus half way home from Boyne Island to Rockhampton after a win, so I better not speak any more. Lol.

Mock outrage mate. I deleted it pretty much straight away and apologized to the forum and the mods, but certain posters copied the post and refused to delete their posts, so they weren't really concerned about the younger more sensitive posters at all.

I however, achieved my aim and certain posters who had mud in their eyes and were caught out, don't like it.

"I achieved my aim"...a regular reverse Elliot Ness! Posting smut to smut-shame the smutty! Fake news, Trumpy.

[BackFromUSA]

EVERYTHING explained here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Perhaps I made the wrong choice and I should have permanently banned Saynta AND the posters that quoted the deleted post in order for it to remain on the board as well as the original poster?

Surely they were even more guilty that the original poster. That poster deleted the post before it was reported / seen YET those other posters WILLINGLY quoted it and GLEEFULLY let it remain quoted in their posts, without editing, before it had to be deleted.

Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Those posters did not have to quote the post itself when replying. It was their decision. They should also pay the consequence,

Yes? I think no.

As with the multiple users of the banned term, after it was banned ... I decided to let everything slide and everyone starts with a clean slate ... except Con of course.

The rule is in place.

Use CHO as much as you want. Just not with "the" in front of it as Con used it.

It means something different.

As for gordo': that was a ban every day of the week. Full stop. No place for that on this forum. Ever.

[skeptic]

The only thing that botheres me is the repeated and ongoing claims that multiple posters were/are using that particular term in that particular context.

2 forumites here have continued to, on pretty much every occasion they can, degrade the character of other posters by accusing them of having posted smut when I have yet to see a single example of a post being used in that context.

How is it fair that that’s allowed.

[CQ SAINT]

This sort of s*** is why I never did any good at school. Well unless you count 2 Eastern Victoria Independent High School Shields and the lead role in the school performance of Grease.

[asiu]

can i just say to that

yes , it was deleted
at the request of posters
(for the good of the forum)

should the posters have reported
and said nothing ?

i didnt see anyone protect Gordo or the site
(including myself)

i just thought it was a dog and a chick
(a bit risque but how can a dog be ‘porn’
unless its a beastiality thing : which that very much was not)

signed
confused

[degruch]

Perhaps I made the wrong choice and I should have permanently banned Saynta

I wouldn't be mad...posted intentionally, as part of a long running attack on a group of posters across multiple threads...knew exactly what he was doing. Said poster has continued to abuse other posters, bully and throw their weight around, so hardly accept any half baked apology was serious. But aren't we all risking legal action according to one post? At least, a nice long holiday to have a good think about how nordy he's been...poor ol' Joffa copped it for much less.

AND the posters that quoted the deleted post in order for it to remain on the board as well as the original poster?

No, you don't know the intent, as the link was part of a re-quote.

Use CHO as much as you want. Just not with "the" in front of it as Con used it.

Makes sense, and most posters have adhered, despite continual taunts from certain posters.

[skeptic]

Perhaps I made the wrong choice and I should have permanently banned Saynta

I wouldn't be mad...posted intentionally, as part of a long running attack on a group of posters across multiple threads...knew exactly what he was doing. Said poster has continued to abuse other posters, bully and throw their weight around, so hardly accept any half baked apology was serious. But aren't we all risking legal action according to one post? At least, a nice long holiday to have a good think about how nordy he's been...poor ol' Joffa copped it for much less.

AND the posters that quoted the deleted post in order for it to remain on the board as well as the original poster?

No, you don't know the intent, as the link was part of a re-quote.

Use CHO as much as you want. Just not with "the" in front of it as Con used it.

Makes sense, and most posters have adhered, despite continual taunts from certain posters.

Isn’t it funny that the term is banned... but it’s okay for the term to be frequently referenced and for ppl to be accused of having used it without a shred of evidence.

JB has a point... this whole thing is over and we need to move... except for the two ppl that get to post about it the most without consequence

[shrodes]

Straisand Effect. Try to cover something up and it just becomes more discussed.

This really is the silly season. Whole forum has gone mad IMO. Bring on footy so we can get back to being happy / unhappy with the team rather than each other

[CQ SAINT]

Just sent my mate Richo a text saying, 'Hi Cho' I cant repeat his response. It may be misconstrued as pornographic.

[degruch]

Just sent my mate Richo a text saying, 'Hi Cho' I cant repeat his response. It may be misconstrued as pornographic.

Maybe you need to work on your pistol finger point?

[Joffa Burns]

It's actually grossly slanderous to accuse a whole host of good people on here with such a bizarre and disgusting link.

But that is a separate issue to the point of this thread, many people would just like to know why some posters are immediately banned after making pornographic posts and others aren't.

Do the crime & do the time.
Never explain and never complain.

I think you’ll find it gets down to certain posters who report posts and others who laugh it off.

I find it funny that a certain poster is upset with some of my posting yet fails to recall how the acrimony between us commenced when he made a comment about my wife.

Very hypocritical, funny and enjoyable to watch his anger but hypocrisy at its finest.

Now my time here is short so I will enjoy my final hours

What rubbish.. I have never made a comment about your wife. Didn't even know you were married.

Still waiting for you to pm me your personal details though.

Dementia set in or just a liar?

Check your own posts.

[CQ SAINT]

Just sent my mate Richo a text saying, 'Hi Cho' I cant repeat his response. It may be misconstrued as pornographic.

Maybe you need to work on your pistol finger point?

Catching up with him for a fishing trip in 2 weeks. This is gonna be fun for a couple of days.

[Cairnsman]

Time to check the age on our licences again.

I'll go first.

Mine says I'm older than 12.

[Joffa Burns]

Still waiting for you to pm me your personal details though.

I think I’m a little too old for your taste.

As I wrote previously I’ll share as long as you promise to sue me.

[degruch]

Time to check the age on our licences again.

I'll go first.

Mine says I'm older than 12.

Mine indicates I'm at least old enough not to require a pictorial version of the rules.

[BackFromUSA]

Perhaps I made the wrong choice and I should have permanently banned Saynta

I wouldn't be mad...posted intentionally, as part of a long running attack on a group of posters across multiple threads...knew exactly what he was doing. Said poster has continued to abuse other posters, bully and throw their weight around, so hardly accept any half baked apology was serious. But aren't we all risking legal action according to one post? At least, a nice long holiday to have a good think about how nordy he's been...poor ol' Joffa copped it for much less.

AND the posters that quoted the deleted post in order for it to remain on the board as well as the original poster?

No, you don't know the intent, as the link was part of a re-quote.

Use CHO as much as you want. Just not with "the" in front of it as Con used it.

Makes sense, and most posters have adhered, despite continual taunts from certain posters.

Ok so that is how you see it? I completely disagree. The re-quotes were deliberate and done with glee. The original poster deleted his own post and apologised. Those quoting him, did not!

Will happily ban everyone involved if you force me too.

Less childishness / stupidity and a hell of a lot less work and angst for me!

About 8 of you would go.

Still keen?

[asiu]

Time to check the age on our licences again.

I'll go first.

Mine says I'm older than 12.

lol

very good

[asiu]

Will happily ban everyone involved if you force me too.

Less childishness / stupidity and a hell of a lot less work and angst for me!

About 8 of you would go.

Still keen?

bwhahahaha

thats 8/10’ths of the posters !!!

there’ll be a lot less of everything if ya pull that stunt

hehehehe

i vote for the ban : i think / maybe / possibly


can u name names first
so we can weigh up the dynamics ?

[kosifantutti]

Is anyone interested in the last share in our sponsorship of Brandon White?

That’s not really relevant to the thread but it’s a s*** thread. IMHO

[HitTheBoundary]

Ban everyone!!!

Scorched earth. I like it.

[Cairnsman]

I'm going to back Simon here. Clearly not thinking straight and could just be having a crap day. I'm guessing he will regret his threat and duly reflect on it in time and make an appropriate amends.

[skeptic]

Why is it that the issue of re-posting/requoting has become bigger then the actual issue of ppl using a pornographic slur? And who are the actual terrible forumites that used the term in a pornographically disparaging way in the first place?

Again I’ll ask for a single example of this ever having occurred because I’ve not seen it.

I for one didn’t even tweak about this double meaning in the slightest until the accusations started flying but it seems that this is the elephant in the room forbidden area of discussion.


So no one will be banned for for using the term in a sexually disparaging way
Multiple people could be band using the term whilst discussing it
The ppl that frequently reference it’s use without sighting evidence of it are fine
And the only actually person banned is Con who appeared to have lost his mind prior to the lead up to this whole saga

Not that I care but it just all seems backwards to me.



Isn’t the real issue that ppl are still trying to call back to this whole drama to stir up trouble? Why not simply issue warnings and punish them? Actually clamp down on the bad behaviour.
I for one am sick of ppl being accused of posting smut when they haven’t. That’s not ok.

[degruch]

Perhaps I made the wrong choice and I should have permanently banned Saynta

I wouldn't be mad...posted intentionally, as part of a long running attack on a group of posters across multiple threads...knew exactly what he was doing. Said poster has continued to abuse other posters, bully and throw their weight around, so hardly accept any half baked apology was serious. But aren't we all risking legal action according to one post? At least, a nice long holiday to have a good think about how nordy he's been...poor ol' Joffa copped it for much less.

AND the posters that quoted the deleted post in order for it to remain on the board as well as the original poster?

No, you don't know the intent, as the link was part of a re-quote.

Use CHO as much as you want. Just not with "the" in front of it as Con used it.

Makes sense, and most posters have adhered, despite continual taunts from certain posters.

Ok so that is how you see it? I completely disagree. The re-quotes were deliberate and done with glee. The original poster deleted his own post and apologised. Those quoting him, did not!

Will happily ban everyone involved if you force me too.

Less childishness / stupidity and a hell of a lot less work and angst for me!

About 8 of you would go.

Still keen?

Haha! Scorched earth indeed!

You know that's how I see it, because we've had this discussion before Simon...if you'd banned the first one a few weeks back you'd have no angst whatsoever.

[degruch]

I for one am sick of ppl being accused of posting smut when they haven’t. That’s not ok.

Bingo Skeptic...I was offline for the best part of a week when this all started and had no idea I was being besmirched over someone's nickname of all things...and the original poster was crying foul over Milky Bar Kid! A bit of protection for decent posters would be nice.