TRUE BELIEVER APPEAL PROCESS AND POLL

[asiu]

its all a bit like the extended family
were at mum 'n dads for chrissy dinner

and a snap lockdown was called

boxing day was yesterday
the aussies were bowled out cheap
the yachts are still becalmed in sydney harbour
and no ones gone home yet

tensions will be aired

thats part of the process you'd think

[desertsaint]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

[desertsaint]

hmm.
how about c. given a weeks ban and have the other two bans wiped given the time duration between bans. if there's a bond process he's well and truly over it. option 2 exists already. there is no way of stopping anyone with half a bit of nous logging in under a new nic.
the appeal process is about the poster true believer and his long history on this site, keeping that history, and recognising that the ban was overreach and backing away towards a more reasonable ban.

A weeks ban is a severe penalty and does not get wiped.

A one day ban does get wiped.

3 strikes and you are out.

How about you try and regsiter a new nic and post successfully ... I assume you believe that you have at least half a bit of nous?

I rightly do not look at the poster before detrmining a penalty if there is a breach.

Simple fact is it was a breach and a severe breach with a prescibed penalty of one week ban. As the third 1 week ban, the permanent ban is automatic.

And if I did it any other way there would be cries of favourtism.

Importantly there is a mechanism for him / her to return - if I approve a new registration and permit posting - under a new nic.

The penalty of a nic ban means he / she loses his nic and posting history, but can start fresh.

we disagree on the interpretation of a 'severe breach' obviously. it is all about interpretation, hence there can be no black and white rules. the previous post tb was responding to could also be interpreted in the same way. personally i (and i suspect the vast majority) have no issue with either post, they are simply banter. and yes, short of you simply blocking any new posters from joining it is impossible to stop someone registering under a new nic. a simple vpn, tor, or a proxy will hide any ip address. if you have stopped people joining then banning current members means we are basically withering away. people can simply leave but there is emotional baggage from being involved in sensational for a long length of time. like a favourite cafe you keep going back to, even if the new barrista sucks, you put up, and wait for better times to return.

[The Fireman]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

yep

[Dave McNamara]

Thanks for all your work on this Simon... however the option I (we) have asked for isn't there.

[Dave McNamara]

Hi Simon,

You've put a lot of effort into this topic, which (further) confirms that this site means something to you. And come on Simon. Be honest, the posters do too. (Well, some of them. )

So realIy doubt you want to see your Saintsational baby wither and die. All that effort and love (be honest again ) would then become for nothing.

The request. Our request. My request. Please introduce an alternative way to deal with those who won't do "the polite and correct thing by moving to the left".

And that alternative way is simply to introduce cumulative holidays c/f permanent bans. And just like with your drivers' license analogy, also introduce a period after which earlier bans expire from the record.

It would be win/win/win.

Those who won't move from a position on the right are subdued.
Your workload would not be increased.
And most importantly of all, IMHO, this site's valuable history would be retained.

Thanks again for your consideration.

- Dave.




PS: Ok, gotta' admit. I would miss the sweeps that are run as to how long it is before a newbie as confirmed as being a previously banished poster.

[Devilhead]

Could his new nic be Tru Believer

[asiu]

I would miss the sweeps that are run as to how long it is before a newbie as confirmed as being a previously banished poster.

ahhhhh

yes !!!

the good old days


i wonder often how Nexus is surviving
without his ... ummm ... process

[The Fireman]

82% that's the double jab figures....he has a pass.

[BackFromUSA]

Hi Simon,

You've put a lot of effort into this topic, which (further) confirms that this site means something to you. And come on Simon. Be honest, the posters do too. (Well, some of them. )

So realIy doubt you want to see your Saintsational baby wither and die. All that effort and love (be honest again ) would then become for nothing.

The request. Our request. My request. Please introduce an alternative way to deal with those who won't do "the polite and correct thing by moving to the left".

And that alternative way is simply to introduce cumulative holidays c/f permanent bans. And just like with your drivers' license analogy, also introduce a period after which earlier bans expire from the record.

It would be win/win/win.

Those who won't move from a position on the right are subdued.
Your workload would not be increased.
And most importantly of all, IMHO, this site's valuable history would be retained.

Thanks again for your consideration.

- Dave.




PS: Ok, gotta' admit. I would miss the sweeps that are run as to how long it is before a newbie as confirmed as being a previously banished poster.

Even if it were possible in the phpBB admin panel, doo you honestly think that running a spreadsheet on every offending poster in terms of how many bans they have (and how long there next one should be) and a demerit point system (where points evaporateafter a set period of time) is making things easier for me?

Thanks for the suggestion and whilst it has merit, I do not have the time to administer that system and then integrate it into the limited banning options that phpBB offers.

[BackFromUSA]

Could his new nic be Tru Believer

It can be whatever he / she decides - other than True Believer

[BackFromUSA]

82% that's the double jab figures....he has a pass.

looks that way, but I shall allow the full 3 days of the POLL to pass.

Simon

[dragit]

This place is staggering towards a sad death and you’re still power tripping Simon, banning long term posters over posting a political post in the footy section? Gotta be f****** kidding mate.

Pretty sure this place is already cooked, but I vote for...

Option C:
No permanent bans for absurd overreaching technicalities and Simon should hand the keys back to give someone a chance at reviving this rotting corpse.

Beats me why anyone who regards this forum a "rotting corpse" in need of "revival" bothers remaining involved!

Comments such as these only serve to validate Simon's strong stand on maintaining a level of reason and civility of contributions on this forum. As I posted on this subject elsewhere, people should be mindful that it is Simon who has to answer for the conduct of posters on this forum and he is merely following "best practice" guidelines.

Offering True Believer the opportunity to continue participation on Saintsational under a new nic is a reasonable compromise.

I was an active poster here for many years, but this is the exact kind of thing which has led myself and many others to walk away.

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

[perfectionist]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

And therein lies the problem. You have abused people simply because they hold a different opinion to you. When three or four like minded posters gang up and start a flame war, it is nothing short of bullying which is rife on the internet. None of us have any idea how old the person might be or what might be their state of mind. Despite that, some continue to be under the impression that they a right to say whatever they like.

This has been a problem for a succession of moderators and admin. Rules have had to be introduced and/or changed to make the forum something more than a plaything for a few who appear to have little else to do.

When I open this Forum page, the very first Announcement concerns Political Posts Policy, and the policy could not be clearer. This policy was introduced because too much political comment was appearing in this forum. The General Forum is the place for political posts, something I now take advantage of, as do others. The consequences of the Policy weren't ameliorated by whether the post was claimed to be made in jest or otherwise.

Of course, the next step has been to heap criticism on the moderator. I wonder whether people ever read what they write. Apparently, Simon is both someone who rarely posts but is on a power trip.

I actually voted to allow TB to return, something now I am beginning to regret. An apology would have been nice and a statement that he would follow the rules in future. But if you can simply abuse the rules, and everyone else, get banned and come back the next day with a changed nic, then what is the point of the rules? Perhaps the few weeks holiday along the way is enough of a disincentive to behave badly, but I doubt it. A permanent ban must remain the ultimate sanction in some circumstances.

I am always grateful when someone else does the work - and that includes running a forum like this. It should be a harmless forum for us diehards to talk about the Saints. It is possible to disagree with fellow members without abusing them. It is possible to follow the rules without being rendered wordless.

[st.byron]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

And therein lies the problem. You have abused people simply because they hold a different opinion to you. When three or four like minded posters gang up and start a flame war, it is nothing short of bullying which is rife on the internet. None of us have any idea how old the person might be or what might be their state of mind. Despite that, some continue to be under the impression that they a right to say whatever they like.

This has been a problem for a succession of moderators and admin. Rules have had to be introduced and/or changed to make the forum something more than a plaything for a few who appear to have little else to do.

When I open this Forum page, the very first Announcement concerns Political Posts Policy, and the policy could not be clearer. This policy was introduced because too much political comment was appearing in this forum. The General Forum is the place for political posts, something I now take advantage of, as do others. The consequences of the Policy weren't ameliorated by whether the post was claimed to be made in jest or otherwise.

Of course, the next step has been to heap criticism on the moderator. I wonder whether people ever read what they write. Apparently, Simon is both someone who rarely posts but is on a power trip.

I actually voted to allow TB to return, something now I am beginning to regret. An apology would have been nice and a statement that he would follow the rules in future. But if you can simply abuse the rules, and everyone else, get banned and come back the next day with a changed nic, then what is the point of the rules? Perhaps the few weeks holiday along the way is enough of a disincentive to behave badly, but I doubt it. A permanent ban must remain the ultimate sanction in some circumstances.

I am always grateful when someone else does the work - and that includes running a forum like this. It should be a harmless forum for us diehards to talk about the Saints. It is possible to disagree with fellow members without abusing them. It is possible to follow the rules without being rendered wordless.

Great post.

[CQ SAINT]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

And therein lies the problem. You have abused people simply because they hold a different opinion to you. When three or four like minded posters gang up and start a flame war, it is nothing short of bullying which is rife on the internet. None of us have any idea how old the person might be or what might be their state of mind. Despite that, some continue to be under the impression that they a right to say whatever they like.

This has been a problem for a succession of moderators and admin. Rules have had to be introduced and/or changed to make the forum something more than a plaything for a few who appear to have little else to do.

When I open this Forum page, the very first Announcement concerns Political Posts Policy, and the policy could not be clearer. This policy was introduced because too much political comment was appearing in this forum. The General Forum is the place for political posts, something I now take advantage of, as do others. The consequences of the Policy weren't ameliorated by whether the post was claimed to be made in jest or otherwise.

Of course, the next step has been to heap criticism on the moderator. I wonder whether people ever read what they write. Apparently, Simon is both someone who rarely posts but is on a power trip.

I actually voted to allow TB to return, something now I am beginning to regret. An apology would have been nice and a statement that he would follow the rules in future. But if you can simply abuse the rules, and everyone else, get banned and come back the next day with a changed nic, then what is the point of the rules? Perhaps the few weeks holiday along the way is enough of a disincentive to behave badly, but I doubt it. A permanent ban must remain the ultimate sanction in some circumstances.

I am always grateful when someone else does the work - and that includes running a forum like this. It should be a harmless forum for us diehards to talk about the Saints. It is possible to disagree with fellow members without abusing them. It is possible to follow the rules without being rendered wordless.

Great post.

This is a good post. Im not sure how it applies to TB but a good post.

[st.byron]

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

I disagree with a lot of what you've said there Dragit.

When I came on here in 2004 and for many years afterwards the place was a dick swinging competition, pretty much every thread. Abuse - nasty abuse - and bullying was rife. It was horrible. Yep there were more 'characters', more 'entertainment', but a lot more trauma, abuse and discord. What qualifies as 'crossing the line' today wouldn't even have rated a mention some years ago.

The process of letting a poster continue but making them change their Nic arose during the evolution of the site from a cyber warrior free for all into what it is now. It was around 2016. There was clearly a need for the bullying and abuse to stop, but at the same time there was - and speaking from my 3.5 years experience as a mod from 2015 - 2018 - a genuine desire to see the best in people and give them another chance. This was in my experience BFUSA's intention. It had nothing to do with a power trip. "Okay, so and so poster has f***** up again. For the 20th time. What do we do?
A. Slap them on the wrist and let them continue. B. Ban them permanently. C. Give them a chance to start afresh with a different Nic and negotiated conditions/boundaries on participation.

This was also a time when people who were banned were able to just re-register with a new Nic and just carry on as before. It was some time before IP address bans came into use and even then, VPN's rendered them effectively useless if a poster really was intent on coming back on.

Yep I understand that you could see the rules as implementing a personal agenda - but what I ask you is what is the alternative?
How could rules and voluntary moderating be framed differently for an anonymous online forum such as this?
Collective decision making? How else could it happen? And anyone who is in a position to make decisions as an admin or moderator is automatically open to accusations of favouritism and power tripping.

I can also say from my experience as a mod that there is a lot of unseen work that goes on. PM"s, reading posts and discussions with other mods and posters that aren't public take up a good deal of time. I can speak only from my own experience, but I can say that in my time as a mod, from many many PM discussions and emails, I found BFUSA has a genuine intention to make the forum a better place. I didn't find any power tripping or favouritism. It's generally a thankless task, so whilst others might disagree with me, I think BFUSA has done an excellent job in eradicating bullying and abuse.

And I can really understand why he might have come to the place of the rules are the rules and permanent means permanent. There was a hell of a lot of time and energy expended on negotiating and communicating with people who broke the rules and then wanted to argue / justify / complain about it.

He's human. He might make some mistakes, implement some rules or make some decisions that I or others don't agree with, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And I'm curious to know, just when was the site in its' 'former glory' days that you refer to? What years were they? Prior to 2004?

Cheers.

[desertsaint]

gobsmacked that we have five posters pitiful enough to vote to have a longtime poster banned for a topical and harmless joke, picked out on a technicality. small minds, bitter souls. sad.

And therein lies the problem. You have abused people simply because they hold a different opinion to you. When three or four like minded posters gang up and start a flame war, it is nothing short of bullying which is rife on the internet. None of us have any idea how old the person might be or what might be their state of mind. Despite that, some continue to be under the impression that they a right to say whatever they like.

This has been a problem for a succession of moderators and admin. Rules have had to be introduced and/or changed to make the forum something more than a plaything for a few who appear to have little else to do.

When I open this Forum page, the very first Announcement concerns Political Posts Policy, and the policy could not be clearer. This policy was introduced because too much political comment was appearing in this forum. The General Forum is the place for political posts, something I now take advantage of, as do others. The consequences of the Policy weren't ameliorated by whether the post was claimed to be made in jest or otherwise.

Of course, the next step has been to heap criticism on the moderator. I wonder whether people ever read what they write. Apparently, Simon is both someone who rarely posts but is on a power trip.

I actually voted to allow TB to return, something now I am beginning to regret. An apology would have been nice and a statement that he would follow the rules in future. But if you can simply abuse the rules, and everyone else, get banned and come back the next day with a changed nic, then what is the point of the rules? Perhaps the few weeks holiday along the way is enough of a disincentive to behave badly, but I doubt it. A permanent ban must remain the ultimate sanction in some circumstances.

I am always grateful when someone else does the work - and that includes running a forum like this. It should be a harmless forum for us diehards to talk about the Saints. It is possible to disagree with fellow members without abusing them. It is possible to follow the rules without being rendered wordless.

i read you abusing pollies, by name, in the most demeaning ways non-stop mr perfectionist, even hoping for a death by self poisoning in a case quoted earlier.. always of course those who don't share your political views. in other words bullying those posters of a particular political belief through association. you have never shown any consideration of posters who may not share your views, yet according to you, who knows what their state of mind may be? your post is hypocritical in the extreme. you have the right to post your opinion, however onesided and clouded i may consider it to be, it's an online forum. that's what we do.
similarly i simply posted my thoughts on those who would vote to ban someone for something so trvial as a bit of banter. they are completely anonymous and if they are at all hurt by my opinion of them i'm sure they will live through it. in the same way people who read your vitriolic political opinions will live through it. so enough of your pretentious pomposity.

[Ghost Like]

Thank you asiu, I would have missed this.

Cheers

[dragit]

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

I disagree with a lot of what you've said there Dragit.

When I came on here in 2004 and for many years afterwards the place was a dick swinging competition, pretty much every thread. Abuse - nasty abuse - and bullying was rife. It was horrible. Yep there were more 'characters', more 'entertainment', but a lot more trauma, abuse and discord. What qualifies as 'crossing the line' today wouldn't even have rated a mention some years ago.

The process of letting a poster continue but making them change their Nic arose during the evolution of the site from a cyber warrior free for all into what it is now. It was around 2016. There was clearly a need for the bullying and abuse to stop, but at the same time there was - and speaking from my 3.5 years experience as a mod from 2015 - 2018 - a genuine desire to see the best in people and give them another chance. This was in my experience BFUSA's intention. It had nothing to do with a power trip. "Okay, so and so poster has f***** up again. For the 20th time. What do we do?
A. Slap them on the wrist and let them continue. B. Ban them permanently. C. Give them a chance to start afresh with a different Nic and negotiated conditions/boundaries on participation.

This was also a time when people who were banned were able to just re-register with a new Nic and just carry on as before. It was some time before IP address bans came into use and even then, VPN's rendered them effectively useless if a poster really was intent on coming back on.

Yep I understand that you could see the rules as implementing a personal agenda - but what I ask you is what is the alternative?
How could rules and voluntary moderating be framed differently for an anonymous online forum such as this?
Collective decision making? How else could it happen? And anyone who is in a position to make decisions as an admin or moderator is automatically open to accusations of favouritism and power tripping.

I can also say from my experience as a mod that there is a lot of unseen work that goes on. PM"s, reading posts and discussions with other mods and posters that aren't public take up a good deal of time. I can speak only from my own experience, but I can say that in my time as a mod, from many many PM discussions and emails, I found BFUSA has a genuine intention to make the forum a better place. I didn't find any power tripping or favouritism. It's generally a thankless task, so whilst others might disagree with me, I think BFUSA has done an excellent job in eradicating bullying and abuse.

And I can really understand why he might have come to the place of the rules are the rules and permanent means permanent. There was a hell of a lot of time and energy expended on negotiating and communicating with people who broke the rules and then wanted to argue / justify / complain about it.

He's human. He might make some mistakes, implement some rules or make some decisions that I or others don't agree with, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And I'm curious to know, just when was the site in its' 'former glory' days that you refer to? What years were they? Prior to 2004?

Cheers.

I respect your opinion here mate.

Simon may be a ripping bloke with good intentions but that does not necessarily mean that he is the right fit to run this forum unless it's into the ground.

This poll shines a light on the absurdity of the state of things - "The choice between two types of permanent bans" on the back of posting content in the wrong type of thread…

If the aim of the site take over was to revitalize the place, then I reckon we can stick a fork in it, the last game day thread says it all… I can see one or two posters who have joined in the last 3 years, possibly old banned posters who have re-registered anyway.

People vote with their feet and this place is like an old abandoned amusement park, moderated like a kindergarten only the creepiest pedos are protected.

All the best.

[Sanctorum]

This place is staggering towards a sad death and you’re still power tripping Simon, banning long term posters over posting a political post in the footy section? Gotta be f****** kidding mate.

Pretty sure this place is already cooked, but I vote for...

Option C:
No permanent bans for absurd overreaching technicalities and Simon should hand the keys back to give someone a chance at reviving this rotting corpse.

Beats me why anyone who regards this forum a "rotting corpse" in need of "revival" bothers remaining involved!

Comments such as these only serve to validate Simon's strong stand on maintaining a level of reason and civility of contributions on this forum. As I posted on this subject elsewhere, people should be mindful that it is Simon who has to answer for the conduct of posters on this forum and he is merely following "best practice" guidelines.

Offering True Believer the opportunity to continue participation on Saintsational under a new nic is a reasonable compromise.

I was an active poster here for many years, but this is the exact kind of thing which has led myself and many others to walk away.

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

Unlike you dragit I believe Saintsational today is much better today than what it was when I first joined (under a different nic) in 2004, the standard of debate is far more dignified and the quality of opinions expressed has improved.

I have never understood the need for individuals to get all frenzied about things people write and hate the hostility, endless bickering and personal abuse that we used to see so much on this forum.

The reason I participate on SS is that it gives me an outlet to talk about the team that I have followed with passion for more than 60 years with likeminded people, and having lived away from Melbourne since 1958 I'm really grateful that Simon provides me with that facility.

Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470 - 399 BCE) nailed it when he said: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

[dragit]

This place is staggering towards a sad death and you’re still power tripping Simon, banning long term posters over posting a political post in the footy section? Gotta be f****** kidding mate.

Pretty sure this place is already cooked, but I vote for...

Option C:
No permanent bans for absurd overreaching technicalities and Simon should hand the keys back to give someone a chance at reviving this rotting corpse.

Beats me why anyone who regards this forum a "rotting corpse" in need of "revival" bothers remaining involved!

Comments such as these only serve to validate Simon's strong stand on maintaining a level of reason and civility of contributions on this forum. As I posted on this subject elsewhere, people should be mindful that it is Simon who has to answer for the conduct of posters on this forum and he is merely following "best practice" guidelines.

Offering True Believer the opportunity to continue participation on Saintsational under a new nic is a reasonable compromise.

I was an active poster here for many years, but this is the exact kind of thing which has led myself and many others to walk away.

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

Unlike you dragit I believe Saintsational today is much better today than what it was when I first joined (under a different nic) in 2004, the standard of debate is far more dignified and the quality of opinions expressed has improved.

I have never understood the need for individuals to get all frenzied about things people write and hate the hostility, endless bickering and personal abuse that we used to see so much on this forum.

The reason I participate on SS is that it gives me an outlet to talk about the team that I have followed with passion for more than 60 years with likeminded people, and having lived away from Melbourne since 1958 I'm really grateful that Simon provides me with that facility.

Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470 - 399 BCE) nailed it when he said: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

No worries at all, enjoy.

If you enjoy saints chatter, take a look at bigfootballer sometime… it's like saintsational but with more that 15 people and no personal agenda behind the moderation.

AFL general thread 2021
SS - 63 replies
BF - 8,000 replies

Trade thread 2021
SS - 199 replies
BF - 13,000 replies

[BackFromUSA]

This place is staggering towards a sad death and you’re still power tripping Simon, banning long term posters over posting a political post in the footy section? Gotta be f****** kidding mate.

Pretty sure this place is already cooked, but I vote for...

Option C:
No permanent bans for absurd overreaching technicalities and Simon should hand the keys back to give someone a chance at reviving this rotting corpse.

Beats me why anyone who regards this forum a "rotting corpse" in need of "revival" bothers remaining involved!

Comments such as these only serve to validate Simon's strong stand on maintaining a level of reason and civility of contributions on this forum. As I posted on this subject elsewhere, people should be mindful that it is Simon who has to answer for the conduct of posters on this forum and he is merely following "best practice" guidelines.

Offering True Believer the opportunity to continue participation on Saintsational under a new nic is a reasonable compromise.

I was an active poster here for many years, but this is the exact kind of thing which has led myself and many others to walk away.

You may be unaware of the process which led us here, but Simon isn't merely following 'best practice' the bloke took over, wrote and enacted his own set of rules based on his personal values, why is he moderating on rules that no-one even asked him to write in the first place?

What is the point in letting a poster continue but making them change their username, an absolute pointless powertrip.

Between implementing a personal agenda and protecting trolls and serial sooks the forum is a shadow of it's former glory.

I only popped in to throw some support behind another long time and highly valued poster who is being subjected to a ridiculous set of rules no-one asked for.

I won't be involved regularly while the place is held hostage.

Simon barely posts here so whats the vested interest? Hand it back mate, enough's enough.

Unlike you dragit I believe Saintsational today is much better today than what it was when I first joined (under a different nic) in 2004, the standard of debate is far more dignified and the quality of opinions expressed has improved.

I have never understood the need for individuals to get all frenzied about things people write and hate the hostility, endless bickering and personal abuse that we used to see so much on this forum.

The reason I participate on SS is that it gives me an outlet to talk about the team that I have followed with passion for more than 60 years with likeminded people, and having lived away from Melbourne since 1958 I'm really grateful that Simon provides me with that facility.

Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470 - 399 BCE) nailed it when he said: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

No worries at all, enjoy.

If you enjoy saints chatter, take a look at bigfootballer sometime… it's like saintsational but with more that 15 people and no personal agenda behind the moderation.

AFL general thread 2021
SS - 63 replies
BF - 8,000 replies

Trade thread 2021
SS - 199 replies
BF - 13,000 replies

I have stated many times that I am happy for people to go to bigfooty or facebook. This is not a business here.

If you all want to leave then please go and I shall shut down the site. Will save me lots of time and money.

And as for my personal agenda ... the only agenda I have is to administer a footy discussion site with civility as a core principle.

I would love to know what you think my personal agenda is!

[saynta]

Mote than happy to continue to post on SS. Hate big footy. Always have and have not even visited there for 5 years or more.

Why would you want to when most of the nasties have left here for there.

Keep up the good fight BFUSA and don't let the bed bugs get to you.

[kosifantutti]

If you enjoy saints chatter, take a look at bigfootballer sometime… it's like saintsational but with more that 15 people and no personal agenda behind the moderation.

AFL general thread 2021
SS - 63 replies
BF - 8,000 replies

Trade thread 2021
SS - 199 replies
BF - 13,000 replies

A little disingenuous.
I post on both sites and I have no doubt that there are more posts on BigFooty but they tend to be grouped in to large threads.

In the last week by my count there have been 48 active threads on Saintsational and only 20 on BigFooty. Don't you guys care about Roma's kicking or Jack Steele winning the most courageous award?