Summer Holidays

[onwardsupwards]

Seeems some are more keen than others for a summer holiday. Eh Paul?

[ph]

Seeems some are more keen than others for a summer holiday. Eh Paul?

what do you mean?

[onwardsupwards]

Seeems some are more keen than others for a summer holiday. Eh Paul?

what do you mean?

You obviously havn't checked your latest anti ***** ******** rant in "Near Misses" CDAA forum

[JD]

Mmmmm, What did you say Harvs?

JD

[ph]

no individuals were named I was merely telling the story of a near miss in the thread it was relavant

[Shit_Stirrer]

It really is a matter of "Who You Are" and nothing more.... Have you read "Hotel Tank" ?
Shit I got my first warning and then my post removed for calling Freddy & Darren "Soft Boys" in a post a few months ago LOL  

It will be quiet without you Paul !  

[ph]

It really is a matter of "Who You Are" and nothing more.... Have you read "Hotel Tank" ?
Shit I got my first warning and then my post removed for calling Freddy & Darren "Soft Boys" in a post a few months ago LOL  

It will be quiet without you Paul !  

I cant see where there is a breach of the rules!!!!!

the story was fact , it happened at A CDAA santioned/controlled site...whats the problem

[Shit_Stirrer]

Then get up the mod.... you have nothing to lose by the sounds of it.... they are out to get you again !
Do the post again... but this time tell em to leave it alone !

[JD]

Tell us here Harvs, very little in the way of moderation, and we try not to ban people for hanging shit on each other. We can even say arse (or ass for that matter) and not get blanked out or ****'d. Dont say *NON-GOOEY-DIVER* though...!

JD

[Craig]

Were you advised which of the many forum rules you infringed on this occasion? One presumes you were notified that you were in breach "rule xxx" or whatever?

On the assumption that the info you posted to this forum is identical to that which was removed from the CDAA forum, and that it is correct, it clearly doesn't identify any party involved.

Personal Attack hmm, can one personally attack another without identifying that person?
Language nope
Trolling maybe, given the broad nature of the rule. Inciting controversy - unlikely as hard to be controversial when no-one's ID'd IMO; inciting conflict? between whom & how? again with no-one ID'd; annoyance - well, some could find it annoying that you post anything at all but, I mean toughen up princess "I'm annoyed at that user's post, please ban them from annoying me again"; cause offence - presuming the info posted is accurate I'd find it hard to accept that whomever was involved could claim to be offended merely because someone else made mention of it. If it is incorrect and merely a rumour then I could accept those involved could be offended at the continued propagation of said rumour
Inappropriate - based on the rule definition can't see it. However the Mod can decide that it's inappropriate. IMO crapping on about Axolotls is inappropriate babble
For Sale/Wanted - nope
Self-promo - nope
Spamming - nope
Defamation - bit hard to do without ID'ing those involved. In any case it's not applicable if it is a truth.
Moderation Complaint - nope. Gee, it does seem the Mod's can't handle public criticism don't you think?
Cross Posting - nope.

So basically you might have annoyed someone. IMO there's nothing wrong with a bit of a dig here & there provided no-one goes overboard and no doubt to most of the users it would go straight over their heads unless they happen to know those involved. Anyway, if it is true it's a result of their own actions. I'm sure in hindsight people regret some actions they take & decisions they make but they really do have to live with the consequences. I mean, seriously, harden the fuck up.

It's no wonder that forum is really not used to it's full potential as, gee, a bit of a dig at someone who's feeling a bit delicate could get you banned. I think the Mod's really need to step back & assess things objectively. Unless of course the true story was about a Mod then you should be banned for life  

Anyway that's my two cents worth.

C

[Shit_Stirrer]

It's the (***** ********)  that got him booted. The *'s stood for "total fuckwits" so they will have used the Language and Personal Attack ruling. It's the same as they used on me when I called Freddy & Darren "Soft ****". The mod said I meant "Soft Cocks" and used the same ruling "Language and Personal Attacks". I said to the mod.... It's a shame that you wasn't there helping the cleanup of Hells Hole... You would have heard me calling them "Soft Boys" all day. I still say it's WHO you are and it has nothing to do with the rules.

CDDA forum rules...
There is no grey area in what is a personal attack – it is when a negative statement is directed towards another person.
AND
Intentionally trying to bypass the swear filter is considered a breach of the foul language rule (eg. removing a letter from a swear word and replacing it with an * or some other letter or symbol to retain contextual understanding).

Calling members "***** ********" = "Total Fuckwits" is a negative statement and intentionally trying to bypass the swear filter.
The person that Paul was talking about maybe sent in a email saying that he was the person that Paul was talking about and he feels hurt and upset that Paul brought the matter up again. Hence the banning.

Paul you should be ashamed of yourself !  

[onwardsupwards]

It's the (***** ********)  that got him booted. The *'s stood for "total fuckwits" so they will have used the Language and Personal Attack ruling. It's the same as they used on me when I called Freddy & Darren "Soft ****". The mod said I meant "Soft Cocks" and used the same ruling "Language and Personal Attacks". I said to the mod.... It's a shame that you wasn't there helping the cleanup of Hells Hole... You would have heard me calling them "Soft Boys" all day. I still say it's WHO you are and it has nothing to do with the rules.

CDDA forum rules...
There is no grey area in what is a personal attack – it is when a negative statement is directed towards another person.
AND
Intentionally trying to bypass the swear filter is considered a breach of the foul language rule (eg. removing a letter from a swear word and replacing it with an * or some other letter or symbol to retain contextual understanding).

Calling members "***** ********" = "Total Fuckwits" is a negative statement and intentionally trying to bypass the swear filter.
The person that Paul was talking about maybe sent in a email saying that he was the person that Paul was talking about and he feels hurt and upset that Paul brought the matter up again. Hence the banning.

Paul you should be ashamed of yourself !  

I didn't take ***** ******** to mean total fuckwits, I took it as identifying the person involved based on my knowledge of the alleged incident, as Paul described it.
This would then constitute a personal attack. Either or, he's screwed 

[Craig]

I agree with Rick. But if Harvs if you did actually post "total fuckwits" then no surprise you're on holiday.
Might I add that if one is going to 'quote' what was once posted elsewhere sanitising said post now changes the context & renders responses largely irrelevant.

[JD]

**********

If the mods read the above word (or non word as the case may be) and determined that I was implying a rude word, I get banned? That is fucking fucked. Fuck them and the fucking fucked up fucking forum.

There, see you guys in 12 months!

JD

[Shit_Stirrer]

Hells Bells Paul,

Is that what you really think or are you just ******* on ? LOL