"Banned on the Green Board"
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
- Status
CS Martin said:
Oh that's just too funny! By their explanation, they don't bother addressing the complaints that someone may have, just ban the member and remove the post. And it only took what...three months to address it. Not bad.
I love the description of Athana's ban. It took what? Two mods and the board owner to make a decision not to ban the Elf who contributes nothing really. Other than the numerous handles he uses. Even his 'reviews' are probably a figment of his imagination and he's probably one of the main reasons they have no advertisers. Instead they ban one of the few advertisers and identifiable posters they do have left. Good move, guys.
Dee said:
Gimme a hug you big bear, you!
Techman
Techman said:Oh that's just too funny! By their explanation, they don't bother addressing the complaints that someone may have, just ban the member and remove the post. And it only took what...three months to address it. Not bad.
Gimme a hug you big bear, you!
Techman
Thanks bud....
I was feeling guilty for not knowing you were banned but I'm pleased to now learn that it was only 3- months ago rather then the 6 months previuosly stated. I'm also happy that you can't be too wounded by it as you first posted: "You can take this as my last post here. Ban me, delete this post, retire my handle, do whatever you want."
I care about you. A credit to you is the high praise you receive even from those who ban you. It is a true compliment to be praised by those who you, uhm, don't see eye to eye with.
Dee said:
Ummmm, eye to eye with a smurf mod? Sorry, I can't bend down that low.
I knew Tom would ban me. I put that in my post to prove a point that they will remove criticism and ban people with out any notice being posted. Even a senior poster. I proved that their so called openness and freedom is nothing but talk and that they can't back it up with their actions. If it wasn't for this little dust up, my ban would have never been mentioned over there at all.
They don't have a banned members list so we don't know who has been banned or for what reason. They claim they don't have a no review policy, or edit reviews, but can they be believed? I don't see too many bad reviews over there, or reviews of any kind for that matter. Maybe they edit or remove them? Anything is possible isn't it?
Anyways, enough about blue talk. It's too depressing. I'll make a deal with all the smurfs...don't talk about us and I won't care what you do over there. Try making your own way and stop depending on creating green controversy to drive your traffic up. Or is it too much of a challenge?
Techman
Techman said:
Techman,
I agree. This thread has said about all it needs to say. The Mods here have given us quite a bit of latitude with respect to the rules (Thanks Mods
). But, a lot has been brewing that needed to be said. On with the business at hand and each board should create their own exclusive content.Ok. I deleted the post entirely. I was answering to your post in the beginning of this thread as if you read the original thread from where all this fiasco began I did make a query with the ladies name but I was not making any accusations. I did not realize that this is such a sensitive topic with some of you so please accept my apologies.
cloudsurf said:
Regular Guy said:
Hello Regular Guy,
It is amazing how some in "Blueland" not only want to control the type of posts that are made there, but also want to get rid of any member that doesn't think the same. The senior member you refer to over there has described how he tried to create his own board and failed. He also created a poll hoping members would vote to support more a more salacious type of post versus more philosophical posts, and that too is currently failing. Now he is proposing that members with no reviews ( I actually posted several under my first name there) should be kicked out, and he and others are trying to silence those like you who don't share the frivolous nature of the dominant clique despite the commendable new effort of Tom and the mods to make the board more friendly and attractive to more members, and to even directly invite those like you (RG) who has the kind of character of respect and integrity Tom seems to want for his board. But the signals are confusing. What does the Blueboard want? What is it saying when some members there can freely make posts attempting to silence members they don't like, and concoct various strategies for getting rid of them???
As TM on the Blueboard I have been staying away from the bickering recently. It never ends, it's foolish, and it's nonsense. Yet despite your (RG) very gentlemanly ways of posting and my staying away, we are pursued; you because you don't fit in with the frivolous clique, and me because staying out of the bickering isn't good enough. Laughably there was even a post suggesting a "quiet" member was pulling GGs strings to get him into trouble. Another member seemed attack Merb's integrity by suggested a very senior and most highly regarded member here had been banned for nothing. They talk about the freedom to post in their way, but what they really mean about being free is to be free of those they don't like. Then even when members leave permanently or are banned, the old feuds go on and the departed members are still pursued. So after all, this isn't about real freedom, it's about total control and the freedom to do anything a frivolously oriented and spiteful clique enjoys without opposition.
I thought the new direction Tom seemed to want was very positive, and some members long given up on "Blueland" were starting to take notice privately; waiting to see how the new policy would be carried out. As a former "Committee" member this was some of the policy Techman and I had generally supported. It has seemed to have gotten better there since then. But now with the "Banned on the Greenboard" thread all the problems that remain have been exposed. What are the highly respected senior members that Tom seems to want back to think when: the clique wants to censor those who don't share their views, ban members who don't measure up to their ways, and pursue old feuds just for fun.
Allowing Benson or anyone to start that thread has deepened the separation between hobbyists and boards. It has shown the advertisers the antipathy and resentments between members of both boards, as well as possibly force the money men/women to choose where to invest. And when one board has a clique whose members want to greatly limit membership to their own kind, and get rid of the larger number of current and possible future posters, Benson's thread could end up forcing the money to make a choice that won't be good for one board. And, I don't think members should be banned, but when all this clique can do is pursue feuds, censor opinions, and try to eliminate members the signals are not going to attract back those the new policy seeks.
It's two bad there can't be two successful boards with different character we can enjoy without the feuding.
CASE IN POINT: A promise has just been made by a clique member banned here to enter again with a new handle to stir crap. Guess who?
Good luck,
Merlot
Last edited:
Merlot said:Hello Regular,
It is amazing how some in "Blueland" not only want to control the type of posts that are made there, but also want to get rid of any member that doesn't think the same. The senior member you refer to over there has described how he tried to create his own board and failed. He also created a poll hoping members would vote to support more a more salacious type of post versus more philosophical posts, and that too is currently failing. Now he is proposing that members with no reviews ( I actually posted several under my first name there) should be kicked out, and he and others are trying to silence those like you who don't share the frivolous nature of the dominant clique despite the commendable new effort of Tom and the mods to make the board more friendly and attractive to more members, and to even directly invite those like you (RG) who has the kind of character of respect and integrity Tom seems to want for his board. But the signals are confusing. What does the Blueboard want? What is it saying when some members there can freely make posts attempting to silence members they don't like, and concoct various strategies for getting rid of them???
As TM on the Blueboard I have been staying away from the bickering recently. It never ends, it's foolish, and it's nonsense. Yet despite your (RG) very gentlemanly ways of posting and my staying away, we are pursued; you because you don't fit in with the frivolous clique, and me because staying out of the bickering isn't good enough. Laughably there was even a post suggesting a "quiet" member was pulling GGs strings to get him into trouble. Another member seemed attack Merb's integrity by suggested a very senior and most highly regarded member here had been banned for nothing. They talk about the freedom to post in their way, but what they really mean about being free is to be free of those they don't like. Then even when members leave permanently or are banned, the old feuds go on and the departed members are still pursued. So after all, this isn't about real freedom, it's about total control and the freedom to do anything a frivolously oriented and spiteful clique enjoys without opposition.
I thought the new direction Tom seemed to want was very positive, and some members long given up on "Blueland" were starting to take notice privately; waiting to see how the new policy would be carried out. As a former "Committee" member this was some of the policy Techman and I had generally supported. It has seemed to have gotten better there since then. But now with the "Banned on the Greenboard" thread all the problems that remain have been exposed. What are the highly respected senior members that Tom seems to want back to think when: the clique wants to censor those who don't share their views, ban members who don't measure up to their ways, and pursue old feuds just for fun.
Allowing Benson or anyone to start that thread has deepened the separation between hobbyists and boards. It has shown the advertisers the antipathy and resentments between members of both boards, as well as possibly force the money men/women to choose where to invest. And when one board has a clique whose members want to greatly limit membership to their own kind, and get rid of the larger number of current and possible future posters, Benson's thread could end up forcing the money to make a choice that won't be good for one board. And, I don't think members should be banned, but when all this clique can do is pursue feuds, censor opinions, and try to eliminate members the signals are not going to attract back those the new policy seeks.
It's two bad there can't be two successful boards with different character we can enjoy without the feuding.
CASE IN POINT: A promise has just been made by a clique member banned banned here to enter again with a new handle to stir crap. Guess who?
Good luck,
Merlot
Having worked with Tom and the other Moderators on that board as Moderator 8, my opinion is TOM IS THE PROBLEM!! Tom is sole reason I quit as moderator. My opinion is he treats the moderators in a shameful way. I could take it no more when he flat out reversed one of Mod 5's decisions. I was just embarrassed for him. I told Tom to "pound sand" and he really never got over it.
Tony had voluntarily given me access to his e-mail account. Right after "the Committee" banned Tony & GG, I witnessed Tom & Tony discussing Tony's return to the board within days. What a laugh. Note to Moderator: Yes, I can support this.
Last edited:
CS Martin said:
Hello CS,
I am not going after Tom at all. It's just my opinion that the new philosophy the Blue Board seems to want would work much better without the negative effects of allowing posts promoting cross-board feuding. And I think more members would join and come back if they didn't face a clique that keeps trying to stifle differing styles and views.
By the way, I thought this thread was also just as bad of an idea, except that Benson created the situation that made some response necessary to answer his accusations.
Cheers,
Merlot
Hello everyone,Merlot said:CASE IN POINT: A promise has just been made by a clique member banned banned here to enter again with a new handle to stir crap. Guess who?
This new handle has already been banned.
We have allowed this thread to continue so that MERB members could blow off some steam and make their opinions known and we have permitted great leeway in the posts which have been made. If anyone has anything to add to the discussion, I suggest you do it quickly as this thread will be closed later today. There is no reason to allow MERB to fall into a pattern where discussions are focused on boards other than MERB.
Thank you,
Mod 8
EDIT: To give people a timeframe to get any last thoughts in, this thread will close at 11 PM.
Last edited:
Hello all,
Way back when many many members happily crossed back and forth between two boards. Each had different but positive qualities members could enjoy according to their current interests of the moment. I and all of us enjoyed that and were very happy to have two choices. But because of bad behavior and the failure to take responsibility for one's own actions resentful people are obsessed with feuding and have divided and alienated many of the two formerly mutually cooperative memberships from each other. The call by one Blueland member to "ban all green members" and allusions of violence with an "aluminum"..."ding" are perfect evidence of the problem...some really enjoy being resentful, bitter, and keeping members on both boards alienated and separate. It's too bad. If not for the feuding of a few both boards could freely share many more members again. It's a damn shame a few are doing whatever they can to prevent it. And, no matter what his original intentions were, or how legitimate his complaints, Benson's failure to keep his issues with Merb on Merb has made it all a little worse.
no cheers,
Merlot
Way back when many many members happily crossed back and forth between two boards. Each had different but positive qualities members could enjoy according to their current interests of the moment. I and all of us enjoyed that and were very happy to have two choices. But because of bad behavior and the failure to take responsibility for one's own actions resentful people are obsessed with feuding and have divided and alienated many of the two formerly mutually cooperative memberships from each other. The call by one Blueland member to "ban all green members" and allusions of violence with an "aluminum"..."ding" are perfect evidence of the problem...some really enjoy being resentful, bitter, and keeping members on both boards alienated and separate. It's too bad. If not for the feuding of a few both boards could freely share many more members again. It's a damn shame a few are doing whatever they can to prevent it. And, no matter what his original intentions were, or how legitimate his complaints, Benson's failure to keep his issues with Merb on Merb has made it all a little worse.
no cheers,
Merlot
Last edited:
Final thoughts.....
I still fail to see why Montreal needs two boards. Until someone comes up with a valid reason to support two boards, my feeling is....ONE BOARD'S MORE THAN ENOUGH.
I still fail to see why Montreal needs two boards. Until someone comes up with a valid reason to support two boards, my feeling is....ONE BOARD'S MORE THAN ENOUGH.
Hey! What happened to Bunson's post? Did he pull the old post and delete trick again? Figures.
Merlot, I saw Tony's post threatening violence against MERB members who go to a GT. I am considering filing a formal complaint with the proper authorities regarding Internet threats if Tom doesn't take the proper action and remove the post and ban the poster. I am one of the people who enjoy our GTs and if that jackass thinks he can intimidate me all he has to do is show up. He better bring some friends.
That's a great show of class from that board and it reflects on every poster over there. Especially since not one person or moderator over there has distanced themselves from the post.
Techman
Merlot, I saw Tony's post threatening violence against MERB members who go to a GT. I am considering filing a formal complaint with the proper authorities regarding Internet threats if Tom doesn't take the proper action and remove the post and ban the poster. I am one of the people who enjoy our GTs and if that jackass thinks he can intimidate me all he has to do is show up. He better bring some friends.
That's a great show of class from that board and it reflects on every poster over there. Especially since not one person or moderator over there has distanced themselves from the post.
Techman
Macho Posturing
All part of the macho posturing that is part of all boards. Remember certain members doing the same about the unsubstantiated story of cellphone photos taken of the ladies at GTs. Threatening to break the cellphone and perform acts of bodily harm on the owner. Pot and kettle.
Techman said:Merlot, I saw Tony's post threatening violence against MERB members who go to a GT. I am considering filing a formal complaint with the proper authorities regarding Internet threats if Tom doesn't take the proper action and remove the post and ban the poster. I am one of the people who enjoy our GTs and if that jackass thinks he can intimidate me all he has to do is show up. He better bring some friends.
Techman
All part of the macho posturing that is part of all boards. Remember certain members doing the same about the unsubstantiated story of cellphone photos taken of the ladies at GTs. Threatening to break the cellphone and perform acts of bodily harm on the owner. Pot and kettle.
Sorry EE,but I don't consider defending one's privacy to be the equivalent to threatening to beat people with baseball bats for absolutely no reason. Macho posturing or not, he made a direct outright threat against MERB GT goers. Anyone who can but does not speak out against his post over there simply paints themselves with the same brush. And yes, I include you in this. If you don't speak out against him, then you support him and that makes you just as bad. It also negates whatever respect I used to have for you.
I expected better.
Techman
I expected better.
Techman
Accuracy...............
The white knights were not defending THEIR or another's privacy, they were replying to an unsubstantiated allegation that such cellphone photos HAD BEEN taken of SPs at GTs.
Sometimes silence is the strongest statement that may be made.
You are grossly misrepresenting the post in question. At not time is MERB referred to in the post or are MERB members singled-out. No direct outright threat as you specify.You are the one making the link to MERB so you either never read it, cannot read with understanding or have your own issues and demons that you see everywhere.
Basically the post is about why he does not go to GTs and the reference is within that context. Staying away from GTs, behind a keyboard does not constitute a threat. Worked in bars long enough to be able to differentiate between posturing, someone wanting to save face and the doers.
The post in question stands on its own merits and speaks for all the parties involved.
.
Techman said:
The white knights were not defending THEIR or another's privacy, they were replying to an unsubstantiated allegation that such cellphone photos HAD BEEN taken of SPs at GTs.
Sometimes silence is the strongest statement that may be made.
You are grossly misrepresenting the post in question. At not time is MERB referred to in the post or are MERB members singled-out. No direct outright threat as you specify.You are the one making the link to MERB so you either never read it, cannot read with understanding or have your own issues and demons that you see everywhere.
Basically the post is about why he does not go to GTs and the reference is within that context. Staying away from GTs, behind a keyboard does not constitute a threat. Worked in bars long enough to be able to differentiate between posturing, someone wanting to save face and the doers.
The post in question stands on its own merits and speaks for all the parties involved.
.
EE, Tony doesn't go to GTs because he knows he is not wanted there. I'm very aware that he doesn't have the guts to actually do anything that he posts about. The vast majority of his posts are fantasies from his warped mind anyways.
And I'm sorry but saying that 'they will experience the difference between wood and aluminum' depending on which body part he hits with the bat, is a veiled threat, however weak like most of his posts.
But that post shows the overwhelming character of the posters over there as well as the administration of the board by not removing it. And to be honest, none of them are welcome at any MERB GT.
Go right ahead and defend your 'friend'. But ask yourself...is he worth the trouble?
Techman
And I'm sorry but saying that 'they will experience the difference between wood and aluminum' depending on which body part he hits with the bat, is a veiled threat, however weak like most of his posts.
But that post shows the overwhelming character of the posters over there as well as the administration of the board by not removing it. And to be honest, none of them are welcome at any MERB GT.
Go right ahead and defend your 'friend'. But ask yourself...is he worth the trouble?
Techman
I love FHB/Sotnikov/mod?/whoever's post over there comparing their board to the fight for freedom and free speach in Iran. It's actually quite fitting except for the fact that the board over there is actually run by the Ayatollah himself. So much for freedom.
Well, I'm out of this thread. We're starting to behave like smurfs ourselves by commenting on their posts and that is way beneath us here. Let them say what they want about us over there. Who really gives a damn? No one's reading it anyways.
Techman
Well, I'm out of this thread. We're starting to behave like smurfs ourselves by commenting on their posts and that is way beneath us here. Let them say what they want about us over there. Who really gives a damn? No one's reading it anyways.
Techman
- Status
Similar threads
