Should we let these two back on? Let's take a vote

First topic message reminder :

So we've got two users who've recently petitioned to be unbanned.

Both of them irritate the hell out of me and I'd just as soon not let them back.

But in the interest of making myself look like I'm fair and not an iron-fisted dictator (I actually am), I thought we'd put this decision to the people.

It's totally fair - Scrat from the left, HF from the right - so no bitching about that.

The rule is, each of the four options must receive at least five votes in favor.

So do your NF civic duty and vote! (No "I voted" stickers for anyone, sadly.)

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:I think everyone should calm down.

I dont see how letting two people post - and please bare in mind that scrat was more awful to me than most - is the end of the world?

If they misbehave then they’re gone.

Simple.

Is that not fair?

Absolutely fair, people are acting like we'd never had them here before.

If they step out of line, they're gone again.

If we only let people here that we like personally, then we're just a dumb little internet club.

So you gained two people and in the process lost 4-5 people

All the best, if Lord Foul is not going to be here, than neither will I

Wishing everyone all the best

Nobody's really flounced though have they?

I think it's fair enough to see what happens. The trouble with this kind of thread is that things are said which could be hurtful, and I don't like to see that - even if those things are aimed at Scrat.

It could be interesting to see if Scrat repeated some of the views he had on Sassy's forum actually.

eddie wrote:Scrat used to call me a whore. He was vile about me, extremely vile.

They would both have to behave...Ben will be waiting for any excuse to kick scrat out particularly.

But I wouldn’t lose Les or Vic over it.  

How many times do people threaten to leave, do it, then come back again.

I should point out that when HF got banned most of the posters here were against the ban as he didn't do anything wrong and , vic even opened his forum up and we both joined there it was fine , so i don't know why it would change now .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I should point out that when HF got banned most of the posters here were against the ban as he didn't do anything wrong and , vic even opened his forum up and we both joined there it was fine , so i don't know why it would change now .

That is true.

I don't think Vic has a problem with HF though, does he?

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Vic has a problem with HF though, does he?

He never did when we both joined his forum unless he's changed his mind or maybe forgotten I don't now .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Vic has a problem with HF though, does he?

He never did when we both joined his forum unless he's changed his mind or maybe forgotten I don't now .

He wasn't very positive about HF, but he's flounced because of Scrat being unbanned. I'm sure he'll be back anyway.

Vic won't be far away. Even if Scrat doesn't post, I am sure he monitors every post I make least I transgress .
Which is actually a pretty sad thing to do.

This is more controversial than the brexit vote was.

If any one of them makes trouble by breaking the rules or being overly abusive, they’re gone. Let’s make that clear.

The same goes for us all, really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

He never did when we both joined his forum unless he's changed his mind or maybe forgotten I don't now .

He wasn't very positive about HF, but he's flounced because of Scrat being unbanned. I'm sure he'll be back anyway.

That was a very nice way of putting it lol, so has vic gone and I thought he was a moderator ?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

He never did when we both joined his forum unless he's changed his mind or maybe forgotten I don't now .

He wasn't very positive about HF, but he's flounced because of Scrat being unbanned. I'm sure he'll be back anyway.

There's a considerable difference between "flouncing" and severing ties with a forum on a strong point of principle, Raggs.

I, too, would have left. I could not have shared a platform with him; I would have refused to read what he posted and I would not even want to see his name.

After weeks of being literally stalked from thread to thread in another forum and taunted by sick, obsene "jokes" about my dead police officer brother, culminating in a repeated accusation that he was one of the officers who were under disciplinary investigation after the Hillsborough disaster (he wasn't, his specialist role was in helping bereaved families through the awful procedure of identification and dealing with the necessary legal procedures, for which he was both decorated and suffered years of severe psychological problems because of the trauma of seeing so many dead bodies including many children) my decision may, perhaps be better appreciated.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He wasn't very positive about HF, but he's flounced because of Scrat being unbanned. I'm sure he'll be back anyway.

There's a considerable difference between "flouncing" and severing ties with a forum on a strong point of principle, Raggs.

I, too, would have left. I could not have shared a platform with him; I would have refused to read what he posted and I would not even want to see his name.

After weeks of being literally stalked from thread to thread in another forum and taunted by sick, obsene "jokes" about my dead police officer brother, culminating in a repeated accusation that he was one of the officers who were under disciplinary investigation after the Hillsborough disaster (he wasn't, his specialist role was in helping bereaved families through the awful procedure of identification and dealing with the necessary legal procedures, for which he was both decorated and suffered years of severe psychological problems because of the trauma of seeing so many dead bodies including many children) my decision may, perhaps be better appreciated.  

I remember you saying something like this before Fred, who could blame you and others for not wanting to post alongside scum.
I cant remember this scrat character, if I had known he had caused so much ill feeling amongst so many I wouldn't have voted to let him back on...so I'm sorry if my vote contributed to the controversy.

I had no problem with HF... And don't think he should have been banned at all..


Scrat used to be light entertainment with his ranting and raving and it was often fun to poke him with a stick and watch him getting twisted up in the contradiction of his own arguments... however he went from bad to worse and started to become a complete nut case and highly insulting and abusive to other posters, which went on for quite some time before he was eventually banned, and quite rightly banned too!!!

Why did they have to come as a job lot anyway?
From what I could gather scrat was just a cruel and nasty poster not worth giving house room to, HF has controversial and outdated views on certain subjects.....chalk and cheese imo

I agree with a post Didge made this morning....state your views and beliefs generally, dont make them personal..

Yes... should be a separate vote for each proposal... and held in a hidden section...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

He never did when we both joined his forum unless he's changed his mind or maybe forgotten I don't now .

He wasn't very positive about HF, but he's flounced because of Scrat being unbanned. I'm sure he'll be back anyway.

There's a considerable difference between "flouncing" and severing ties with a forum on a strong point of principle, Raggs.

I, too, would have left. I could not have shared a platform with him; I would have refused to read what he posted and I would not even want to see his name.

After weeks of being literally stalked from thread to thread in another forum and taunted by sick, obsene "jokes" about my dead police officer brother, culminating in a repeated accusation that he was one of the officers who were under disciplinary investigation after the Hillsborough disaster (he wasn't, his specialist role was in helping bereaved families through the awful procedure of identification and dealing with the necessary legal procedures, for which he was both decorated and suffered years of severe psychological problems because of the trauma of seeing so many dead bodies including many children) my decision may, perhaps be better appreciated.  

Thoroughly agree with your point on principles here Lord Ed, and it was largely my own reasons too.

Both posters had form where using dead relatives was concerned.

To those lamenting HF as if he were a saint, I'll remind you he is no longer banned. If he chooses to leave anyway that's his choice.

I reckon this thread has served its purpose so I’m locking it.


LOCKED