right guys, i'm off on one again. i do apologise... stu has been banned... and what for... defending himself... the same reason i got banned last week. i'm sure by now you have read the post that the lad from america put up about stuart.. yeah, the lad from the US had a point, and maybe he did get ripped off, but at the end of the day, the SCOOBYNET KEYBOARD WARRIOR ASSOCIATION pounced on stuart like a set of tigers... this has to stop... yeah, i put alot of imput in, in defending stu, not because of the trabsfer of goods, but because he was gettin slated to death and no one backed him up. as we know, stu is a good lad, and he deserves better than this.. is there anyway we can get him un-banned??

here is the post

https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...uart148-6.html

andy no 4

 

i'm banned again..... and for what.... defending someone else this time... and no rich, i did not troll or say things out of turn, just helping a mate out...

ALAN C.. is there an appeal process for been banned.. it says am banned for being a pain...

people really dont like you to stick up for your mates do they??

 

I think this infraction system is far too easy to abuse. Why should people be banned for trying to defend themselves or thier mate. Its become a witch hunt. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, that is the law.
Fair enough if its racist or sexist comments, but most are not.

 

like i said flix, ists the same old people who dont like people opposing them. yeah, first time round i did troll the page, but not this time. i saw a mate is trouble, and i had to help, anyone would help a mate... read the thread and you will see what i mean.

 

I have read it and I totally agree with you.
It should have been left to the two members to sort it out. I suppose I'll get in trouble when this is read. Not to worry eh.

 

Cheers FLIX

 

***** to it flix.. the scoobynet keyboard warriors dont troll our pages... its typical tho of people jumping in, and sticking their nose in when it aint nowt to do with em... if the yank has a genuine problem with stu, he sould have sent him a PM, not announce it to the world... but we all know what yanks are like... there brains are made out of the same stuff that mcdonalds burgers are!

 

Stuart at his very best

I have to say though it does stink like a which hunt, all the usual trolls and infractors out in force.

You cant condone the wording of Stuarts response, however that is just Stu.

It never takes long for certain SN members to pounce on people without any or indeed all the facts that are required in this particular instance. (fact)

If they new the whole transaction details, I beleive the some of the reponses would be different or even simply would have abstained from posting.

we all know stuart so we see past the language and how he comes accross, unfortunately 99.9% of the reply's to that thread do not.

Stuart did not have to explain himself and offer up the truth or actions he took, if he did and put it down in a less aggressive way this possibly would of gone down better, Stu is Stu and so glad he his.

never mind gone today here next week

 

Just read through the whole post. A few comments;

I'd agree with Mick that the usual suspects are out and about and not helping the situation. It seemed to me that the logical outcome regarding the price (which really has nothing to do with these people how much was charged) was in Stu's favour overall; but his responses were the ones that riled the majority. Mick rightly points out that this is Stu who, as we all know, calls a spade an spade and is the way he is... some are OK with it, some not. But as the vast majority don't know him, then they're guilty of simply jumping to conclusions based on scarce evidence. They'll just have to take our word that we all think he's a decent bloke. I feel reversing the ban for Stuart will be hard because of his overall tone and his final comment on his tag line... that will be hard to support under any circumstance.

Andy - I do feel that you were harshly treated. Your posts did come across as one of defending Stu when you needed and then taking a pragmatic and conciliatory stance when dealing with the stuff you didn't know about. I personally couldn't see anything wrong with the visible posts you made (I cannot see if you typed anything and changed it soon after that did deserve an infraction?). People may not have agreed with your support for Stu, but I do struggle to see where you insulted other members.

Again, you could go to the Scoobynet Policy area and follow the guidelines for looking to reverse it. As you've found to your cost, wasting Simon's time on an obviously justified infraction (or one that Simon deems justified) will result in another infraction. I can't tell you if this is something you should do as my view isn't Simon's. All I can say is that Simon is an exceptionally logical and stoical person and he will give you a well thought out response based on the evidence he has and will be made for the communities benefit and should not be seen as personal or slack.

You have to be convinced in your own mind that you weren't insulting or being offensive in any way to fellow members (I don't believe you were trolling). You must put it to Simon in a well reasoned, logical and balanced way and tone. Any jumping up and down will simply mean it will be ignored and you'll probably end up not being listened to and with probably another penalty point.

The community needs to hear the other side of the story before jumping to conclusions and even then, they need to take into consideration all the factors and personalities involved. This is something that we'll never get, so really makes the whole pitch a bit pointless.

I haven't spoken to Stu, so don't know the story, but I'm sure we will get to hear about it. We just need to be level headed and support Stu in positive ways. Bandying it about on SNET for all to see and to make rash decisions, will simply not help anyone... especially Stu.

 

Why did the moderators allow this thread to get of control, it should have been locked long before anything went too far.
People who misuse the infraction system should have the privelidge removed.
I dont know Stu, but he has certainly become a taget for the infractors. As I've said people should have left this thread to the two of them to sort it out.

 

hey al. i'll try and see what i can do regarding my side of the story, and put it to simon... but at the end of the day, its not the trollers who ruin snet, its the regulars who jump to conclusions, and cause arguments... like me, when i got banned, and also again.. its the same few who dont like to be challenged... i didnt go into stu's thread intentionally to **** anyone off (i'm banned because i apparntly **** ppl off and i am a pain!) yeah, a pain in their opinion, because i'm challenging them, but not in my views... i was standing up for stu.. they are still going on about him behind his back.... hence the snet keyboard warrior society.

i'd also love to know who infracted me on here!

 

There's a lot of Armchair judge, jury and executioners out there.. and that post has attracted them like flies.... Their armchair advice is just their opinion... pointless under the circumstances. Stu has done nothing illegal (as far as we can tell with the details laid out there), but that won't stop them trying to hang him on personal opinion.

Stu did the right thing towards the end and simply ignored them. Andy should have done the same

The thread wouldn't have been locked because there was nothing 'bad' about it. Just differences of opinion on something the vast majority had, on the surface, little or no details on.

 

That was apparent to me mate. Some people really do use the infraction system as a toy. Give someone a little power..................... You came out OK as far as I can see... good on you defending Stu...

I believe the infraction system has both private and open settings... if the infractor doesn't want you to know, then I'm afraid you don't get to know.

 

i have had another negative rating, for replying to your reply? is someone stalking me?? see what i mean by keyboard warriors al!!???

 

PS. sent simon a post titled unjustified ban.. told his that i was out to defend stu and not to cause bother or troll.... and i was calm and polite... watch me get another neg rating for posting this!

 

Just read it mate, some sad folk I'm afraid.

 

ALAN C, and anyone else following this thread.. this guy is one of the trouble causes, and has been handing out infractions and rating (michwrx you might be interested)

look at this thread, and tell me he aint causing bother (404 his name or somet)

https://www.scoobynet.com/scoobynet-...ified-ban.html

 

404 (Matt) is known to us. He used to be in the club some time ago. Long story, to which I'll not go into here.

I've PM'd Matt and he's taking offence to the word 'Yank'.

Now, I know you're not using this in an offensive context and I know a lot of US guys don't mind it at all. I also think it's petty infracting over this (I have told him this) considering the American may actually not mind the word.

I've been called a Brit many times and I think it's fine..

But where do you stop this stupidity???? I could take offense to the word 'Scooby', or 'better half' or 'sprog' or 'Brummie' or 'scouser' or................. a whole goddam host of other benign words used in a non offensive way.... I struggle to understand why anyone would want force such a ridiculous PC society on anyone...

IF, you'd used the word in an aggressive or insulting tone or the person in question asked you not to use it and you continued..then I'd agree... but this is so petty and I'd argue, an abuse of the infraction system...

 

i was just about the say, isnt abusing the infraction system an automatic ban... its obvious he is trolling the posts looking to infract at the first oppurtunity... cant you approach simon with this al??? surely as a moderator he will listen to you a little more than he would me... this isnt personal to me anymore, its gettin to a stage where i think its going to start big arguments, esp where stu is concerned... i havent joined snet to be plagued by some petty thug, who thinks he has the right to abuse his powers

 

I'm not a board moderator.

I have moderator rights to the WYIOC forum only.

I've spoken to Matt and he has his opinion on the use of the word. It is plainly obvious you haven't used it in an offensive way or context and I struggle to see why you've been infracted.

Again, only you can go to the forum and post up if you think it's unjustified. Again, with no swearing or an abusive tone as that will work much better. I will be happy to support you on your post because I do feel it's unjustified.

 

After a chat with Matt where we exchanged some decent views and opinions on context, he'll be removing the Infractions.

 

This is all getting childish now, how many negative ratings.

If the trolls would pay the extra money they could play in fight club. 404 seems to have had a final warning in there too saying that.

trust all this to be happening when I have no popcorn in

 

even alan has a neg rating.... WTF is this guy on??? does he have his finger permantly glued to the infraction button?? GO AND PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE, WE HAVE A "No ball games allowed" SIGN UP HERE

 

I'd just leave it for now otherwise it'll all just spill into here. Webmaster will sort out what needs to be sorted.

 

 

Ive just looked through the whole thread and this "dishing out infractions" is really getting out of hand,but its to be expected on a public forum.Im not taking anyones side but something should be done about the fact any tom,dick or harry could potentially ban someone they either dont agree with,like or just fancy giving them a negative thumbs down!
The one thing I do feel should have happened is the american guy should have sorted it one on one with stu instead of blerting it out on the forum.
And im sure ill get some sort of negativity because im replying but thought id give my opinion
Andy

 

ALAN C! i'm back! i think stuart is too. webmaster said the bans were un justified, but the infraction from 404bhp stays, because he deemed the term 'y*nk' an insult.. rubbish i know, but the subject is closed in the policy forum.. one last word... dci gene hunt, a moderator as it happens, added that he did not think stu was on the receiving end of a witch hunt in the post relatiing to him... this IMO is rubbish.... anyway, we gotta keep an eye on things from now on... i know for a fact i'm gonna be watched, and i only hope stuart is back with us.... can any one find out if he is???


andy no4

 

Who told you DCI is a mod?

 

seen his name at the bottom of the page before sayin moderators, n plus he always seems to be sticking his nose in regarding unjustified infractions

 

alan, who is BRUN?? one of 404bhp's mates? an ex wyiocer?