Viking Supporters Co-operative

Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Dagenham Rover on April 11, 2013, 05:49:40 pm

Title: Stu's Ban
Post by: Dagenham Rover on April 11, 2013, 05:49:40 pm
Isn't 2 weeks a bit steep?
I know the photo was ott but it couldnt have been up there for more than a minute or so before being pulled
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Glyn_Wigley on April 11, 2013, 06:22:57 pm
How long it was there before someone managed to remove it is irrelevant. If people are going to pull stunts like that, do you expect the board to be modded at every minute of every day just to remove them at a moment's notice? And without taking any further action?
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Dagenham Rover on April 11, 2013, 06:29:09 pm
How long it was there before someone managed to remove it is irrelevant. If people are going to pull stunts like that, do you expect the board to be modded at every minute of every day just to remove them at a moment's notice? And without taking any further action?

Glyn, I never said that, I just thought 2 weeks seemed a bit steep especially as it was removed so quickly
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: hoolahoop on April 11, 2013, 08:30:04 pm
How long it was there before someone managed to remove it is irrelevant. If people are going to pull stunts like that, do you expect the board to be modded at every minute of every day just to remove them at a moment's notice? And without taking any further action?

Glyn, I never said that, I just thought 2 weeks seemed a bit steep especially as it was removed so quickly

I agree with you Daggers and especially with these massive games coming up.
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: NathanDRFC on April 11, 2013, 08:37:51 pm
Lets be clear here.

The posting of that picture, regardless of the length of time, was inappropriate.

The length of ban has been set at 2 weeks but the issue regarding the length of ban is still getting discussed.

The last thing we want to do is to ban someone from posting - that decision is never made lightly, but on this occasion we had no choice.

To be honest, I'm surprised no one has blamed Gary Woods for it
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: RedJ on April 11, 2013, 09:00:50 pm
Why would we need to when it's all James Harper's fault? :coat:
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Muttley on April 11, 2013, 09:02:30 pm
Isn't 2 weeks a bit steep?
I know the photo was ott but it couldnt have been up there for more than a minute or so before being pulled

It was only up there for 30 seconds before I felt like pulling it
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Nudga on April 11, 2013, 09:04:08 pm
What was it, a picture of a clunge (excuse the lack of question marks, my question mark button doesn't work)
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: CusworthRovers on April 12, 2013, 08:54:19 am
I think the problem here sits with the lack of appreciation of abstract art by The Mods.

I certainly saw it as art and akin to the struggles of a town and its football club.

I saw the pubic hair as a sign of the current state of our pitch.

I saw the 'split bit' as a sign of the divisions between the O' Driscollites and their march to the promised land, against the un-cultured heathens that represent Wee Willie and his puppets.

I saw Rovers past depicted in Albrighton by great use of the Labia (Sgt) Majors

I saw the towns famed workforce in the Labia miners.


In fairness though and on first impressions I saw a cracking growler that made my day.


Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Dagenham Rover on April 12, 2013, 09:02:19 am
I think the problem here sits with the lack of appreciation of abstract art by The Mods.

I certainly saw it as art and akin to the struggles of a town and its football club.

I saw the pubic hair as a sign of the current state of our pitch.

I saw the 'split bit' as a sign of the divisions between the O' Driscollites and their march to the promised land, against the un-cultured heathens that represent Wee Willie and his puppets.

I saw Rovers past depicted in Albrighton by great use of the Labia (Sgt) Majors

I saw the towns famed workforce in the Labia miners.


In fairness though and on first impressions I saw a cracking growler that made my day.




Nah it'd be shaved
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: CusworthRovers on April 12, 2013, 09:14:40 am
I'm sure the Mods have adopted a fair policy that will be extended to all. If SS is getting a ban, then obviously all those others that have disregarded the rules on advertising and copying word for word from other sites, have been banned too.

Tough job guys. SS post must have been deemed vulgar, looking at your rules. Equally though, words can be deemed vulgar, and there are many on here who would suffer a ban (me being well up the list).

That term vulgar is one persons interpretation, others may see it as humour or enlightenment. Tough job you have guys.

In fairness to SS and I've never met the gay bar dweller, he posted it late'ish evening and in off topic. I think if he was trying to tell you mods to 'do one' he would surely have put in in the Viking chat and when there's a heavy flow of users. There's only a certain amount of users that actively use off topic and from what I have seen from them, is that anything go's within reason. I would put Filo and RTR in that group too. When I looked in I saw about 4 people looking at the said thread. Fortunately I was one, one was a mod (not the 2 said) and others I cannot recall.

Finally, what happened to the 3 strikes and you're out rule. Unless he's had that. I assumed he was a good poster with a possible mischievous side, like many of us. It hardly warrants a straight red. Mods must consider we are into the final push of a possible epic season and I'm sure SS wants to be part of it on here.

I'm happy to plead a 'first warning' for my client

I think the case for the defence will rest at this point.

Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: bobjimwilly on April 12, 2013, 11:05:23 am
I'm sure his sentence will be reduced, and we understand you will all visit him inside whilst he is locked up at VSC HQ. Cussy - don't forget the chocolates and lube  :aok:
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: wilts rover on April 12, 2013, 12:24:43 pm
Can he not just re-register as someone else - like some of the other 'banned' posters allegedly have done?
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: RedJ on April 12, 2013, 12:40:29 pm
Besides, the three strikes and you're out rule is for permaban isn't it?
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: big fat yorkshire pudding on April 12, 2013, 01:00:20 pm
I'm sure the Mods will make their decision.  For me, my concern is I'm sat in the office posting this and wouldn't want to bring something like that up on the screen.....
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: jucyberry on April 12, 2013, 02:46:48 pm
I think the problem here sits with the lack of appreciation of abstract art by The Mods.

I certainly saw it as art and akin to the struggles of a town and its football club.

I saw the pubic hair as a sign of the current state of our pitch.

I saw the 'split bit' as a sign of the divisions between the O' Driscollites and their march to the promised land, against the un-cultured heathens that represent Wee Willie and his puppets.

I saw Rovers past depicted in Albrighton by great use of the Labia (Sgt) Majors

I saw the towns famed workforce in the Labia miners.


In fairness though and on first impressions I saw a cracking growler that made my day.



My gosh Cussie, rumpy pumpy must be fun in your house if you think things like that whilst strolling through the Cussworth lady garden....
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Dagenham Rover on April 12, 2013, 10:19:13 pm
I'm sure the Mods will make their decision.  For me, my concern is I'm sat in the office posting this and wouldn't want to bring something like that up on the screen.....

Arh but shouldn't you be working rather than looking at all things Rovers.

I don't do that sort of thing ..........honest....
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Sandy Lane on April 13, 2013, 12:42:37 am

I didn't see the post, so don't know if there was a warning that it may be offensive and then a link, but I know if I just was scrolling through the posts and all of a sudden that was staring me in the face, I'd probably be a bit put off like, but if there was a linky, at least I could have had the choice to ignore it. 

That said, it must be a thankless and difficult job moderating the forum without being too heavy handed, and I have to hand it to the mods that overall they do a good job!
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Nudga on April 13, 2013, 07:00:29 am

I didn't see the post, so don't know if there was a warning that it may be offensive and then a link, but I know if I just was scrolling through the posts and all of a sudden that was staring me in the face, I'd probably be a bit put off like, but if there was a linky, at least I could have had the choice to ignore it. 

That said, it must be a thankless and difficult job moderating the forum without being too heavy handed, and I have to hand it to the mods that overall they do a good job!

But what if it was a really big, handsome Mutton Musket with a heavy set of plums.
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: wilts rover on April 13, 2013, 09:54:06 am

I didn't see the post, so don't know if there was a warning that it may be offensive and then a link, but I know if I just was scrolling through the posts and all of a sudden that was staring me in the face, I'd probably be a bit put off like, but if there was a linky, at least I could have had the choice to ignore it. 

That said, it must be a thankless and difficult job moderating the forum without being too heavy handed, and I have to hand it to the mods that overall they do a good job!

But what if it was a really big, handsome Mutton Musket with a heavy set of plums.

Spoken like a true gentleman.
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Sandy Lane on April 13, 2013, 11:19:54 am

I didn't see the post, so don't know if there was a warning that it may be offensive and then a link, but I know if I just was scrolling through the posts and all of a sudden that was staring me in the face, I'd probably be a bit put off like, but if there was a linky, at least I could have had the choice to ignore it. 

That said, it must be a thankless and difficult job moderating the forum without being too heavy handed, and I have to hand it to the mods that overall they do a good job!

But what if it was a really big, handsome Mutton Musket with a heavy set of plums.

Spoken like a true gentleman.



Lol.  I know you're teasing Nudga, and you know I can be a bit of a prude me, but y'all know it really isn't the proper place for something like that, and were just being naughty. Wasn't there something called  Bifmag like?
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: CusworthRovers on April 13, 2013, 11:56:34 am
I think the problem here sits with the lack of appreciation of abstract art by The Mods.

I certainly saw it as art and akin to the struggles of a town and its football club.

I saw the pubic hair as a sign of the current state of our pitch.

I saw the 'split bit' as a sign of the divisions between the O' Driscollites and their march to the promised land, against the un-cultured heathens that represent Wee Willie and his puppets.

I saw Rovers past depicted in Albrighton by great use of the Labia (Sgt) Majors

I saw the towns famed workforce in the Labia miners.


In fairness though and on first impressions I saw a cracking growler that made my day.



My gosh Cussie, rumpy pumpy must be fun in your house if you think things like that whilst strolling through the Cusworth lady garden....

I've never had a complaint yet sweetcheeks. I'm not like all these fella's on here who are simply '2 pumps and a squirt'. I like to feel my way round the place. I like to spend a bit of time with a ladys 'lone yachtsman' (chicks love that), before I unleash the beast.
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: CusworthRovers on April 13, 2013, 12:01:03 pm

I didn't see the post, so don't know if there was a warning that it may be offensive and then a link, but I know if I just was scrolling through the posts and all of a sudden that was staring me in the face, I'd probably be a bit put off like, but if there was a linky, at least I could have had the choice to ignore it. 

That said, it must be a thankless and difficult job moderating the forum without being too heavy handed, and I have to hand it to the mods that overall they do a good job!

It wasn't that bad really Sandy. It was quite artistic and I would describe it more a shot of a 'muff' than something pornographic or vulgar. It wasn't some trollop with her squid out.
   
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: CusworthRovers on April 13, 2013, 12:05:56 pm
I'm sure his sentence will be reduced, and we understand you will all visit him inside whilst he is locked up at VSC HQ. Cussy - don't forget the chocolates and lube  :aok:

I can give him choccie's, but he prefers it Ant n Dec style.....'neigh butter', and straight in and up to the apricots.

Right, I'm going to Crewe before I get even giddier and cop a ban
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Sheepskin Stu on April 13, 2013, 06:49:36 pm
I'm back! Fresh from a fine win at Crewe. None of them could muster more than four inches so my arse isn't that bad.

All the best.
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: BobG on April 13, 2013, 09:57:14 pm
Welcome back Stu!

BobG
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: Dagenham Rover on April 14, 2013, 08:41:42 am
Welcome back
Title: Re: Stu's Ban
Post by: RedRover45 on April 14, 2013, 11:11:26 am
Welcome back matey, I didn't see what you 'posted' so feel free to inbox me details ;-)