Trolling

I see ATD has had its first (?) case of someone having a suspension for trolling. I can understand it, to a degree, due to the nature of the posts, but I sincerely hope this site isn't going to go down the road of making 'common or garden' trolling a legitimate banning offence.

One or two of our more seasoned posters were banned on the Farm, for what was known as 'trolling', I really hope this site isn't starting to follow suit. Bannings and suspensions ought to be a last resort, when keeping 'within the law' has been held in total disregard.

If someone is over-stepping the mark, I'm of the opinion that it is far far better to let the poster hang himself by looking a complete and utter tw@. There are plenty of smart enough characters on here to show someone up and make them look really rather small, wouldn't you say?

That's how I see it.

Anyway, sun is shining. Peace and Love.

I know exactly where you're coming from mate. Having said that I had to do my first bit of real modding the other evening when I was the only mod online. I suspended a member for 7 days to shut him up as he was posting potentially libellous stuff at machine gun speed.

Punchie is one of the original 'freaks' on Argyle Talk and I am saddened that this action was deemed necessary. I have emailed him as the 'offensive' posts were removed.
It is a difficult one. The mods on duty did what they thought best. In my opinion we have to be careful to only suspend/ban, if what is being posted could bring the forum a legal challenge.

If we are talking political stances and it would appear in this case to have had something to do with extreme left/right wing standpoints, we need to be very careful.

Trolling is a word I associate with all that is wrong with Pasoti. In other words if your political leaning is opposite to mine,or your views are unpalatable to me , you are a troll.

That is not how things are meant to be on here.

In the spirit of ATD I would hope that an explanation is forthcoming as I have done with Santabarbara.

I agree with Czarcasm but most that use these sites have the mental ability to distinguish between what is meant by this type of language, but there are plenty out there that cannot.

If you want an example the Deep Throat has given us it. A comment is made that is anti the Trust and the next minute someone is calling up Trust leaders and threatening their family.

Most things can and should be discussed, it's the context that it's delivered in that festers intolerance and PD crossed that line last night with his words and avatar that were obviously designed to do just that.

I am at a loss to understand why he had such a sudden change of character after using ATD for so long.

Personally, I'm not convinced that trolling is the right word for what happened last night.

Attempting to bring the site into disrepute describes it better.

Knowing punchdrunk, he was probably, well, drunk.

I agree with the OP, let the posters respond to the posts where at all possible.

I like Punchy's posts usually, but yesterday he was spoiling for a fight and just wanted to annoy someone. What he posted was wrong and I think if you asked him today he would agree.

I don't want anyone to think this site is going down the same road as Pasoti, but in my opinion Cerbs was right with what he did. He warned Punchdrunk a couple of times and told him he would get a suspension if he continued, so in this case I think the right course of action was taken.

We've all posted things that may cause offence and have either retracted it or removed it, but to post a Nazi soldier on a flag with Sieg Heil playing is out of order for any site I want to be associated with. I don't particularly think that PD meant it as anything else other than to rile someone else, but even if it was in jest I think it was too much.

Nail on head there Jock.

Maybe there's an argument for a 24 hour cool off period rather than a ban as such?

Speaking as a moaning minnie, , I thought what he posted was offensive. But I'd rather someone dug their own pit (allowing for the laws of the land and, to be vague, common decency). If someone is an idiot they will demonstrate that in what they post. I know I do.

Off for a short stroll in the sun to talk with the birds.

I think in this case a mods gotta do wot a mods gotta do, I would add that that's it's unfair to discuss the poster in question where he has no obvious right of reply

GOB wrote:

Nail on head there Jock.

Maybe there's an argument for a 24 hour cool off period rather than a ban as such?

Probably. I guess it's also up to Cerbs as he made the call last night. If PD had been drunk on punch and was messing around then I'm sure he will know that he was out of order, if he wasn't then that's another kettle of fish altogether. Maybe Cerbera should contact PD for his take on it all. My bet is PD will be a bit embarrassed by it and will be extremely apologetic, but I don't know him.

If he's ironing his hood and knocking up a 6ft tall cross, then he will probably tell Cerbs to feck off but I doubt that somehow.

Edited to add it was me who used the phrase moaning Minnie in the thread, as there are lot's of moaning Minnie's who don't have a cause or a stance on anything in particular, it's just an excuse to be horrified or outraged, it wasn't actually aimed at Knecht, but doesn't he get on yer tits

Knecht is far to sensible for a football forum.

GOB wrote:

Knecht is far to sensible for a football forum.

Educated w@nker more like.

I think the suspension should be lifted in this instance, in order for Punchie to state his case if he so wishes but I'm not trying to force the issue.

This debate would never happen, in the open, on Pasoti.

A couple of points:

Punchdrunk was given several opportunities last night to remove posts and change his avatar. Rather than go along with the requests, he chose to escalate what he was doing.

It wasn't just Cerbs who made the decisions. There were 3 mods online last night and the eventual decision to issue a 7 day ban was unanimously agreed upon. Punchdrunk was given several opportunities to tone down his behaviour. That he chose not to was what tipped the mods in the direction of a suspension. He has not been banned, just suspended for 7 days. My guess is he's sitting at home this morning with a world-class hangover, wondering what the hell he did last night. If he has a case to state, he can do so once his suspension is over.

Andy_Symons wrote:

A couple of points:

Punchdrunk was given several opportunities last night to remove posts and change his avatar. Rather than go along with the requests, he chose to escalate what he was doing.

It wasn't just Cerbs who made the decisions. There were 3 mods online last night and the eventual decision to issue a 7 day ban was unanimously agreed upon. Punchdrunk was given several opportunities to tone down his behaviour. That he chose not to was what tipped the mods in the direction of a suspension. He has not been banned, just suspended for 7 days. My guess is he's sitting at home this morning with a world-class hangover, wondering what the hell he did last night. If he has a case to state, he can do so once his suspension is over.

Fair enough Andy and as a fellow mod I'm not going to dispute the decision.The OP's concerns and those who remarked that Punchie is not here to defend himself, led me to suggest reducing the suspension. Why does it have to be for a week, he must be sober by now and is a long standing and popular poster. ?
And nobody was suggesting it was just Cerbs as far as I can tell.

I think the suspension period is a valid one Tring and something worthy of discussing, but on this occasion and until it has been discussed the same rules must apply for all.

GOB wrote:

I think the suspension period is a valid one Tring and something worthy of discussing, but on this occasion and until it has been discussed the same rules must apply for all.

Fair enough. At least we can talk about it in public on here. I trust that Czarcasm is satisfied by the responses to his concerns.

Tringreen wrote:

GOB wrote:

I think the suspension period is a valid one Tring and something worthy of discussing, but on this occasion and until it has been discussed the same rules must apply for all.

Fair enough. At least we can talk about it in public on here. I trust that Czarcasm is satisfied by the responses to his concerns.

That's exactly what I was just thinking to myself Tring, isn't it refreshing that we can disagree and debate stuff in public without any snide and sly comments, editing, banning and deletion etc.

Moderators will not agree all of the time and neither will the users, it's not personal, it's just a simple difference of opinion and that's the most healthy thing you can have on such a forum.

Any chance you could tell us who Windsor Boy is GM?

GOB wrote:

Any chance you could tell us who Windsor Boy is GM?

He can't even tell us who he really is himself

Greenman Greenman fly away home

Your house is on fire and your Avivas are gone.

Greenman wrote:

Lol your no different than the website your obssessed with. Pasoti Argyle Talk. We don't ban anyone. Yeah right

And you are obsessed with our obsession. Weird.

I took the decision to SUSPEND punchy last night for his trolling. In my opinion trolling is the right word, what he posted was not illegal, it was offensive though. He was disrupting a number of threads by posting irrelevant stuff and being unresponsive to requests both through PM and the forum.

Three of us mods were on duty last night and we discussed at length what to do. I suspended Punchy because he was not responding to requests to tone it down and was warned enough.

I wasn't entirely happy about the decision, because none of what he posted was illegal or technically against ATD rules. However, failure to respond, acting the goat and being generally disruptive, it was the right decision in the end.

There is no way I intend to revoke the ban until next Saturday.

Greenman wrote:

Lol your no different than the website your obssessed with. Pasoti Argyle Talk. We don't ban anyone. Yeah right

Move along Knobber. It'd be unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent...

Cerbera wrote:

I took the decision to SUSPEND punchy last night for his trolling. In my opinion trolling is the right word, what he posted was not illegal, it was offensive though. He was disrupting a number of threads by posting irrelevant stuff and being unresponsive to requests both through PM and the forum.

Three of us mods were on duty last night and we discussed at length what to do. I suspended Punchy because he was not responding to requests to tone it down and was warned enough.

I wasn't entirely happy about the decision, because none of what he posted was illegal or technically against ATD rules. However, failure to respond, acting the goat and being generally disruptive, it was the right decision in the end.

There is no way I intend to revoke the ban until next Saturday.

I've had an email exchange with Neal[Punchie] and whilst we both recognise his postings could be construed as distasteful by some, he was in a heated exchange with Knecht and worse things have not resulted in suspensions before on ATD. I do object to the word 'trolling'. It is far too often used as an excuse for branding anyone with extreme and opposing views and is just so Pasoti.

Neal, as he can't speak for himself, is not comfortable with developments and might not return, as in his words ,'It is becoming a bit cliquey and Pasoti'ish'.

Czarcasm wrote:

Greenman wrote:

Lol your no different than the website your obssessed with. Pasoti Argyle Talk. We don't ban anyone. Yeah right

Move along Knobber. It'd be unfair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent...

That's the style !

Tringreen wrote:

.......
I've had an email exchange with Neal[Punchie] and whilst we both recognise his postings could be construed as distasteful by some, he was in a heated exchange with Knecht and worse things have not resulted in suspensions before on ATD. I do object to the word 'trolling'. It is far too often used as an excuse for branding anyone with extreme and opposing views and is just so Pasoti.

Neal, as he can't speak for himself, is not comfortable with developments and might not return, as in his words ,'It is becoming a bit cliquey and Pasoti'ish'.

For the record:
He and I weren't in "a heated exchange". I posted a fairly innocuous question and he exploded aggressively from there and took his anger far further than any exchange with me. But, that's life or at least internet-life. No big deal. I'm sure all of us "pasoti-lefties" can cope with it.