GreenAndy1981 has been a bad boy

tonycholwell wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

Forgive my ignorance but how have they lost £1,500?

Genuine question, not meant to be argumentative.

They never had the money in their bank in the first place did they? All that's happened is they've missed out on a £1,500 donation from some saddo on a wind up?

Or am I missing something?

No Yea, you are perfectly correct, although most people would see it as a loss.

Can understand that, was just checking I hadn't missed something and they actually had the money and it was then taken back from them or something similar

Yea Man wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

tonycholwell wrote:

GOB wrote:

I can understand that Tony and Jock, but even if the IP numbers were matched what would have been the outcome, would ATD's & pasoti's matching of IP numbers legally held this weirdo to account so that the money would have been forthcoming?

Sorry Gob, I was only trying to clarify for Penz the sequence and consequence.

As for unmasking the guilty party? Im not sure if either Forum had thought that far.

Cheers Tony.

I very much doubt we'll get any reality to this from either pasoti or ATD so I'll be very careful in the future where I place my trust unless somehow it gets cobbled together to make some sense.


How much short of the actual, what would have been, amount is St Lukes as it stands?

St Lukes have lost £1,500

Forgive my ignorance but how have they lost £1,500?

Genuine question, not meant to be argumentative.

They never had the money in their bank in the first place did they? All that's happened is they've missed out on a £1,500 donation from some saddo on a wind up?

Or am I missing something?

No Yea, you are perfectly correct, although most people would see it as a loss.

Can understand that, was just checking I hadn't missed something and they actually had the money and it was then taken back from them or something similar

Yea, you have hit the nail on the head there..........They didnt get their hands on the money!

And whats nearly as bad is that people on 2 football sites are argueing again inter site and on here with each other.

Arrrrggggghhhhhhhh!



Sorry, feel better now.

We really should get together with pasoti and become one big unhappy family

So, it's not a loss. In fact, in some small way it's good news all around for St Lukes and the Cornish wafers, despite the nasty hoaxing.
But, I would imagine this Nik character might feel a bit pieved at being taken for a ride by a hoax.
But then this whole auction thing for a year and more has been rather strange, to say the least. Not my scene at all. It's not how auctions seem to happen around all the rooms I know from Okehampton to Plymouth.

Penz wrote:

So, it's not a loss. In fact, in some small way it's good news all around for St Lukes and the Cornish wafers, despite the nasty hoaxing.
But, I would imagine this Nik character might feel a bit pieved at being taken for a ride by a hoax.
But then this whole auction thing for a year and more has been rather strange, to say the least. Not my scene at all. It's not how auctions seem to happen around all the rooms I know from Okehampton to Plymouth.

But this is no ordinary auction, this is P-baying:

Pbaying, offering items for an auction for show only, as the result of the auction is already known to the auctioneer. A clever auctioneer can be Pbaying by stringing the auction out for effect, when they already received the top bid. This often ties in with Newelling, when Pbaying happens too often, the auctioneer is probably Newelling.

Newelling, an extreme case of the boy who cried wolf, when a person is Newelling, they have told so many lies previously that even when they say something obviously true, like what time it is, people still don't believe it and are likely to purchase a new watch instead.

GOB wrote:

.....
As I have said and as you have read in our pm's Knecht, it's a football forum not the United Nations, there's little for you to be pissed off about.........Your words Knecht, not mine.

Where did I say I prefer to take the word of a pasoti mod?

If you want my true feelings, as things stand then there isn't anyone I trust at the moment in this bizarre world of Internet politics and underhand dealings, who would.

You're implying that I am implying, so the world spins around.

I am not implying - I am stating.

You didn't "say" - you implied.

As I also said in my reply to your pm, we should chat about this sometime in person. I actually think we would have more agreement than disagreement.

I posted publicly because that's my preferred way unless by doing so it escalates disagreement to 'war' or attracts others to the blood-fest. Open-ness is also the ATD way isn't it?

Did you/do you object to the analogy I used of internet squabble and the work of the United Nations?

I have no problem meeting anyone Knecht and I will hopefully be attending a few more games this coming season and so visiting the Cherry Tree more frequently.

If I may say Knecht, I think you take my points to personally at times and I much prefer a public debate over a private debate. My reason for my pm to you BTW was on the well intended advise of Tony.

TonyC?! You don't pay any attention to what he says?!

But in this instance I'm happy to blame him.

OK chaps I've steered clear for a few hours to see how this unwinds and now I can clear up the chain of events and add my comments.

What postey says accurately outlines the chain of events.
1). It was mentioned in the mod room that we had a previously banned poster whose email contained a name followed by 1981.
2). Given his behaviour on here it seemed feasible he could have been involved in the Pasoti hoax and as people on here were equally as agitated as those across the road it seemed a good opportunity to clear this sites name and ease the tension between the sites.
3). I posted what I intended to do in the modroom and got the agreement of my two colleagues in that course of action. The mistake we made was not to discuss the consequences more fully.
4). I PMed postey offering our assistance and what he says is correct but he couldn't give me a full IP because it was from a O2 (I think) hub and was constantly changing with only the first two portions remaining consistent.
5). I checked our records and found only one of dozens of IP's from that party that started with the same two numbers so sent that IP to Postey to check if it matched any of GreenAndys IP's, adding that I didn't expect it to as it was from a Virgin hub. There the matter ended.

I think it needs explaining, and I probably need expert help in this, that IP's need not be unique.

Early specifications intended IP addresses to be uniquely assigned to a particular computer or device.[citation needed] However, it was found that this was not always necessary as private networks developed and address space needed to be conserved (IPv4 address exhaustion). RFC 1918 specifies private address spaces that may be reused by anyone; today, such private networks typically access the Internet through Network Address Translation (NAT). In addition, technologies such as anycast addressing have been developed to allow multiple hosts at the same IP address but in different portions of the Internet to service requests by network clients.


I'll be discussing my resignation offer further with my colleagues and I anticipate standing down after an orderly handover to an agreed co-opted replacement.

You ought to be sacked for that post alone

It meant not a lot to me but I'll just say I don't want you resigning, but maybe you need to speak to the person you suspected, as it's fairly obvious who that is.

Charlie Wood wrote:

I'll be discussing my resignation offer further with my colleagues and I anticipate standing down after an orderly handover to an agreed co-opted replacement.

Can I (we) refuse to accept your resignation?

Charlie thanks for the post and explaining the circumstances and timeline. I will say it again that I have every confidence in you being a mod and feel what you did was in good faith and for the good of this site. It is a shame that you felt you must offer your resignation as I feel that it will be a loss to the site.

Rickler wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

I'll be discussing my resignation offer further with my colleagues and I anticipate standing down after an orderly handover to an agreed co-opted replacement.

Can I (we) refuse to accept your resignation?

I second that.

Charlie.... anyone who knows a little about IP addresses knows that there are all sorts of proxies and god knows what out there... for all sorts of reasons ... including heavy traffis on main servers. But that is not what is at question here.
And now you go and compound the mistake by listing openly on the public forum yet another bunch of IP addresses used on here that you have no idea what significance they might or might not hold.
I can't believe you've just done that.

Cheers Charlie please stay, do not bow to pressure I trust you

Penz, those are all the IP's that have been registered against my posts to demonstrate we don't necessarily have a unique IP. I've revealed my IP's nobody elses.

Penz wrote:

And now you go and compound your mistake by listing openly on the public forum yet another bunch of IP addresses used on here that you have no idea what significance they might or might not hold.
I can't believe you've just done that.

I think the significance is that they all belong to Charlie.

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

No shit

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

Due to the similar feelings being expressed on the same sites I did feel that might be a useful byproduct where there seemed to be some unity, but I also anticipated this site may well have blamed by some of the more "anti" posters on that site. So not my sole motive.

Charlie Wood wrote:

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

Due to the similar feelings being expressed on the same sites I did feel that might be a useful byproduct where there seemed to be some unity, but I also anticipated this site may well have blamed by some of the more "anti" posters on that site. So not my sole motive.

I think that if you're genuine Charlie and the motives are as you state, then what you done was with good intention even though with hindsight it may have been a mistake. All I wanted to know was why, you have now provided the answer.

I don't think anyone should resign just because they screw up now and again and I don't think any harm will be done to attempt to build a few bridges with our friends across the road. I strongly believe that ATD needs a set of rules to help prevent a similar situation from again happening and also to prevent future mods from placing themselves in a similar position. Maybe also a few rules regarding the behaviour of users would help as well.

Charlie Wood wrote:

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

Due to the similar feelings being expressed on the same sites I did feel that might be a useful byproduct where there seemed to be some unity, but I also anticipated this site may well have blamed by some of the more "anti" posters on that site. So not my sole motive.

Thanks for your detailed explanation, Charlie, and I note you didn't act alone but got agreement from two others.

I think, though, that this incident - and particularly the post I've quoted - throws up a some big questions about the role of the mods. As far as I'm concerned, mods on any site are there to do the admin stuff (like dealing with new registrations), generally to keep the site running and to make sure the site rules are followed. Nothing else.

On this site in particular, I'd always understood that issues about the direction of the site - which this is, really - were for the membership to decide.

I still don't think anybody should resign over this, but I do think a lot of lessons can and should be learned.

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

seadog wrote:

No shit

GOB's a real quick study...

Peggy wrote:

Charlie Wood wrote:

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

Due to the similar feelings being expressed on the same sites I did feel that might be a useful byproduct where there seemed to be some unity, but I also anticipated this site may well have blamed by some of the more "anti" posters on that site. So not my sole motive.

Thanks for your detailed explanation, Charlie, and I note you didn't act alone but got agreement from two others.

I think, though, that this incident - and particularly the post I've quoted - throws up a some big questions about the role of the mods. As far as I'm concerned, mods on any site are there to do the admin stuff (like dealing with new registrations), generally to keep the site running and to make sure the site rules are followed. Nothing else.

On this site in particular, I'd always understood that issues about the direction of the site - which this is, really - were for the membership to decide.

I still don't think anybody should resign over this, but I do think a lot of lessons can and should be learned.

That was the idea Peggy but I'm now not sure that it's possible to achieve such a thing.

If you go back on here somewhere you will find threads asking for suggestions from the users but nothing came of it. I still believe that the problems the mods have today are because those of us involved at the start didn't do anything to prevent these situations from arising in the future, it was a mistake.

Rickler wrote:

GOB wrote:

Charlie, your motive then, was to ease tension between the two sites?

seadog wrote:

No shit

GOB's a real quick study...

I dunno Ricks, you really struggle to find a home in the Internet world.

Hope things look up for you in the future.