Accelerated staff payments ... possible scandal ?

Rickler wrote:

Mark, I very much appreciate that. I never have been told.

But bearing that in mind, how then, do you answer and justify my first question?

Think about it as a government decision. New ministers come and go but the law prevails.

But when the law is put to a vote, you decide to uphold it no matter what.
Even though you don't know why its enacted in the first place.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

It appears though, that as during your time on PASOTI, you spend a whole lot of time asking questions and very little answering them.

And why should anyone have a problem with that. I never wanted to teach, not my scene. I would rather spend my short time here asking and learning, although not in the formal rigged Q and A circus where nothing is learned but message control is the game.. Can't wait to hear the answer tommorrow.

Mark, you've always seemed a good enough guy. As a long term Pasoti member it saddens me to see the current state of the side. Herb is a pretty perceptive chap and for me his post this evening hits the nail right on the head.

penzancepirate wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

It appears though, that as during your time on PASOTI, you spend a whole lot of time asking questions and very little answering them.

And why should anyone have a problem with that. I never wanted to teach, not my scene. I would rather spend my short time here asking and learning, although not in the formal rigged Q and A circus where nothing is learned but message control is the game.. Can't wait to hear the answer tommorrow.

oh FFS PP -

Rickler wrote:

But when the law is put to a vote, you decide to uphold it no matter what.
Even though you don't know why its enacted in the first place.

Has it been put to a vote? you seem more aware of the internal workings of PASOTI than me! In a democracy, you go with the majority vote - at least that's the way in every democracy I have ever seen.

Rickler wrote:

But when the law is put to a vote, you decide to uphold it no matter what.
Even though you don't know why its enacted in the first place.

Have now seen some of the stuff. I can understand why you were banned. Perhaps best to either do this discussion in person or ask another poster on here who flounced off PASOTI and has all the details and more!

Charlie Wood wrote:

Mark, you've always seemed a good enough guy. As a long term Pasoti member it saddens me to see the current state of the side. Herb is a pretty perceptive chap and for me his post this evening hits the nail right on the head.

I think PASOTI has become more serious over the last 12 months - there is an obvious reason for that. Herb is a poster who is rarely there for the football. I think it will drift back despite those who want to keep it at the high-brow and serious end of the conversation spetcrum. It's a glass half full kind of site which has taken a battering due to the club's management. I also believe that the fan-base has never been more fractured than it is now. Healing is required.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Rickler wrote:

But when the law is put to a vote, you decide to uphold it no matter what.
Even though you don't know why its enacted in the first place.

Have now seen some of the stuff. I can understand why you were banned. Perhaps best to either do this discussion in person or ask another poster on here who flounced off PASOTI and has all the details and more!

I admire you holding three conversations at once, but you're jumping a littl bit ahead...

Let's just go back to this for a second:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Has it been put to a vote? you seem more aware of the internal workings of PASOTI than me! In a democracy, you go with the majority vote - at least that's the way in every democracy I have ever seen.

Well Mark, funny you say that...

It seems a vote or at least a poll was taken, and your vote or opinion was apparently cast – if not by you, who?

I only know about it because Newell tells the whole world right here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


To paraphrase -- Newell says


”Out of your (say) hard core ten posters, there's only three, maybe four that are banned. You (Tringy) for trolling, Freathy the same and Rickler for detail theft.

Rickler will never be allowed back on, all the present Mods have always said that all the previous Mods were the same.”

How do you explain that comment?

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Rickler wrote:

But when the law is put to a vote, you decide to uphold it no matter what.
Even though you don't know why its enacted in the first place.

Have now seen some of the stuff. I can understand why you were banned. Perhaps best to either do this discussion in person or ask another poster on here who flounced off PASOTI and has all the details and more!

I admire you holding three conversations at once, but you're jumping a littl bit ahead...

Let's just go back to this for a second:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Has it been put to a vote? you seem more aware of the internal workings of PASOTI than me! In a democracy, you go with the majority vote - at least that's the way in every democracy I have ever seen.

Well Mark, funny you say that...

It seems a vote or at least a poll was taken, and your vote or opinion was apparently cast – if not by you, who?

I only know about it because Newell tells the whole world right here:


To paraphrase -- Newell says


”Out of your (say) hard core ten posters, there's only three, maybe four that are banned. You (Tringy) for trolling, Freathy the same and Rickler for detail theft.

Rickler will never be allowed back on, all the present Mods have always said that all the previous Mods were the same.”

How do you explain that comment?

Quite simply - a mod asks here is the theory would you accept this person back. A demeanour is listed .... an answer is given. I certainly support the banning from the evidence given. As I said perhaps we could have this conversation off-line unless one of those very close to the banning who now posts exclusively on here would be prepared to offer their comments and views. Interesting though that the key parties did not include any of the current mods.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

GOB
Scum etc.

I would have repeated the whole post GOB but I thought your signature did it best!!

I will always give you a response but it may not be what you want to hear. But then, that's what genuine debate is about. No-one is control of the dartboard because the dartboard just exists. No-one needs to throw darts at it and no-one can own it - anyone who thinks someone does is well in the doubles!!

On the behind the scenes threads on PASOTI the reasons for banning have always looked good to me. In terms of letting people back - it is always debated and voted on (as with the orginal ban). Some have been let back but only if they have changed their posting style. their opinion, and this is a very valid point, haas nothing to do with it. If someone always posts "Walton is a lazy f*****" then there are pms sent and eventually the poster has a night off or a week depending on how the mods vote. if he continues then a ban is inevitable. if the poster apologises and promises not to troll or use the f word then we will let them back - it's not about the persons opinion - many mods would share that particular example!

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.

Not wishing to appear patronising (but I probably do) on a small site like this one it is easier to know and recognise all the posters. When you have an average of 20-30 new joiners a day, like PASOTI, keeping track of who is who is not easy especially in the day of smart phones.

The main issue on here (I won't call it a problem) is that many of the established posters are conspiracy theorists - read the definition - they are seeing conspiracies between principle players on PASOTI and all sorts of issues and making inventions. The classic view of conspiracy theorists is that those who don't share the view are the "herd" who aren't clever enough to see the "reality" which is their view.

The Stapleton thing is a complete red-herring in my view.

+1 for lolz

So a couple of references to real scum on terraces (as IJN would call it, his stomping ground or words to that effect) warrants a banning while a moderator can run riot calling fellow Argo fans "scum" all day long. I think my work is done.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

GOB
Scum etc.

I would have repeated the whole post GOB but I thought your signature did it best!!

I will always give you a response but it may not be what you want to hear. But then, that's what genuine debate is about. No-one is control of the dartboard because the dartboard just exists. No-one needs to throw darts at it and no-one can own it - anyone who thinks someone does is well in the doubles!!

On the behind the scenes threads on PASOTI the reasons for banning have always looked good to me. In terms of letting people back - it is always debated and voted on (as with the orginal ban). Some have been let back but only if they have changed their posting style. their opinion, and this is a very valid point, haas nothing to do with it. If someone always posts "Walton is a lazy f*****" then there are pms sent and eventually the poster has a night off or a week depending on how the mods vote. if he continues then a ban is inevitable. if the poster apologises and promises not to troll or use the f word then we will let them back - it's not about the persons opinion - many mods would share that particular example!

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.

Not wishing to appear patronising (but I probably do) on a small site like this one it is easier to know and recognise all the posters. When you have an average of 20-30 new joiners a day, like PASOTI, keeping track of who is who is not easy especially in the day of smart phones.

The main issue on here (I won't call it a problem) is that many of the established posters are conspiracy theorists - read the definition - they are seeing conspiracies between principle players on PASOTI and all sorts of issues and making inventions. The classic view of conspiracy theorists is that those who don't share the view are the "herd" who aren't clever enough to see the "reality" which is their view.

The Stapleton thing is a complete red-herring in my view.

+1 for lolz

So a couple of references to real scum on terraces (as IJN would call it, his stomping ground or words to that effect) warrants a banning while a moderator can run riot calling fellow Argo fans "scum" all day long. I think my work is done.

Who's been banned?

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

GOB
Scum etc.

I would have repeated the whole post GOB but I thought your signature did it best!!

I will always give you a response but it may not be what you want to hear. But then, that's what genuine debate is about. No-one is control of the dartboard because the dartboard just exists. No-one needs to throw darts at it and no-one can own it - anyone who thinks someone does is well in the doubles!!

On the behind the scenes threads on PASOTI the reasons for banning have always looked good to me. In terms of letting people back - it is always debated and voted on (as with the orginal ban). Some have been let back but only if they have changed their posting style. their opinion, and this is a very valid point, haas nothing to do with it. If someone always posts "Walton is a lazy f*****" then there are pms sent and eventually the poster has a night off or a week depending on how the mods vote. if he continues then a ban is inevitable. if the poster apologises and promises not to troll or use the f word then we will let them back - it's not about the persons opinion - many mods would share that particular example!

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.

Not wishing to appear patronising (but I probably do) on a small site like this one it is easier to know and recognise all the posters. When you have an average of 20-30 new joiners a day, like PASOTI, keeping track of who is who is not easy especially in the day of smart phones.

The main issue on here (I won't call it a problem) is that many of the established posters are conspiracy theorists - read the definition - they are seeing conspiracies between principle players on PASOTI and all sorts of issues and making inventions. The classic view of conspiracy theorists is that those who don't share the view are the "herd" who aren't clever enough to see the "reality" which is their view.

The Stapleton thing is a complete red-herring in my view.

+1 for lolz

So a couple of references to real scum on terraces (as IJN would call it, his stomping ground or words to that effect) warrants a banning while a moderator can run riot calling fellow Argo fans "scum" all day long. I think my work is done.

Who's been banned?

You said I was given "a night off". No idea whether my account has been reinstated, there's nothing in my inbox which would suggest it is.

Why doesn't IJN get nights off?

I can tell you who hasn't been banned when others have for far less, Ian!

Mark, are you here on ATD to play the antagonist and draw out Ian's embarrassing episode? Just curious as this seems to be the only topic that interest you and as a Pasoti mod with the stance that you've been taking, it seems a little odd that you would want anything to do with ATD.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Quite simply - a mod asks here is the theory would you accept this person back. A demeanour is listed .... an answer is given. I certainly support the banning from the evidence given. As I said perhaps we could have this conversation off-line unless one of those very close to the banning who now posts exclusively on here would be prepared to offer their comments and views. Interesting though that the key parties did not include any of the current mods.

Well I never...

I thought the mods were so overworked that they were close to exhaustion. But it seems, the the mod room these days is some sort of ivy league intellectual 'think tank' where you sit around posing "theoreticals" to each other..

It is interesting that none of the current mods were around at the time isn't it? And yet to man they voted nay. I would have loved to hear the 'theory' posed to you?

By the way... The incident you are talking about, I was banned and did my 'time' for.... I was reinstated. It was a few years later, just after Newell became a mod that I was banned again - Nobody has ever told me or anybody else why? This is the banning I am talking about!!

Anyway...Thank you for your time and effort. I hope we see much more of you 'down' here.

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

GOB
Scum etc.

I would have repeated the whole post GOB but I thought your signature did it best!!

I will always give you a response but it may not be what you want to hear. But then, that's what genuine debate is about. No-one is control of the dartboard because the dartboard just exists. No-one needs to throw darts at it and no-one can own it - anyone who thinks someone does is well in the doubles!!

On the behind the scenes threads on PASOTI the reasons for banning have always looked good to me. In terms of letting people back - it is always debated and voted on (as with the orginal ban). Some have been let back but only if they have changed their posting style. their opinion, and this is a very valid point, haas nothing to do with it. If someone always posts "Walton is a lazy f*****" then there are pms sent and eventually the poster has a night off or a week depending on how the mods vote. if he continues then a ban is inevitable. if the poster apologises and promises not to troll or use the f word then we will let them back - it's not about the persons opinion - many mods would share that particular example!

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.

Not wishing to appear patronising (but I probably do) on a small site like this one it is easier to know and recognise all the posters. When you have an average of 20-30 new joiners a day, like PASOTI, keeping track of who is who is not easy especially in the day of smart phones.

The main issue on here (I won't call it a problem) is that many of the established posters are conspiracy theorists - read the definition - they are seeing conspiracies between principle players on PASOTI and all sorts of issues and making inventions. The classic view of conspiracy theorists is that those who don't share the view are the "herd" who aren't clever enough to see the "reality" which is their view.

The Stapleton thing is a complete red-herring in my view.

+1 for lolz

So a couple of references to real scum on terraces (as IJN would call it, his stomping ground or words to that effect) warrants a banning while a moderator can run riot calling fellow Argo fans "scum" all day long. I think my work is done.

Who's been banned?

You said I was given "a night off". No idea whether my account has been reinstated, there's nothing in my inbox which would suggest it is.

Why doesn't IJN get nights off?

Who says he hasnt?

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Quite simply - a mod asks here is the theory would you accept this person back. A demeanour is listed .... an answer is given. I certainly support the banning from the evidence given. As I said perhaps we could have this conversation off-line unless one of those very close to the banning who now posts exclusively on here would be prepared to offer their comments and views. Interesting though that the key parties did not include any of the current mods.

Well I never...

I thought the mods were so overworked that they were close to exhaustion. But it seems, the the mod room these days is some sort of ivy league intellectual 'think tank' where you sit around posing "theoreticals" to each other..

It is interesting that none of the current mods were around at the time isn't it? And yet to man they voted nay. I would have loved to hear the 'theory' posed to you?

By the way... The incident you are talking about, I was banned and did my 'time' for.... I was reinstated. It was a few years later, just after Newell became a mod that I was banned again - Nobody has ever told me or anybody else why? This is the banning I am talking about!!

Anyway...Thank you for your time and effort. I hope we see much more of you 'down' here.

Your account differs from the one I have to hand - again - perhaps another poster can help.

hi guys! new on here, and i'm a tad lost. Have any of you heard of a football team called plymouth argyle? And if so is there some kind of forum where people talk about them?

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Your account differs from the one I have to hand - again - perhaps another poster can help.

Perhaps you could just get Ian's 'version' or "theory"?

After all... He would have to deny that he was a mod when I was banned for the version you cite to be correct.
We could go from there...

How would you feel if you found out you had been lied to all this time?

GOB wrote:

I can tell you who hasn't been banned when others have for far less, Ian!

Mark, are you here on ATD to play the antagonist and draw out Ian's embarrassing episode? Just curious as this seems to be the only topic that interest you and as a Pasoti mod with the stance that you've been taking, it seems a little odd that you would want anything to do with ATD.

Why is it odd? Have I done anything antagonistic? Between watching my eldest play and running a training session for my youngest's team I have attempted to honestly answer any question that has been posted. It seems that since about 8 o'clock the type of response from the site has been gradually more aggressive - I don't know why. I am a poster who happens to be a PASOTI mod. There are a few that seem to have a problem with that.

Regarding topics - the "should we swear" thread doesn't interest me - you shouldn't, there is no need. The Estonian striker, It's on PASOTI - the others - can't recall what they are without looking.

Rickler wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Your account differs from the one I have to hand - again - perhaps another poster can help.

Perhaps you could just get Ian's 'version' or "theory"?

After all... He would have to deny that he was a mod when I was banned for the version you cite to be correct.
We could go from there...

How would you feel if you found out you had been lied to all this time?

Depends if you believe one or the other - I have two versions - yours or Ians. From what you have admitted to about your first banning I can't see a real alternative to accepting Ian's. Anyway - to the point of being boring - why dont you take this point up with your resident ex-PASOTI mod?

i_love_green wrote:

hi guys! new on here, and i'm a tad lost. Have any of you heard of a football team called plymouth argyle? And if so is there some kind of forum where people talk about them?

Yes - it's called PASOTI. I thought this one did too but it appears that I have been misled.

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

Coxside_Green wrote:

Mark Pedlar wrote:

GOB wrote:

GOB
Scum etc.

I would have repeated the whole post GOB but I thought your signature did it best!!

I will always give you a response but it may not be what you want to hear. But then, that's what genuine debate is about. No-one is control of the dartboard because the dartboard just exists. No-one needs to throw darts at it and no-one can own it - anyone who thinks someone does is well in the doubles!!

On the behind the scenes threads on PASOTI the reasons for banning have always looked good to me. In terms of letting people back - it is always debated and voted on (as with the orginal ban). Some have been let back but only if they have changed their posting style. their opinion, and this is a very valid point, haas nothing to do with it. If someone always posts "Walton is a lazy f*****" then there are pms sent and eventually the poster has a night off or a week depending on how the mods vote. if he continues then a ban is inevitable. if the poster apologises and promises not to troll or use the f word then we will let them back - it's not about the persons opinion - many mods would share that particular example!

CG compared IJN to Ian Brady - a number of us found that extremely offensive. Maybe we're a bit older as a group but we found this unacceptable. CG was given, I believe (I haven't checked), a night off. We also received a number of pms from people who also found it offensive. A bit like Chris on here his response to debate was not to justify or give proof to his examples but rather to rehearse the same arguement. In the end he reverted to abuse.

Not wishing to appear patronising (but I probably do) on a small site like this one it is easier to know and recognise all the posters. When you have an average of 20-30 new joiners a day, like PASOTI, keeping track of who is who is not easy especially in the day of smart phones.

The main issue on here (I won't call it a problem) is that many of the established posters are conspiracy theorists - read the definition - they are seeing conspiracies between principle players on PASOTI and all sorts of issues and making inventions. The classic view of conspiracy theorists is that those who don't share the view are the "herd" who aren't clever enough to see the "reality" which is their view.

The Stapleton thing is a complete red-herring in my view.

+1 for lolz

So a couple of references to real scum on terraces (as IJN would call it, his stomping ground or words to that effect) warrants a banning while a moderator can run riot calling fellow Argo fans "scum" all day long. I think my work is done.

Who's been banned?

You said I was given "a night off". No idea whether my account has been reinstated, there's nothing in my inbox which would suggest it is.

Why doesn't IJN get nights off?

Who says he hasnt?

If ever there was a time he deserved a night off it was Friday. Evidently, the timing of his postings would prove he was permitted to continue with his tirade of abuse towards fellow Argo fans all day long.

Coxside_Green wrote:

If ever there was a time he deserved a night off it was Friday. Evidently, the timing of his postings would prove he was permitted to continue with his tirade of abuse towards fellow Argo fans all day long.

We will obviously have to agree to disagree. Think you need to look back through this thread and the various threads discussing bans on PASOTI to understand exactly what would result in a ban.

For want of being accused of flouncing or not answering questions I'm off to bed now. Night all!