the problem with fake accounts

Oi that's mine, Natasha!

I'm Angry Mum 

Anything I post on this thread is probably going to be interpreted as me just being bitter about how Scott or AD or both (if they're the same person) have been allowed back on here through the back door, so I can't win but hear me out.

As I said during the whole, interminable "Should Scott be allowed back?" saga, which bored the pants off us all over seven pages of comments, I genuinely don't give a fuck.

If the site ownership want him back and are prepared to ignore the fact that he flouted their rules, that's up to them -it's not my site and I really don't care.

But getting back to the initial question posed, fake accounts can be classed in two categories:

Funny, comic creations which are designed to make people laugh and provoke discussion and generally keep the site ticking along

and

Previously banned contributors who have fucked up and are desperate to be allowed back in.

And the Mods on here would do well to understand that differentiation and base their decisions on it.

It's not all about how many people you've got signed up and how may inane threads they start, it's about what they "genuinely" contribute and how inviting it makes your site look to potential new members.

But what do I know....?

Stop getting at me Breadman, I don't really have four other accounts. 

Dingle idiot....!

Stop making this about you, you needy hill-dwelling fool......!

The people in charge know who I'm getting at.

Anyway, shouldn't you be outside in your garden about now, offering up a sacrificial lamb or something in the hope that the Sun rises again over Pendle Hill tomorrow?

It is, afterall,  that time of year.

Dark nights, short days, no points won on the road (or on't Turf), cattle fretting, Dyche sweating, chickens falling over and all that shit........

When we started Nuts up our honest view was that we didn't really we had much of a long term future because forums were even than a bit old hat and that they had already been overtaken by Facebook and Twitter in the mass popular social networking markets.

There were already a number of very well established BWFC forums in existence and the one set up immeadiately just before us (White Hot iirc) had just jacked in.

As I keep saying, we set Nuts up for a laugh amongst three old time forum members who had all for one reason or another 'left' other sites and we simply decided that if other forums didn't want us, then we set up our own and open the doors to anyone who wanted to join us.

We immeadiately hit a brick wall when we were sabotaged (honestly we were) by not one but TWO seperate owners of BWFC forums and banned from advertising on all the others apart from two (Mad and JA606) who both have since gone back on their word and banned me from posting on their respective sites to boot - both without giving any notice of their actions either.

We did advertise on the Bolton News forum but as it was not modded we had no one to ask for permission to do so first.

We did not (like one forum likes to claim) bribe anybody to come here with offers of becoming a mod, nor did we systematically poach anyone from any other site - although I had the opportunity and the means to do so if I was that way inclined.  We by the main let people come and find us - usually in the begining by word of mouth.

Over the span of our existence it became clear that the majority of anybody joining us and becoming regular posters on here were usually posters from other forums that seem to like us that bit more than the forums they had been posting on.  

There is simply no untapped reservior of potential forum posters out there to swell our ranks, so the best we can do is to make our site the best we can and hope others, who visit other forums, like us enough to come and join in with the fun and news on here.

To this end some of us have worked long and hard to gain NewsNow membership so that we can 'officially' get our name out there into the BWFC community.

Well we've achieved that and I dare say the majority of most if not all of the other BWFC forums readers now know of our existence even if they have not visited us personally themselves.

So until or unless myself and the other people behind the scenes can find even more of our personal time (for free remember) to invest in the site to make it even more better than we have it now, or others come forward to want to help us to do it - and God knows we've asked enough times in the past - then we are what we are - a forum that trys to be open to everyone (whatever the views and opinions that you hold), that likes to have a laugh amongst ourselves, whilst we follow our football team from season to season.

Of course we simply can't keep everybody happy all the time and people can and do kick off with others but we try to calm things down and mend fences when we can.

We don't want to ban anyone though, we don't want to lose posters either, so what we do is to warn people (numerous times) when they go too far, until it gets to the point when they simply won't listen to us and we finally have to do something to make things we don't like, stop.

Well we've got to that point now with Scott I believe that he now has stopped.

NOT at the point he was banned though BUT at the point he realised what he has lost and now has given his word to the effect that if he was allowed back he'd cut out all the shit with you.  

You've won if you like and Scott was always wrong to have abused you.

Obviously it takes some of us far longer than others until the penny finally drops.

Clearly however you don't think he can change - but I do.

So which of us is right?

There is of course only one way to find out.

And yes he has called us both names in the very recent past but speaking for myself - so what.

I was always taught that sticks and stones may break my bones but words (especially from some anonymous poster on the internet who I will ever meet in my life) will never hurt me.

There's plenty of ways of you two can easily keeping apart on here if you wanted too so why not give him one last life?

No, we aren't going to lose any possible new member from joining over this, if anything I'd like to think others may see us as the only forum that isn't so petty and vindictive enough to take internet spats personal enough to bare permanent grudges.

So what better time than Christmas to allow the return of our prodigal son so to speak, knowing that he's on his last and final warning?

Seems the right and proper thing to do to me.

One final chance.

What's to lose?

Let me log in as 'Breadman' and reply...

So can he log in as him self note then?

Bollotom2014 wrote:I'm Angry Mum 

I'm angry Mum, and so is my wife!!!!!!

damn can't remember if I am logged in as Breadman or Natasha - of am I Amos, at the moment?



Confirmed - I am Amos!

bwfc71 wrote:damn can't remember if I am logged in as Breadman or Natasha - of am I Amos, at the moment?



Confirmed - I am Amos!

Amos should definitely be banned, clearly a fake account.

Sluffy, just a quick one.

None of this boils down to me "winning" where Scott's concerned and I'm a little disappointed that you seem to think it does.

You publicly asked for my opinion on the matter, I offered it and you then ignored it because it was at odds with your own agenda and Scott's now back.

I don't feel as though I've "won" anything, in fact I feel like I've lost something where the site's concerned because I no longer feel as inclined to get involved like I used to.

But, as I have been at great pains to stress throughout this whole sorry saga, it's not about individual posters, it's about the principles involved - they're what's important, not the people.

Can we draw a line under all this now and get back to being pretend internet warriors and talking bollocks please?
it would be a big shame to this site if Breadman feels he can't contribute as much as he normally does.

Norpig wrote:
it would be a big shame to this site if Breadman feels he can't contribute as much as he normally does.

Can I just clarify that I wasn't making a big, girly, drama queen statement before, I was just being honest.

I'm just one bloke who posts on here, the site doesn't need me and I'm really not important.

I'll still post on here just not as much probably.

There have been a few disquieting signs on here recently about where the site's headed and, if I'm honest, it's starting to put me off a bit (and I know I'm not alone in this regard).

But as I keep saying, this isn't about me, it's about what's best for Nuts.

I'm still angry Mum!!!!!!!


And my wife definitely is!!!!!!!

No funnier the second time Bryan.

and a happy new year

bryan458 wrote:I'm still angry Mum!!!!!!!


And my wife definitely is!!!!!!!

No you are not, you are just a very naughty boy!!



No retreat, no looking back - all guns blazing...

Breadman wrote:Sluffy, just a quick one.

None of this boils down to me "winning" where Scott's concerned and I'm a little disappointed that you seem to think it does.

You publicly asked for my opinion on the matter, I offered it and you then ignored it because it was at odds with your own agenda and Scott's now back.

I don't feel as though I've "won" anything, in fact I feel like I've lost something where the site's concerned because I no longer feel as inclined to get involved like I used to.

But, as I have been at great pains to stress throughout this whole sorry saga, it's not about individual posters, it's about the principles involved - they're what's important, not the people.

A principle as far as I'm aware is 'a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning'.

We don't want abusive behaviour on here and so Scott was banned.

So far so good.

However if because of the effect of the ban his behaviour changes, the ban is no longer necessarily then required to be enforced.

People get punished for doing wrong by being sent to prison, where hopefully their behaviour becomes changed and when they return into society they conform to the norms and behaviour of it.

Otherwise the alternative is once people go to prison, they never let them out again, or equally banning someone from Nuts means they are never allowed back on here - ever!

That can't be right surely?

I do believe I have listened to you on this matter, indeed I directly quoted what you've said previously -

Breadman wrote:
The simplest way to let this play out would appear to be for me to officially sanction his return (even though it's not really my call and I don't want that "power") and see what happens.

I agree fully with this insightful assessment of yours.

So as far as I can see we have adhered to our own priciples, Scott has changed his behaviour in order to be allowed back on here and we have gone along with your own assessment of what we should do next.

So as far as I'm concerned the site is being fair and reasonable to everybody.

Scott did wrong, suffered the consequences and promised to changed his behaviour to be allowed back.

The best thing for our forum - and I'm sure everyone will agree - is for you BOTH to contribute to it (without the abuse that was there between you before).

Well that is the position we are now at.

It's now equally up to Scott to see if he can post without abusing people and being banned for good, and for you to post on a forum with Scott being a part of it.

There's plenty of ways you can avoid each other on here if you feel you have to but I would hope that you are both reasonable enough to draw a line under what as gone on before and move on from there.

I believe that is fair and just to all.

I think most other people will too.