Errrr
Lard lad
Lard lad
You really have lost your edgeNatasha Whittam wrote:I'm not arguing that Boggers and Scott deserved their ban, and the loss of Scott will not hurt this site one bit.
But Boggers contributed in his own way. Yes, he was a bellend but most of us are guilty of that and have had our stupid moments.
When Boggers and Scott were banned there were several posters congratulating the mods for their actions, saying the site would be better off without them. So where are all the interesting or funny posts from these people now that the site is Boggers/Scott free? Who has stepped up now that Boggers can't take the piss?
I'll tell you, no one. I've just been away for a few days and each night I would check the site for something worth reading. Take away the news posts by KP or Sluffy and there was absolutely bugger all. I thought I was on the Mavies forum.
I may be wrong but I'd be surprised if the last fortnight hasn't been the quietest period in the history of Bolton Nuts. And it's only going to get worse.
Perhaps people need to accept that any forum needs an edge. A character or two who can set the site off with a couple of posts. Yes, they may overstep the mark from time to time but, as far as I am concerned, any forum is at its best when people are arguing over nothing.
Folk on here seem to like being shocked or outraged by certain posts or posters, but I'll bet you they really love reading the shite that gets posted on here. I know I do.
So I'm asking the mods to reinstate Boggers. Before more people drift away because no one is posting.
Many thanks.
Natasha Whittam (24,000+ posts)
Its not just a select few. Dont get me wrong, when boggers wasnt bogscott i actually found him alright. I liked him.Sluffy wrote:My view is different.
As far as I'm concerned it is all or non.
I can't see how it can be possibly deemed fair to ban posters simply to please other posters?
It takes two to tango.
I can't see how you can leave one person banned for good and allow another back for doing the same things at the same time - how can that be deemed fair and reasonable?
It can't.
Yes I know Scott had previous but the others involved were not whiter than white either.
All the people involved now know clearly that we no longer want the shit they gave us and will now act to stop it.
On that basis (and having previous discussion about my views behind the scenes) I believe the right thing to do is to lift the bans of both Boggers and Scott.
Future posts from and between Boggers, Scott and Bread will need to be civil in content otherwise all this shit starts again and quite frankly we've had enough of it.
On that basis I will lift the bans but if people still can't learn the lesson, then they will be gone for good just like the AD account.
y2johnny wrote:Errrr
Lard lad
Sluffy wrote:
Future posts from and between Boggers, Scott and Bread will need to be civil in content otherwise all this shit starts again and quite frankly we've had enough of it.
y2johnny wrote:
You really have lost your edge
This is embarrassing
Enjoy your retirement
Yeah.Natasha Whittam wrote:y2johnny wrote:
You really have lost your edge
This is embarrassing
Enjoy your retirement
I'm not sure asking the mods to re-instate a poster is the place to be edgy.
y2johnny wrote:Its not just a select few. Dont get me wrong, when boggers wasnt bogscott i actually found him alright. I liked him.Sluffy wrote:My view is different.
As far as I'm concerned it is all or non.
I can't see how it can be possibly deemed fair to ban posters simply to please other posters?
It takes two to tango.
I can't see how you can leave one person banned for good and allow another back for doing the same things at the same time - how can that be deemed fair and reasonable?
It can't.
Yes I know Scott had previous but the others involved were not whiter than white either.
All the people involved now know clearly that we no longer want the shit they gave us and will now act to stop it.
On that basis (and having previous discussion about my views behind the scenes) I believe the right thing to do is to lift the bans of both Boggers and Scott.
Future posts from and between Boggers, Scott and Bread will need to be civil in content otherwise all this shit starts again and quite frankly we've had enough of it.
On that basis I will lift the bans but if people still can't learn the lesson, then they will be gone for good just like the AD account.
But you cant ignore the majority.
Otherwise this place will be worse than it is at the moment.
y2johnny wrote:
Yeah.
Good 'un
As already stated. I like boggers when not involved with scott. I honestly wouldnt mind if he came back. But for you to be the one campaigning........Well.Natasha Whittam wrote:y2johnny wrote:
Yeah.
Good 'un
Why are you pulling a strop, BoggScott didn't commit bullery against you.
Bread2.0 wrote:Sluffy wrote:
Future posts from and between Boggers, Scott and Bread will need to be civil in content otherwise all this shit starts again and quite frankly we've had enough of it.
So obviously then, the logical thing to do is ignore all the evidence about how it all went disastrously wrong the last time you let Scott back and all the comments from regular contributors, applauding the recent bans?
Hmmm.....yes, makes perfect sense.
Not just all about keeping the numbers up though, is it?
y2johnny wrote:Because quite honestly, a u-turn on the scott ban will just cause you more aggro sluffy. Honestly, not arsed either way, its not my forum, but it seems as though we are going the way of BA at the moment.
Have a pop in there, he is still spouting his bile. Even upto yesterday. Albeit he is at least getting better of not being too direct
WTFNatasha Whittam wrote:y2johnny wrote:Because quite honestly, a u-turn on the scott ban will just cause you more aggro sluffy. Honestly, not arsed either way, its not my forum, but it seems as though we are going the way of BA at the moment.
Have a pop in there, he is still spouting his bile. Even upto yesterday. Albeit he is at least getting better of not being too direct
I agree with Johnny on this,
y2johnny wrote:Because quite honestly, a u-turn on the scott ban will just cause you more aggro sluffy. Honestly, not arsed either way, its not my forum, but it seems as though we are going the way of BA at the moment.
Have a pop in there, he is still spouting his bile. Even upto yesterday. Albeit he is at least getting better of not being too direct
Natasha Whittam wrote:y2johnny wrote:Because quite honestly, a u-turn on the scott ban will just cause you more aggro sluffy. Honestly, not arsed either way, its not my forum, but it seems as though we are going the way of BA at the moment.
Have a pop in there, he is still spouting his bile. Even upto yesterday. Albeit he is at least getting better of not being too direct
I agree with Johnny on this, I don't see why both of them have to be re-instated. They may have been guilty of the same "crime" but Scott has a lot more previous.
If two drivers are caught over the alcohol limit, one a first time offender and the other a 5 time offender they won't get the same sentence.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum