Do we

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:55 am

Is there an IP ban option?

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:04 am

Yes there is but you can easily get around that.

For an example, here is a small list if IPs that you've posted from. This isn't even half of them.

207.14.29.3 [ 1819 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
61.85.138.177 [ 833 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
24.18.167.253 [ 540 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
71.227.164.53 [ 523 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
71.231.209.107 [ 403 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
211.194.146.87 [ 313 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
71.227.236.124 [ 280 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
63.118.191.250 [ 142 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
63.224.47.53 [ 126 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
211.194.146.38 [ 118 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
211.229.202.133 [ 94 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
71.37.20.210 [ 89 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
71.32.85.122 [ 65 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
24.22.159.81 [ 61 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
24.18.239.209 [ 58 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
118.42.94.75 [ 43 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
24.17.240.213 [ 37 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]
70.56.87.35 [ 36 Posts ] [ Look up IP address ]

So it's hard to ban by IP

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:07 am

I frequent a number of internet cafes.

If we're trying to find CWE's new alter ego I'll go post a suggestion that we sign Brad Guzan and we'll see who goes apeshit.

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:22 pm

Really what was so bad about CWE and Batman?

I dont recall any recent bans, and if they are back on here, have they learnt their lesson and playing by the rules?

Hoboh · Post by **Hoboh** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:44 pm

jaffka wrote:Really what was so bad about CWE and Batman?

I dont recall any recent bans, and if they are back on here, have they learnt their lesson and playing by the rules?

Nearly!

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

My theory is based on the following equation
C2H5OH + Internet access = ban
C2H5OH squared + internet access = permanent ban

I can only suggest that breathalyzers be placed on computers to disable internet access.

Dujon · Post by **Dujon** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:15 pm

Be reasonable, Monty.

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:18 pm

jaffka wrote:Really what was so bad about CWE and Batman?

I dont recall any recent bans, and if they are back on here, have they learnt their lesson and playing by the rules?
In one case, no ... trying like mad but it's so in his nature to be an abusing, negative, wind-up merchant he can't help but slip up from time to time.

He's already slipped & he'll slip again.

my prediction is correct ... withi the day in fact. Given that he was banned as Batman after many a warning and then he was reinstated only to be banned again ... then came in as his supposed brother, which we all knew was bollocks, got a months ban, again after warnings & now has gone over the top yet again why do we feel he may have been harshly treated (yet again) ?

General Mannerheim · Post by **General Mannerheim** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:38 pm

does anyone know what bruno said and what it was about? i dont expect you to post it here but a pm would be good - id just like to know where the line is drawn. i honestly cant imagine it was that bad???

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:49 pm

General Mannerheim wrote:does anyone know what bruno said and what it was about? i dont expect you to post it here but a pm would be good - id just like to know where the line is drawn. i honestly cant imagine it was that bad???

I was just wondering - is there not a facility for mods just to simply remove posts that might be deemed, not offensive, but just unsuitable? What exactly is unsuitable? Reference to anal sex doesn't personally abuse anyone does it? Can someone clear this rather mucky area up?

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:58 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
General Mannerheim wrote:does anyone know what bruno said and what it was about? i dont expect you to post it here but a pm would be good - id just like to know where the line is drawn. i honestly cant imagine it was that bad???
I was just wondering - is there not a facility for mods just to simply remove posts that might be deemed, not offensive, but just unsuitable? What exactly is unsuitable? Reference to anal sex doesn't personally abuse anyone does it? Can someone clear this rather mucky area up?

fnarrr, fnarrr etc...

This stinks.

You have a made a big dirty hole than needs cleaning up.

It's a real mess that needs wiping clean.

etc

etc

jaffka · Post by **jaffka** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:59 am

Oh forgot the

Hoboh · Post by **Hoboh** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:25 am

Oh dear kinda had a soft spot for bruno.

Rules is rules and one cannot demand rigid enforcement then decry their application I suppose

Hoboh · Post by **Hoboh** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:26 am

Oh I forgot

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:06 am

jaffka wrote:Oh forgot the

And I forgot "Pun most definitely intended".

keveh · Post by **keveh** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:30 pm

Put it this way, I wouldn't want to re-post what he had posted.

Although it was not an insult towards a person, it's definitely not the sort of stuff that we want on here and him thinking it would be alright to post shows how wrong he was.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:45 pm

I've no idea as to why I'm being messaged from both sides of the divide here, but anyway, in the interests of balance I've been asked to post this explanation. Personally I've no idea as to what it is that he posted and have no desire to find out.
I'm not a moderator of this site and those that are have chosen to ban Bruno. In short - it's nowt to do with me either way.

Any further correspondence that I receive on this issue will be deleted without being read.

Cheers.

The thread was a meant to be a laugh, it was referring to the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, and nothing to do with graphically referring anal sex like Zulu said.........I wasn't trying to offend anyone I was jabbering on about the fact that people write this shit in all seriousness.

If they want to ban me, then fine, that's up to them, but I want the posting population to know that it wasn't derogatory, sexist, inflammatory or abusive, it was taking the piss.

Wandering Willy · Post by **Wandering Willy** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:22 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:I've no idea as to why I'm being messaged from both sides of the divide here, but anyway, in the interests of balance I've been asked to post this explanation. Personally I've no idea as to what it is that he posted and have no desire to find out.
I'm not a moderator of this site and those that are have chosen to ban Bruno. In short - it's nowt to do with me either way.

Any further correspondence that I receive on this issue will be deleted without being read.

Cheers.

The thread was a meant to be a laugh, it was referring to the Bad Sex in Fiction Award, and nothing to do with graphically referring anal sex like Zulu said.........I wasn't trying to offend anyone I was jabbering on about the fact that people write this shit in all seriousness.

If they want to ban me, then fine, that's up to them, but I want the posting population to know that it wasn't derogatory, sexist, inflammatory or abusive, it was taking the piss.

Although it is not possible to know someone's motives for a post I am prepared to give Bruno the benefit of the doubt here in that I believe he was posting something that he found funny and not to deliberately offend someone.

That being said, the thread title alone was totally inappropriate for this site. The content was explicit and contained a link to porn whichever way you dress it up. There are sites for that stuff elsewhere on the internet (or so I'm told). My initial reaction was that with a tamer thread title and a link with a "health warning" then the thread would have got a few views and then disappeared into oblivion. On reflection, I don't think it's appropriate in any form on this forum. Probably best to keep the stuff on another tab in your browser.

When you are on thin ice for past offences it is would seem better to err on the side of caution. He must have known when he typed that thread title that he was treading the line of what is acceptable. It was, at best, a grave error of judgement.

I think Keveh sums it up best:

Although it was not an insult towards a person, it's definitely not the sort of stuff that we want on here and him thinking it would be alright to post shows how wrong he was.

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:08 pm

On reflection Bruno's ban will not be permanent. It will be for one month and it will expire on 21 December. Any further ban will indeed be permanent. Hopefully he will accept this opportunity. There won't be any more.

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:14 pm

Zulus Thousand of em wrote:On reflection Bruno's ban will not be permanent. It will be for one month and it will expire on 21 December. Any further ban will indeed be permanent. Hopefully he will accept this opportunity. There won't be any more.

While many might disagree, Zulu I commend you on your decision in this particular case. If it had been for some abuse against another poster then a permanent ban would certainly have been warranted. Get the feeling he probably had a few too many pints before that post, which of course I did not see so I shall shut up now.

Connect with your social network account

Do we

Who is online