Sir Nut's ban

[Lofthouse Lower]

Let me just ask, as a neutral observer, whether I've understood this correctly.

1) Sir Nut has his opinions (right or wrong, they're his opinions), and
2) People criticise his posts and call him all names under the sun, using all the same terms (directed at another poster) that have led to bans for many other posters, yet
3) Sir Nut is the one that gets a ban

Not quite sure I understand the logic behind it - seeing as there is no right to reply anywhere to any of the moderator decisions I thought this thread might get an answer to a question that has been troubling me.

[Lord Kangana]

Its because he's a cock.

Happy to help.

[Lofthouse Lower]

Its because he's a cock.

Happy to help.

Thanks, but you needn't have bothered - it didn't help. I'm still left wondering why someone would be banned just because you disagree with them?

Poor lad

[Bruce Rioja]

I'd have thought that the moderators have to make judgement calls for the good of the site.
Put up with a knobber like Sir Nut and his constant spouting of his solitary ill-conceived claim, then eventually those with so much more to contribute just couldn't be arsed anymore.

[thebish]

I heard from a high-up ITK TW source that SirNutsDad - who is also a treasured member here - PMed the mods to ask for a ban because it was keeping littleNut up past his bed&bathtime and stopping him doing his geography homework...

[Lofthouse Lower]

I'd have thought that the moderators have to make judgement calls for the good of the site.
Put up with a knobber like Sir Nut and his constant spouting of his solitary ill-conceived claim, then eventually those with so much more to contribute just couldn't be arsed anymore.

thank-you Bruce

[Lord Kangana]

To be honest, I'm surprised he isn't embarassed enough to have quit the site beforehand. I mean, it was quite funny for a couple of days, but incredibly one-dimensional after a couple of weeks. 3/10 for WUMupmanship.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'd have thought that the moderators have to make judgement calls for the good of the site.
Put up with a knobber like Sir Nut and his constant spouting of his solitary ill-conceived claim, then eventually those with so much more to contribute just couldn't be arsed anymore.

thank-you Bruce

You're welcome. That's just my assumption though.

[ratbert]

Its when debate gets hijacked and descends into handbags at 50 paces on a regular basis that action has to be taken.

And it's not like Sir Nut is permanently out of the building. Hopefully he'll come back chastened by the experience. If not, his downfall, not ours.

[CAPSLOCK]

Its because he's a cock

No, it can't be just that

[boltonboris]

I'd have thought that the moderators have to make judgement calls for the good of the site.
Put up with a knobber like Sir Nut and his constant spouting of his solitary ill-conceived claim, then eventually those with so much more to contribute just couldn't be arsed anymore.

There's a few like that on here Bruce!

[TANGODANCER]

I'd have thought that the moderators have to make judgement calls for the good of the site.Put up with a knobber like Sir Nut and his constant spouting of his solitary ill-conceived claim, then eventually those with so much more to contribute just couldn't be arsed anymore.

Absolutely right. There's also member complaints and the fact that his posts had a massive and deliberate WUM factor. He'll be back, hopefully less abrasive when he arrives.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

The site was unbearable with his incredibly skewed vendetta against Kevin Davies and Owen Coyle.

The site was unbearable when everyone else, who got sick of his incredibly skewed vendetta against Kevin Davies and Owen Coyle, stooped to incredibly low levels. He then stooped to the same personal abuse followed by "I came here to talk football".

When you tried to give measured arguments against his incredibly skewed vendetta, he ignored it in order to continue his incredibly skewed vendetta against Kevin Davies and Owen Coyle. Or he stooped to personal attacks. Which isn't really talking football.

So, hypocritical child.

When his ban's over, I'm back to do the gardening, work or talk to Mrs K.

[thebish]

When his ban's over, I'm back to do the gardening, work or talk to Mrs K.

blimey - it must be serious!

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

I know! If you're going to absorb the same shite being spouted time and time and time again, about the same subject time and time and time again, with no right of meaningful reply, I might as well absorb it from someone who shares a bed with me!

[hisroyalgingerness]

There was a certain irony that after taking months of anti-Megson comments and the site putting up with that claptrap, that we got someone so innately Pro-Megson that we got sick of him too.

Does sound like this one fell foul of a lick-of-the-finger-stick-it-in-the-air decision rather than any actual transgression. Unless there's been a racist thread moved that we don't know about.

You lot won't learn though will you, just ignore the buggers

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

You lot won't learn though will you, just ignore the buggers

I tried. It just became easier to ignore everyone else at the same time, such was the level of it.

[William the White]

Not sure I'd have banned him... but glad someone else did...

[thebish]

and I bet he's smiling to himself that we're still talking about him...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I personally don't favour bans (except for WUMs supporting other teams). However, I accept the decisions of those who run the site which is a thankless job. While I found Sir Nuts range of views extremely limited and tiresome after a while, all the responses he got were equally tedious IMHO. We could have simply ignored him after a while as some urged, but something in the way he wrote always seemed to draw a host of outraged responses. He was probably as sinned against as sinning, but he chose always to start the fire.