BoxRec

I contracted the disease for starting utterly crap threads with crap subject lines that don't give you enough information to help you avoid them?

Goz, why are you being so unkind? :(

As a new user, I am only trying to fit in a discuss boxing. :x

Super Heavyweight wrote:Goz, why are you being so unkind? :(

As a new user, I am only trying to fit in a discuss boxing. :x

You are not a new user, you are a user that has alredy been banned twice.

Sorry, I don't get that joke.

Freiheit wrote:

Super Heavyweight wrote:Goz, why are you being so unkind? :(

As a new user, I am only trying to fit in a discuss boxing. :x

You are not a new user, you are a user that has alredy been banned twice.

I clicked on his name and noticed 24 posts per day, scanning through them saw they were nearly all off-topic, and figured it was the same guy: a cross between David Brent and Robsteth. Seriously mate, why not find a forum about your favourite music band or something you can post too.

Are you always this unfriendly to new users?

Freiheit wrote:

Super Heavyweight wrote:Goz, why are you being so unkind? :(

As a new user, I am only trying to fit in a discuss boxing. :x

You are not a new user, you are a user that has alredy been banned twice.

Why does he continually get banned?

I'm not questioning the decision at all, just asking what he's done that is so bad?

glittermonkey wrote:

Freiheit wrote:

Super Heavyweight wrote:Goz, why are you being so unkind? :(

As a new user, I am only trying to fit in a discuss boxing. :x

You are not a new user, you are a user that has alredy been banned twice.

Why does he continually get banned?

I'm not questioning the decision at all, just asking what he's done that is so bad?

I think it's because this BoxRec forum likes to keep quality > quantity. Posters who have large amounts of posts on this forum tend to be extremely knowledgeable and are always worth listening too. On other forums you get spammers who post constant off-topic stuff and duff replies to bump up their post-count because they think it gives them some sort of prestige. It's a strange phenomenon.

Guest/Hurricane/etc didn't really bother me that much either. But at the end of the day he was a spammer and that's against the rules so I guess he had to be banned.

Manos de Oro wrote:

glittermonkey wrote:

Freiheit wrote: You are not a new user, you are a user that has alredy been banned twice.

Why does he continually get banned?

I'm not questioning the decision at all, just asking what he's done that is so bad?

I think it's because this BoxRec forum likes to keep quality > quantity. Posters who have large amounts of posts on this forum tend to be extremely knowledgeable and are always worth listening too. On other forums you get spammers who post constant off-topic stuff and duff replies to bump up their post-count because they think it gives them some sort of prestige. It's a strange phenomenon.

Guest/Hurricane/etc didn't really bother me that much either. But at the end of the day he was a spammer and that's against the rules so I guess he had to be banned.

I have nothing to do with the banning so I dont know why he was banned the first time as original hurricane.

I just thought that it may have been a committee decision, Freiheit. I can't say i'll lose much sleep if i don't find out, but he hasn't done anything that i'd find offensive, so it's a curious decision.

Yeah, he did spam Manos, but i think that most of the more memorable threads are the off-topic ones. I much prefer it when there is a wide mix of topics to discuss. Even the most hardcore boxing fans need a little break ever now and then. Otherwise it'd be easy to get depressed at all the cancellations, mismatches, and general crap that is now par for the course. I can see how it might be a little too much spam for some though.

I have no idea what's been going on. I was actually surprised that the original hurricane was banned. It was around early July (and I was away for a week), up untill what I read on the Women's forum I assumed TOH had some problem with his account and thats why he changed his account.

I agree with glitter on this one. I had no problem with him, I don't think he ever insulted anyone on the board (perhaps he did via PM, I don't know).

While the alot of his posts were not on the topic, sometimes they were a good break. As I said before one of my favourite threads here was on the game "guess who" and some of the lookalike threads.

I agree that there is no harm in Off Topic amusing threads etc but i suppose sometimes too many of them can have a harmful effect, i remember at one point there were of them on the Current Scene than Boxing threads.

That's just my explanation of why Guest could have been banned, i am not familiar with either of his alter egos.

The editors have nothing to do with the forum only the moderators can ban/delete ect

I guess the point I was trying to make is that this is a quality forum, perhaps the best on the net.

I rarely start threads because the content of the threads on the forum is such that I'm happy to contribute to those if I don't have anything worth bringing up myself.

So when I see the utter crap some people justify starting new topics with I thought I would point out that we can all do that.

Goes back to my original suggestion that posters should get 200+ posts before being allowed to start new topics/threads unless allowed by the moderators, that would maintain the level of quality.

That's a good idea.

I agree with Lautch, everybody has to start somewhere - The likes of Ian and James McDonnell started threads the well within 200 posts - all have been of quality.

One thing I have liked about this forum is that all "newbies" are treated with respect and are allowed the same space as with others. I have not seen one post in which a poster has said words to the effect of "You've only been on here 5 minutes and are already calling the shots". All views are treated with respect - some newbies have voiced some controvesial views (I remember Loftgroov first few posts) however, all the board members debated these views without debating the status or quality of the poster.

Personal insults should not be tolerated though and newbies who do that I consider to be trouble makers. The only poster I have ever complained about to John Shep was a newbie who was making personal accusations to one of the moderators (and before anyone starts I don't think this individual posts on other forums). This poster also abused many other posters.

As far as Banning is concerned, I haven't seen this Ban button and wouldn't have a clue how it is done. As far as I am concerned, John Shep has the ultimate decision. Only this one poster I have asked to be banned.

It will not wotk in the schedule and record queries forum

Fair enough, good points chaps.

Goz wrote:I guess the point I was trying to make is that this is a quality forum, perhaps the best on the net.

I rarely start threads because the content of the threads on the forum is such that I'm happy to contribute to those if I don't have anything worth bringing up myself.

So when I see the utter crap some people justify starting new topics with I thought I would point out that we can all do that.

Goes back to my original suggestion that posters should get 200+ posts before being allowed to start new topics/threads unless allowed by the moderators, that would maintain the level of quality.

I know what your saying, and i agree for the most part. However i don't think that there is a viable way to keep the standard of debate to a reasonably high level, whilst simultaneously stopping spamming altogether. As Latuch and Stu have already said, quantity doesn't necessarily equal quality. We can't just tar every newcomer, and occasional poster with the same brush.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that it's really got to be up to the moderators to decide if a poster contributes positively to the forum or not. I for one am happy to leave the running of the forum up to them, they seem to do a decent enough job (bear in mind my Cotto thread and "a decent enough job" is high praise indeed), the only guy i've ever felt the need to complain about has gone the journey. And that's good enough for me.

1984, what a bad egg that bloke was.

I also like the idea of a thread addressing why a poster has been banned. It's such a rare occurance that i think it might be nice to hear the reasoning. If only for the sole reason that it might help others stay out of trouble. And maybe because i like sticking my nose in other people's business.

Goz wrote:I guess the point I was trying to make is that this is a quality forum, perhaps the best on the net.

I rarely start threads because the content of the threads on the forum is such that I'm happy to contribute to those if I don't have anything worth bringing up myself.

So when I see the utter crap some people justify starting new topics with I thought I would point out that we can all do that.

Goes back to my original suggestion that posters should get 200+ posts before being allowed to start new topics/threads unless allowed by the moderators, that would maintain the level of quality.

That's not a good idea

steve689 wrote:
That's not a good idea

Turncoat...

REINSTATE HURRICANE. REINSTATE HIURRICANE.