So have the saintsWeb banned

[Dr Who?]

Everyone that made the forum tick and have some life to it.... it seems very quiet in here!

[Lighthouse]

Could be. Or alternatively, perhaps they're planning a surprise attack at dawn. There will be racism, homophobia, porn, tubgirl, libel posts and plenty of repeated threads. Thar be a storm coming. Ye be warned!

[Baj]

SaintsWeb are confident in announcing that the MTL (Moron Threat Level) is currently Low

[Dr Who?]

Could be. Or alternatively, perhaps they're planning a surprise attack at dawn. There will be racism, homophobia, porn, tubgirl, libel posts and plenty of repeated threads. Thar be a storm coming. Ye be warned!

But you have to admit, it is all a bit tumbleweed in here at the moment! But that will be because we are doing alright at the moment and things seem settled at the club. People love a good old moan!!

[Dr Who?]

having said what I have said above I know you cannot have offensive behaviour on here as many people do use it and it would not be correct to allow it to slip out of control. It cannot be easy to strike up a balance.

[Essruu]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

[RedArmy]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.Completely agree.

[Dr Who?]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

Great idea, and think this should be able to action straight away?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Baj, how long until we get the idiots back on? I actually miss them a little bit.

[egg]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

As a full fee paying member I agree. The rule is stupid and should be abandoned immediately imo.

[Dr Who?]

Great idea, and think this should be able to action straight away?

Oh but hold on 'Pardew Sacked'

[Hatch]

Its heading the same way as Marks and Spencers,

all the old customers/posters are dying (metaphorically speaking) and not being replaced by new young customers/posters.

[Gingeletiss]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads.

See now, this all depends on whether you agree in the spirit of fairness. Is it fair that someone who has paid a full stamp all his/her life, should get the same pension as someone who hasn't?....is it fair, that someone who can't/won't fork out a fiver towards the expence of running a site like this, should have the right to start threads?

IMO you should pay the fiver towards the running costs, but its all about opinions!

[Dr Who?]

See now, this all depends on whether you agree in the spirit of fairness. Is it fair that someone who has paid a full stamp all his/her life, should get the same pension as someone who hasn't?....is it fair, that someone who can't/won't fork out a fiver towards the expence of running a site like this, should have the right to start threads?

IMO you should pay the fiver towards the running costs, but its all about opinions!

How about if they start a post that is it for the day, and they have to wait for another 3 posts. I am thinking about this to much, as they still only get 3 posts for not being a full member so that is where they are not equal!!

[egg]

See now, this all depends on whether you agree in the spirit of fairness. Is it fair that someone who has paid a full stamp all his/her life, should get the same pension as someone who hasn't?....is it fair, that someone who can't/won't fork out a fiver towards the expence of running a site like this, should have the right to start threads?

IMO you should pay the fiver towards the running costs, but its all about opinions!

I see the point but the way I see it is that the restriction to 3 x posts for non members is enough of a distinction.

I cannot believe that full members would begrudge non members the ability to post new threads.

Perhaps a poll? If the majority approve make the change.

The board needs to change - Hatch's M & S comparison is spot on.

[Lets B Avenue]

See now, this all depends on whether you agree in the spirit of fairness. Is it fair that someone who has paid a full stamp all his/her life, should get the same pension as someone who hasn't?....is it fair, that someone who can't/won't fork out a fiver towards the expence of running a site like this, should have the right to start threads?

IMO you should pay the fiver towards the running costs, but its all about opinions!

For the derisory sum of 1.37p per day, I really struggle to work out why so many regular posters are bleating about this. The Cheats FC thread alone has provided enough VFM.

[Gingeletiss]

For the derisory sum of 1.37p per day, I really struggle to work out why so many regular posters are bleating about this. The Cheats FC thread alone has provided enough VFM.

As i said, it's all about opinions. Would you expect to be able to walk into a restaurant and have the same meal for free, as the person sat next to you, who has forked out fifty quid. The forum has running costs and I for one, am happy to contribute, I would if it were a tenner or twenty quid, so in my opinion, there has to be some distinction, between a 'full member', and a registered user. Others may disagree, but that is their right.

[Durleyfos]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.


Good idea. Unfortunately, Boj doesn’t do good ideas.

[Lighthouse]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

Sh*te idea.

Attack at dawn!

[Dimond Geezer]

Great idea, and think this should be able to action straight away?

Absolutely not, don't implement it for a year or so. I've just coughed up specifically to start a thread. :x

[Durleyfos]

Who was banned over the weekend then?

[buctootim]

Absolutely not, don't implement it for a year or so. I've just coughed up specifically to start a thread. :x

I want to see this £5 thread

[thesaint sfc]

All the decent posters don't post on here anymore, especially myself.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I think that Baj and stevegrant are running the forum perfectly. They don't need to listen to all this silly advice from customers. Did Lord Sugar listen to advice with Amstrad? No. And now he is on telly every week. Baj, steve... don't listen to what these people want. What do they know?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

Fair comment, however some of us have drifted because of the racism and homophobia. I just cannot be bothered to fight the the moronic element as it's me who gets 'the word in the ear' while trying to uphold a decent level of decorum. Now, despite some morons either tempering their behaviour or being banned, there is as you say nothing to draw me back.

So I just look in from time to time and comment on very few differing threads.

Would I rejoin if the racism etc reared up again?

I don't think so, for me TSW is now passed it's best. Sad for the guys that run it and put the effort in.

[Dimond Geezer]

I want to see this £5 thread

I'm surprised you missed it. It's a cracker, I'm sure in time it will be destined for the Golden Posts Section.

Brace yourself - here it comes:

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?25870-Saints-Wallpaper-(not-virtual)

[Weston Super Saint]

As i said, it's all about opinions. Would you expect to be able to walk into a restaurant and have the same meal for free, as the person sat next to you, who has forked out fifty quid. The forum has running costs and I for one, am happy to contribute, I would if it were a tenner or twenty quid, so in my opinion, there has to be some distinction, between a 'full member', and a registered user. Others may disagree, but that is their right.

It used to run on a voluntary donation scheme to keep the running costs topped up. Those were the days when the site was really busy, and interesting too.

Having the voluntary donation turned into a compulsory donation pi ssed a lot of people off - even some of those that had voluntarily donated!

Personally I don't feel there was anything wrong with that system, and it shouldn't have been changed, unless the voluntary donations dried up. But, it was, and I guess to 'save face' there's no going back. Once you've made your bed I guess you have to lie in it.

[Thedelldays]

This place has died.. What has happened recently???

[saintscottofthenortham]

Baj dishing out 2 pointers when his mates are tickled.

[suewhistle]

Well, I got a two pointer for telling the truth about someone I haven't seen recently - no names, no pack drill - and I still stand by what I say although I could have said a lot more that would have been regarded as abusive, but all of it true!:-) Still, I didn't protest my yellow card...:-)

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Fair comment, however some of us have drifted because of the racism and homophobia. I just cannot be bothered to fight the the moronic element as it's me who gets 'the word in the ear' while trying to uphold a decent level of decorum. Now, despite some morons either tempering their behaviour or being banned, there is as you say nothing to draw me back.

So I just look in from time to time and comment on very few differing threads.

Would I rejoin if the racism etc reared up again?

I don't think so, for me TSW is now passed it's best. Sad for the guys that run it and put the effort in.

+ 1. You are not alone

[SNSUN]

Could be. Or alternatively, perhaps they're planning a surprise attack at dawn. There will be racism, homophobia, porn, tubgirl, libel posts and plenty of repeated threads. Thar be a storm coming. Ye be warned!

Good job we've got our own Lighthouse then. That's almost self-promotion...

[Denzil]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

This.

[trousers]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

This +1

I pay my fiver to post more than 3 times a day rather than the 'privilege' of starting a thread.

What's the harm in giving it a trial run for say a week and see what happens?

[RonManager]

This +1

I pay my fiver to post more than 3 times a day rather than the 'privilege' of starting a thread.

What's the harm in giving it a trial run for say a week and see what happens?


I agree - after all, starting a thread is just another post really.

[saintscottofthenortham]

Seeing as 90% of created threads are closed anyway... I see no harm in it.

[Smirking_Saint]

All the funny and interesting posters are banned, which is why i find this place tediously boring atm. So yes Baj, moron threat level low, but so is the interest mate.

Registered users starting new threads gets my vote.

You are not welcome on here unless you speak/contribute in a tone befitting an old peoples home.

[dubai_phil]

Let's face it gang.

It's BORING these days.

Yeah it's great things are picking up on the playing front, but the problem is that no new blood is bringing in new ideas.

Little news, little gossip which used to be the lifeblood and a general consensus. Needs shaking up a bit we've run out of things to argue about

Essru's idea makes sense, but maybe one new thread a day to start with

[Verbal]

Fair comment, however some of us have drifted because of the racism and homophobia. I just cannot be bothered to fight the the moronic element as it's me who gets 'the word in the ear' while trying to uphold a decent level of decorum. Now, despite some morons either tempering their behaviour or being banned, there is as you say nothing to draw me back.

So I just look in from time to time and comment on very few differing threads.

Would I rejoin if the racism etc reared up again?

I don't think so, for me TSW is now passed it's best. Sad for the guys that run it and put the effort in.

I know exactly where you're coming from Andy. I've decided to walk away (cue apathetic cheering), because the sheer pea-brained tedium of posters like dune, and the simple inevitability of racist garbage that results, as well as the pub-landlord 'wisdom' of DP, imparted while standing with both feet on the backs of South Asian contract workers, plus the utter boredom of the main board, all makes it simply not worth bothering with.

I used to post as Roman, and had enormous fun, especially during the tommac days - but the sense of togetherness in adversity, which has always seemed to be essence of being a Saints fan, has evaporated on here. Far too many of the acerbic entertainers have gone - and the sheer comic genius of some of the threads of a couple of years ago is a distant memory.

Never mind.

[Viking Warrior]

I think some off us had a ban by stealth. Im only allowed to post three times a day if Im lucky. seems someone on this site is not allowing people to renew their £5 to renew full membership.

I know I should not have been so critical of el toblerone

[benjii]

All the funny and interesting posters are banned, which is why i find this place tediously boring atm. So yes Baj, moron threat level low, but so is the interest mate.

Registered users starting new threads gets my vote.

You are not welcome on here unless you speak/contribute in a tone befitting an old peoples home.

Plus another.

I'm all for banning people who are clearly intent on doing nothing other than post contrary views for the sake of getting a rise (Scooby - laughably not banned for months). Banning people for funny or sarcastic posts is stupid though. That is a feature of the kaleidoscope of human discourse. FFS.

Another problem is the profligacy of pointless and sparsely populated sub-forums which discourage and hinder participation. There should be a Saints forum, an away forum, an overseas Saints forum and a general chat board. That's all.

Also, I agree that anyone should be able to start a thread.

[Smirking_Saint]

Plus another.

I'm all for banning people who are clearly intent on doing nothing other than post contrary views for the sake of getting a rise (Scooby - laughably not banned for months). Banning people for funny or sarcastic posts is stupid though. That is a feature of the kaleidoscope of human discourse. FFS.


Also, I agree that anyone should be able to start a thread.

I agree with the above, i don't really agree with the different forums though. Banning people for just sarcasm, having a difference of opinion or being a bit of a boy is utterly rediculous.

I feel it is the daily mail population, instead of using the ignore button they just moan about anything that they dislike slightly.

[Spudgun]

I miss deppo already :(

[trousers]

I used to post as Roman, and had enormous fun, especially during the tommac days

Happy days indeed. I can heave a sigh of relief now you've 'come out' as Roman...3 years I've kept that to myself... :-)

Be sure to come back for the next takeover.... ;-)

[Wurzel]

Like I've said before the singlemost and simplest way of breathing new life into this forum is by allowing Registered Users to start new threads. They can still be restricted to three posts in a 24hr period if the powers-that-be still think this works. There is very little to keep Registered Users coming here if all they can do is use one of their three posts on one of the boring and stupid threads started by Full Members. If all they see is the dross that is currently on offer to be talked about, then there's often little point ion bothering; If there's little point in bothering, then they will not be engaged in the forum, will not be tempted into paying up their £5 to use it more and will eventually drift away. I think many have already reached the 'drifted away' stage.

The powers that be might think they would be giving something away for free if they implement this, but if Registered Members are able to start threads about things THEY want to talk about, they'll be more likely to want to continue those discussions (rather than what they consider to currently be dross) and decide to pay the £5 to become a Full Member.

It seems to me like business and forum suicide to not allow Registered Users to start new threads.

What Ess said.

If I want to discuss Anthony Pulis* I have 2 options (well 3 if you include paying my fiver)
1) Wait for someone to start a thread about him.
2) Mention him on a thread about something totally different and hope to divert [I]that[I] thread off-topic.
As I can't be arsed to do either I (and sounds like I'm far from alone) simply don't bother.



*This was an eaxample, I have no wish to start a Pulis discussion

[Baj]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

[Joensuu]

Fair comment, however some of us have drifted because of the racism and homophobia. I just cannot be bothered to fight the the moronic element as it's me who gets 'the word in the ear' while trying to uphold a decent level of decorum. Now, despite some morons either tempering their behaviour or being banned, there is as you say nothing to draw me back.

So I just look in from time to time and comment on very few differing threads.

Would I rejoin if the racism etc reared up again?

I don't think so, for me TSW is now passed it's best. Sad for the guys that run it and put the effort in.

Absolutely. I agree with Essruu that all registered users should be able to start threads (not just full members). It's fairly obvious that payment has reduced both the quantity of threads and the overall quality of the forum.

However, I disagree that we should allow the less desirable posters and spammers back on the board. Frankly, they weren't 'funny' as they thought they were, they were just annoying, and caused arguments on every thread. Thankfully I think the forum is better being quiet than being filled with cr*p posts. Long may this new style of admin power last (despite having recieved a yellow card myself, rightly so I might add, although IMO 'scum' isn't exactly the most offensive of terms. However, I can't complain as it looks like the admins are being consistant: most of the offensive posters have been whittled out).

[Joensuu]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

How about offering Full Members some other benefit to compensate. IMO the most exciting times on this forum are when something big is happening. Why not help your server, by restricting the access to the entire site to Full Members only when the total number of people on the site exceeds (say) 500? That way, Full Members get a guaranteed service at the most exciting times, your server gets a breather, and the forum gets an injection of life the rest of the time...

[mehball]

It went down hill after the £5 rubbish.

[hypochondriac]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

Well firstly I pay for the right to post more than three times and I really want to let everyone be able to start threads. As someone mentioned maybe give it a trial run. Remember classic threads like mark loves Amy and the ginger guy thread? Would they have been started by people who had paid? Unlikely. I say try it and see what happens.

[Baj]

Hypo: But, as my reply asked, how should we respond to those subscribed members who DONT want these changes, and would be quite within their rights to complain

[Wurzel]

Hypo: But, as my reply asked, how should we respond to those subscribed members who DONT want these changes, and would be quite within their rights to complain


Why not try a subscribed members only Poll to gauge the balance of their opinion on this.

[hypochondriac]

Alternatively say from this date we will be allowing everyone to start threads. You really should listen to your customers. This forum is a lot worse since post count was restricted to non members. I paid because I like to post but I would much rather the whole thing didn't exist. Keith worked five with voluntary donations and that's what I would prefer. No going back bow though. Ho hum

[hypochondriac]

Hypo: But, as my reply asked, how should we respond to those subscribed members who DONT want these changes, and would be quite within their rights to complain

Why not have a 2 week trial? I haven't seen anyone who strongly opposes it yet. Allow people to voice their opposition to it but I can't see how anyone cannot see it as anything other than a benefit. Has anyone come to you and disagreed strongly with the idea?

[Baj]

Why not try a subscribed members only Poll to gauge the balance of their opinion on this.
Yeah, but the issue still remains that it wont get 100% approval, so how are we to deal with those that dont agree?

[hypochondriac]

Look at it this way, if you are responding to what the majority of paid customers want, then it is actually a good thing. If you ignore them then the minority may be happy but the rest will not be. Especially considering a thread was started a few weeks ago asking for views about how to make the forum better.

[Baj]

Why not have a 2 week trial? I haven't seen anyone who strongly opposes it yet. Allow people to voice their opposition to it but I can't see how anyone cannot see it as anything other than a benefit. Has anyone come to you and disagreed strongly with the idea?
But at the end of the 2 weeks, we are still left in the same situation of what to do with those that disagree, and there will be those that disagree

[hypochondriac]

You have made loads of decisions for the good of the forum which haven't been net with universal approval. Why is this any different?

[hypochondriac]

But at the end of the 2 weeks, we are still left in the same situation of what to do with those that disagree, and there will be those that disagree

As with every decision but if most of your customers want it and can clearly see the benefits from the trial, then it should go ahead. It's a fiver for god sake. I really hope you will consider it as all I have seen on this thread is support for the idea.

[Baj]

Because it has a legal implication on those that have paid for a very specific facility. Dont get me wrong, i WANT to do it, but Im concerned about what position it would leave us in if a number of users strongly opposed us giving away something for free that they have paid for

[mickn]

I pay my £5 as well but I really couldn't care if people who don't can start threads as well. Those who have paid and moan about those who haven't starting threads must be incredibly petty.

[hypochondriac]

Because it has a legal implication on those that have paid for a very specific facility. Dont get me wrong, i WANT to do it, but Im concerned about what position it would leave us in if a number of users strongly opposed us giving away something for free that they have paid for

Then give a trial and if there is indeed a groundswell of opinion against it then they will be heard during that period and if it is unable to legally continue after that then so be it. Might as well try and see rather than just assuming the worst.

[hypochondriac]

And if anyone seriously suggested taking legal action against you over a fiver then I would quite happily refund them their money myself if it meant getting an interesting and busy forum again

[Baj]

And if anyone seriously suggested taking legal action against you over a fiver then I would quite happily refund them their money myself if it meant getting an interesting and busy forum again
Cool, so all we need is enough people willing to compensate those who dont want it. I think on those grounds you might get a few takers!

[franny]

Because it has a legal implication on those that have paid for a very specific facility. Dont get me wrong, i WANT to do it, but Im concerned about what position it would leave us in if a number of users strongly opposed us giving away something for free that they have paid for

If it is that they would object to others getting something for "nothing" when they paid - then surely it is no different to say SFC selling tickets very cheap for games when ST holders have paid the full price up front at the start of the season or I pay full price for a holiday later on you buy in a sale drastically reduced or banks offering special rates to new mortgage applicants they do not offer to existing custmers etc....I can't see what legal objectoins they may have as long as they still get what they paid for and others benefit from the "special offer".

[hypochondriac]

Cool, so all we need is enough people willing to compensate those who dont want it. I think on those grounds you might get a few takers!

Why with the sarcasm all the time? Have you actually seen someone say they vehemently oppose the idea? This topic has come up a few times over the years and I have never seen anyone say they strongly disagree. You say 'people won't want it' without actually testing to see if you are right. Maybe some will say well I disagree but in not that bothered over a fiver, then what is the problem with that? I think every effort should be made to give people what they want in order to make the forum as successful as possible.

[Baj]

If it is that they would object to others getting something for "nothing" when they paid - then surely it is no different to say SFC selling tickets very cheap for games when ST holders have paid the full price up front at the start of the season or I pay full price for a holiday later on you buy in a sale drastically reduced or banks offering special rates to new mortgage applicants they do not offer to existing custmers etc....I can't see what legal objectoins they may have as long as they still get what they paid for and others benefit from the "special offer".
Sorry franny, but none of your examples give something away for free that was paid for.

[Essruu]

Registered Users can only post three times in 24 hrs. Does it really make any difference if one of those is to start a thread? They're still only going to have two other posts left!

There are no disadvantages, only advantages: -

1. RUs starting a thread about a new topic gives everyone something else to talk about (might even enhance the forum experience of FMs by having more threads and discussions.)

2. A RU is more likely to want to get involved in a lively and interesting discussion that they've started and are therefore interested in, but they'll only have two remaining posts - so are more likely to be tempted to pay £5 for FM status to do so.

3. The more lively the discussions become, the more likely some of the older and more interesting posters of old are to return (I don't JUST mean Wurzel when I say 'old'). The more that they start using this place again the better it will become and the more people may be tempted to pay up.


The argument that it is a 'privilege' of FMs to be able to start a topic is ridiculous - 3 posts are 3 posts whether they're at the start, middle or end of a thread!

[Baj]

Why with the sarcasm all the time? Have you actually seen someone say they vehemently oppose the idea? This topic has come up a few times over the years and I have never seen anyone say they strongly disagree. You say 'people won't want it' without actually testing to see if you are right. Maybe some will say well I disagree but in not that bothered over a fiver, then what is the problem with that? I think every effort should be made to give people what they want in order to make the forum as successful as possible.
Im not being sarcastic, I'm stating the bloody obvious!

[Baj]

Registered Users can only post three times in 24 hrs. Does it really make any difference if one of those is to start a thread? They're still only going to have two other posts left!

There are no disadvantages, only advantages: -

1. RUs starting a thread about a new topic gives everyone something else to talk about (might even enhance the forum experience of FMs by having more threads and discussions.)

2. A RU is more likely to want to get involved in a lively and interesting discussion that they've started and are therefore interested in, but they'll only have two remaining posts - so are more likely to be tempted to pay £5 for FM status to do so.

3. The more lively the discussions become, the more likely some of the older and more interesting posters of old are to return (I don't JUST mean Wurzel when I say 'old'). The more that they start using this place again the better it will become and the more people may be tempted to pay up.


The argument that it is a 'privilege' of FMs to be able to start a topic is ridiculous - 3 posts are 3 posts whether they're at the start, middle or end of a thread!

Im not entirely sure the point you're trying to make, since we're now discussing the implications of giving something away for free that FM pay for. Its not "ridiculous", Essruu, it's a specific privilege they receive for paying!

[Baj]

Ill point out once again, I am in FAVOUR of doing this, I'm just worried about the implications for us financially and legally.

[hypochondriac]

So that's it then? Virtually every poster on this thread requests a change and due to being scared of legal action over a fiver, the requests are ignored? Same as normal then.

[Baj]

So that's it then? Virtually every poster on this thread requests a change and due to being scared of legal action over a fiver, the requests are ignored? Same as normal then.
Oh pick up your toys hypo. Ive already said we're considering it and I'm in favour, I'm pointing out WHY we have serious reservations. I'm not ruling it out and the next stage will be a poll to all full members.

[Lighthouse]

How about having "half members" who pay £1 for a subscription so they can start threads and nothing else. Full members don't get short changed and anyone who doesn't want to fork out £1 a year can f**k off.

[hypochondriac]

Oh pick up your toys hypo. Ive already said we're considering it and I'm in favour, I'm pointing out WHY we have serious reservations. I'm not ruling it out and the next stage will be a poll to all full members.

Thanks. Appreciate it.

[Jillyanne]

Oh pick up your toys hypo. Ive already said we're considering it and I'm in favour, I'm pointing out WHY we have serious reservations. I'm not ruling it out and the next stage will be a poll to all full members.


Wouldn't bother me in the slightest fwiw.

[The Kraken]

Im not entirely sure the point you're trying to make, since we're now discussing the implications of giving something away for free that FM pay for. Its not "ridiculous", Essruu, it's a specific privilege they receive for paying!

But surely you're already giving something away for free that Full Members pay for? You allow 3 daily posts for free. All you would be doing is allowing those 3 posts to also be allowed to start a thread, rather than join in on an existing one.

As a Full Member I'd very much encourage this, and as Essruu has previously stated I think it would actually lead to more people joining up at the site would be a bit more lively and interesting. Its a little bit tired at the moment with the same old posters starting the same old threads.

[dune]

To those moaning just pay the £5. Clearly the site costs money so it strikes me as pretty rude to be asking for something for nothing.

[Dr Who?]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

Can you not set it so only full members can post new threads on the main board?

[Baj]

But surely you're already giving something away for free that Full Members pay for? You allow 3 daily posts for free. All you would be doing is allowing those 3 posts to also be allowed to start a thread, rather than join in on an existing one.

But not breaking any expectations as FM's were completely aware of this from day one.

[mickn]

To those moaning just pay the £5. Clearly the site costs money so it strikes me as pretty rude to be asking for something for nothing.

Must be socialists

[The Kraken]

But not breaking any expectations as FM's were completely aware of this from day one.

I understand your point. But as a full member I pay £5 and receive the rights that being a Full Member afford me. If you choose to the change the rights of Registered Users, you are not changing the terms and conditions of Full Members. Ok, you're maybe changing the "expectations" as you say, but what you get as a Full Member doesn't change.

[Baj]

I understand your point. But as a full member I pay £5 and receive the rights that being a Full Member afford me. If you choose to the change the rights of Registered Users, you are not changing the terms and conditions of Full Members. Ok, you're maybe changing the "expectations" as you say, but what you get as a Full Member doesn't change.
And this is, succinctly, why I hope we can make this change without too much fuss. Well put.

[dune]

Must be socialists

I couldn't possibly think how you've linked wanting something for nothing and Socialism.;)

[Weston Super Saint]

Yeah, but the issue still remains that it wont get 100% approval, so how are we to deal with those that dont agree?

How about try going back to how it was?

There never seemed to be an issue with voluntary donations - never had access to the figures so can't be entirely sure either way - and the forum still used to give up the ghost as much as it does now....

Pretty sure the level of donations would be the same - maybe even increase - if we went back to the golden balls days.

[dune]

How about try going back to how it was?

There never seemed to be an issue with voluntary donations - never had access to the figures so can't be entirely sure either way - and the forum still used to give up the ghost as much as it does now....

Pretty sure the level of donations would be the same - maybe even increase - if we went back to the golden balls days.

100% agree with this. If it went back to donations i'd donate £10 per anum.

[Baj]

How about try going back to how it was?

There never seemed to be an issue with voluntary donations - never had access to the figures so can't be entirely sure either way - and the forum still used to give up the ghost as much as it does now....

Pretty sure the level of donations would be the same - maybe even increase - if we went back to the golden balls days.
Because that puts us back in a situation of not being able to financial plan for the year. The whole deal was to provide a sustained and predictable income so that we were able to provide a guaranteed service for years. Kinda the opposite of what the club did actually :p

[dune]

Baj how much does it cost to run this place?

[RedAndWhite91]

I'm in favour of Registered Users being able to start threads (perhaps, again, there could be a limit on how many they could start per day, just like the number of posts they are allowed).

I get annoyed when I'm reading a thread and a RU pops up with "Can't start a thread but" - and then goes off on something completely random and off topic....

[Baj]

Baj how much does it cost to run this place?
Dune, believe me, we poured over all options and donations simply isn't viable due to attrition. We saw this from when we operated with donations before. We simply cant afford what we need based on donations.

[dune]

Dune, believe me, we poured over all options and donations simply isn't viable due to attrition. We saw this from when we operated with donations before. We simply cant afford what we need based on donations.

Fair enough. I've got absolutely no sympathy for the complaints tbh. In fact i'd be tempted to make it a pay site and block all the tight bastards who have a problem coughing up a measly £5 per year.

[Master Bates]

Me and the tits will be back soon, started work yesterday :)

[Wurzel]

Ill point out once again, I am in FAVOUR of doing this, I'm just worried about the implications for us financially and legally.

Damn 3 a day rule, had to wait 2 hours to post this :blush:

Baj, what legal implications are there? The only details of what benefits subscribing gives you I can find are if I click the "Subscribe now" (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?30-SUBSCRIBE-NOW) link at the top of the page. All that mentions is
Subscribe to SaintsWeb for just £5 a year to post unlimited messages and for an advert-free site.
No mention of exclusive ability to start threads.

[Baj]

Damn 3 a day rule, had to wait 2 hours to post this :blush:

Baj, what legal implications are there? The only details of what benefits subscribing gives you I can find are if I click the "Subscribe now" (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?30-SUBSCRIBE-NOW) link at the top of the page. All that mentions is
No mention of exclusive ability to start threads.


Cheers Wurzel... that's a really good spot!

[Smirking_Saint]

I am not at all fussed about it, after all there post count would still be 3 posts a day, if one is a thread it means diddly to me. I actually think it may improve it a little and make it more interesting.

I still believe though that banning people for the sake of 3-4 old fuddy duddys that can't or won't use an ignore button is also to to the detriment of the forum. The points of view generation really irks me, i understand that those that are intentionally aggressive etc will be banned but those that use a bit of sarcasm and a few jokes ?? Surely not. What do these people do when they hear sarcasm etc on the street run to the old bill ?? No they ignore it, so why do they not just ignore it on here ? Unfortunately it is those people that you are trying to appease that are choking the life out of the forum IMO.

IMO the forum is slowly bleeding out and tbh we need to get a bit of banter back, a bit of togetherness and stop with all the p*ssing and moaning. You could make money etc by doing competitions like the player sponsorship one, getting signed shirts etc and having people put a bit in for a chance to get something out. Also i know of some other teams forums that arrange forum vs forum matches when they play away (or at home).

All probably very stupid ideas but this place has become a lot more boring in the year or so i have been on here, with interesting posters being castrated. TMS is non existant now as you pretty much are unable to post anything on there either, even under the terms of TMS. I understand you having to protect yourselves with libel etc, and that is fine, just delete them, or delete posts as you see fit and publically warn people.

[hypochondriac]

Dune, believe me, we poured over all options and donations simply isn't viable due to attrition. We saw this from when we operated with donations before. We simply cant afford what we need based on donations.

This isn't a complaint but out of curiosity, did you ever publish the accounts for saintsweb? I would be interested to see the costs.

[Baj]

Me and steve have checked, and as far as we can tell there's no where where we state starting threads is a privilege, except for this thread of course :S

With that in mind, ill make the changes to the forum now and put an announcement out that all registered users can now start threads.

[Gingeletiss]

Can you not set it so only full members can post new threads on the main board?

This!...Baj, if you have a poll, make this one of the options, it gets my vote.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

Tell them to suck it up.

[stevegrant]

This isn't a complaint but out of curiosity, did you ever publish the accounts for saintsweb? I would be interested to see the costs.
Available from Companies House if you so choose.

[hypochondriac]

I am not at all fussed about it, after all there post count would still be 3 posts a day, if one is a thread it means diddly to me. I actually think it may improve it a little and make it more interesting.

I still believe though that banning people for the sake of 3-4 old fuddy duddys that can't or won't use an ignore button is also to to the detriment of the forum. The points of view generation really irks me, i understand that those that are intentionally aggressive etc will be banned but those that use a bit of sarcasm and a few jokes ?? Surely not. What do these people do when they hear sarcasm etc on the street run to the old bill ?? No they ignore it, so why do they not just ignore it on here ? Unfortunately it is those people that you are trying to appease that are choking the life out of the forum IMO.

IMO the forum is slowly bleeding out and tbh we need to get a bit of banter back, a bit of togetherness and stop with all the p*ssing and moaning. You could make money etc by doing competitions like the player sponsorship one, getting signed shirts etc and having people put a bit in for a chance to get something out. Also i know of some other teams forums that arrange forum vs forum matches when they play away (or at home).

All probably very stupid ideas but this place has become a lot more boring in the year or so i have been on here, with interesting posters being castrated. TMS is non existant now as you pretty much are unable to post anything on there either, even under the terms of TMS. I understand you having to protect yourselves with libel etc, and that is fine, just delete them, or delete posts as you see fit and publically warn people.

TMS has always been sh*t. I wish the lounge and TMS would be merged and we went back to banter central with the * in topics you wish to remain sensible. That always worked best IMO.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Because it has a legal implication on those that have paid for a very specific facility. Dont get me wrong, i WANT to do it, but Im concerned about what position it would leave us in if a number of users strongly opposed us giving away something for free that they have paid for

Perhaps gauge what the feeling is by doing a poll first. If it is a lot of people who don't like the idea, then obviously another solution will have to be proposed.

It's got to be worth trying as it has got very boring (realise this isn't your fault).

EDIT: Turns out it's fine so ignore everything I say.

Now to get naked girls to replace those ugly mugs at the top of the page.

[hypochondriac]

Hooray for saintsweb democracy!

[Baj]

can someone who's a registered user confirm you can now start a thread... not sure if ive done it right :(

[benjii]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

You apologise and tell them that if they wish to cancel their membership as a result of the changes you will refund them pro rata for the remainder of their membership year.

I'd be more worried about losing the already paid up members who are expressing concerns about the way this place is run and operated than of losing the number (seriously, how many, 1, 2?) of people who would genuinely be annoyed enough to quit on the basis of those changes.

[Master Bates]

can someone who's a registered user confirm you can now start a thread... not sure if ive done it right :(

No luck for me.

[Dimond Geezer]

Absolutely not, don't implement it for a year or so. I've just coughed up specifically to start a thread. :x


Me and steve have checked, and as far as we can tell there's no where where we state starting threads is a privilege, except for this thread of course :S

With that in mind, ill make the changes to the forum now and put an announcement out that all registered users can now start threads.


FFS. I trust my fiver will be refunded to my paypal account forthwith. :sulk:

[benjii]

Cheers Wurzel... that's a really good spot!

FFS.

Seriously. FFS.

[benjii]

And has Deppo been banned?

FFS.

Seriously. FFS.

[norwaysaint]

Yes he has. For some reason Baj and SG have decided that no one can make a funny or flippant comment on a football based thread. Can you imagine if real life reflected this? If at the pub you were chatting about football and one of your mates said something funny, then they had to leave the pub for ruining the conversation?

Or a better comparison, some over-earnest member of the group, say as a random example, Hypochondriac, went and complained to the barman that somebody had said something funny and asked for them to be kicked out.

Why can't people laugh and joke on a football based thread? What kind of dull real life conversations do these people who report flippant posts have?

[hypochondriac]

I don't think it would be as bad if deppo had posted anything of any seriousness on the main board for about a year. All he ever posted about was stupidity which is fine in moderation but gets out of hand when you do it every time on the main board.

[benjii]

Deppo hardly spammed the threads though. If anything he made them more readable.

Ridiculous, jobsworth, pretentious nonsense to ban him.

[buctootim]

I don't think it would be as bad if deppo had posted anything of any seriousness on the main board for about a year. All he ever posted about was stupidity which is fine in moderation but gets out of hand when you do it every time on the main board.

Deppos contributions were invaluable in puncturing some of the posturing and pomposity. I can see why you werent a fan.

[stevegrant]

Deppos contributions were invaluable in puncturing some of the posturing and pomposity. I can see why you werent a fan.
And yet it had no effect on you. How odd.

[benjii]

Deppos contributions were invaluable in puncturing some of the posturing and pomposity. I can see why you werent a fan.

Exactly!

[hypochondriac]

If you wanted real wit on the main board then you should invite evil monkey to post on there again. He was brilliant

[benjii]

And yet it had no effect on you. How odd.

Just admit it's a stupid decision, that only someone with a sense of humour bypass and an over-inflated sense of importance would make, and we'll say no more about it.

[Mao Cap]

Deppo banned? :(

If anything, he must have prevented the suicides of half a dozen posters by breaking up the walls of bile-splattered text from the usual saddos with some humour!

[norwaysaint]

I don't think it would be as bad if deppo had posted anything of any seriousness on the main board for about a year. All he ever posted about was stupidity which is fine in moderation but gets out of hand when you do it every time on the main board.

Am I the only one who thinks attitudes like this are what have made SWF a duller place to come to and Deppo actually made it a more entertaining place. It was the same with posters like Wiltshire and Kadeem, both banned too. They could cut to the point far quicker with a satirical comment than a hundred of these endless repetitive and earnest posts. Sadly people who struggle with satire think it's just someone being stupid, off topic or flippant.

[stevegrant]

Just admit it's a stupid decision, that only someone with a sense of humour bypass and an over-inflated sense of importance would make, and we'll say no more about it.
The only stupid decision was his - that, despite numerous warnings, he couldn't leave his "humour" for the parts of the site where it would actually be relevant.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that the infractions that were handed out to him which pushed him over the 10-point milestone recently weren't done by me, so you can direct your "over-inflated sense of importance" digs elsewhere.

[buctootim]

And yet it had no effect on you. How odd.

Ah sticking up for your mates again no matter how ridiculous or unpopular they are Steve. 10 out of 10 for loyalty. 1/10 on 'How to run a successful and vibrant forum'.

[stevegrant]

Ah sticking up for your mates again no matter how ridiculous or unpopular they are Steve. 10 out of 10 for loyalty. 1/10 on 'How to run a successful and vibrant forum'.
How do you score on that one, by the way?

FWIW, to my knowledge I've never even met "hypochondriac", so I don't see how I'm "sticking up for my mates" there :?

[buctootim]

How do you score on that one, by the way?

FWIW, to my knowledge I've never even met "hypochondriac", so I don't see how I'm "sticking up for my mates" there :?

In that case retracted with apologies. I perceived he was one of the golden circle.

[hypochondriac]

Am I the only one who thinks attitudes like this are what have made SWF a duller place to come to and Deppo actually made it a more entertaining place. It was the same with posters like Wiltshire and Kadeem, both banned too. They could cut to the point far quicker with a satirical comment than a hundred of these endless repetitive and earnest posts. Sadly people who struggle with satire think it's just someone being stupid, off topic or flippant.

But as I said, I have already praised the likes of evil monkey for his use of wit and satire. I suppose I just found the likes of Kadeem and deppo a bot too obvious and unfunny. Maybe I just remember the hilarity of the old s4e. Each to their own.

[hypochondriac]

How do you score on that one, by the way?

FWIW, to my knowledge I've never even met "hypochondriac", so I don't see how I'm "sticking up for my mates" there :?

I have met you , you just didn't realise :)

[benjii]

Am I the only one who thinks attitudes like this are what have made SWF a duller place to come to and Deppo actually made it a more entertaining place. It was the same with posters like Wiltshire and Kadeem, both banned too. They could cut to the point far quicker with a satirical comment than a hundred of these endless repetitive and earnest posts. Sadly people who struggle with satire think it's just someone being stupid, off topic or flippant.

Absolutely.

[benjii]

The only stupid decision was his - that, despite numerous warnings, he couldn't leave his "humour" for the parts of the site where it would actually be relevant.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that the infractions that were handed out to him which pushed him over the 10-point milestone recently weren't done by me, so you can direct your "over-inflated sense of importance" digs elsewhere.

They are directed at the management team. You can't pass the buck.

This is a stupid decision that has made the forum much worse.

[Robsk II]

Hypochondriac, whatever else some may think of them, or how appropriate their contribtions, Kadeem, Wiltshire etc made some contributions that were so far beyond the obvious that I can't help you just didn't get them, which isn't your fault, but they were often very funny.

[hypochondriac]

Aboslutely.

But as I'm sure you appreciate, he broke the rules repeatedly. You can't just do nothing purely because some find him entertaining whilst others consider him boring and unfunny.

[RonManager]

The only stupid decision was his - that, despite numerous warnings, he couldn't leave his "humour" for the parts of the site where it would actually be relevant.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that the infractions that were handed out to him which pushed him over the 10-point milestone recently weren't done by me, so you can direct your "over-inflated sense of importance" digs elsewhere.

Is Deppo banned for good, or just suspended?

[buctootim]

But as I'm sure you appreciate, he broke the rules repeatedly. You can't just do nothing purely because some find him entertaining whilst others consider him boring and unfunny.

I find your avatar boring and unfunny. Im not pushing for you to get banned.

[hypochondriac]

Hypochondriac, whatever else some may think of them, or how appropriate their contribtions, Kadeem, Wiltshire etc made some contributions that were so far beyond the obvious that I can't help you just didn't get them, which isn't your fault, but they were often very funny.

I accept that. I did find some of that stuff on the off topic forums mildly amusing. It was more deppo all over the main board which was irritating.

[hypochondriac]

I find your avatar boring and unfunny. Im not pushing for you to get banned.

But I'm breaking no rules so why would I be banned?

[Robsk II]

It wasn't loads, though. I understand a need for boundaries, but I also think that the main forum doesn't have to be entirely devoid of humour or flippancy to be a valid medium for football based discussion. I thought Deppo was pretty funny as well. I know someone who knows him, and apparently he's quite fat, which makes him even funnier.

[buctootim]

Is Deppo banned for good, or just suspended?

Suspended as in hung out to dry?

[Smirking_Saint]

The only stupid decision was his - that, despite numerous warnings, he couldn't leave his "humour" for the parts of the site where it would actually be relevant.

I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that the infractions that were handed out to him which pushed him over the 10-point milestone recently weren't done by me, so you can direct your "over-inflated sense of importance" digs elsewhere.

Is this really what this place is coming to ?? Really ?? FFS

I struggle to see how those that have a problem with humour and sattire fit with the day to day runnings of real life ? I mean, do they just wander from library to library constantly upset by those in the street laughing and joking ??

How dare they break up a well meant convosation with a slap dash of interesting and laugh worthy humour.

F*ck me i hope i am never stuck in a lift with them.

[Robsk II]

Deppo sleeps with the fishes

[benjii]

Is this really what this place is coming to ?? Really ?? FFS

I struggle to see how those that have a problem with humour and sattire fit with the day to day runnings of real life ? I mean, do they just wander from library to library constantly upset by those in the street laughing and joking ??

How dare they break up a well meant convosation with a slap dash of interesting and laugh worthy humour.

F*ck me i hope i am never stuck in a lift with them.


It wasn't loads, though. I understand a need for boundaries, but I also think that the main forum doesn't have to be entirely devoid of humour or flippancy to be a valid medium for football based discussion. I thought Deppo was pretty funny as well. I know someone who knows him, and apparently he's quite fat, which makes him even funnier.

Exactly.

[Smirking_Saint]

Am I the only one who thinks attitudes like this are what have made SWF a duller place to come to and Deppo actually made it a more entertaining place. It was the same with posters like Wiltshire and Kadeem, both banned too. They could cut to the point far quicker with a satirical comment than a hundred of these endless repetitive and earnest posts. Sadly people who struggle with satire think it's just someone being stupid, off topic or flippant.

Nope.

Your are amoungst a majority.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail moan club minority once again ruins the world for all.

[OldNick]

who would ever want to run a football forum?????? This is madness, Granty and Baj have provided a service that I suspect makes them little if anything. Tot up the time and they will be in the negative. If they decide the aggro is too much and decide to pull the plug you will soon tire of the UI and its odd layout and way the posts are displayed. this site i believe is as good as any and whilst i feel that the posters are banned too easily, it is not my site and so respect their concerns.
I like Deppo and the other off the wall posters, as they do lighten some of the more polarised threads, Baj has now stated that non members can start their own threads. Now there is no excuse to keep moaning about the site being quiet.
Of course it is nothing to do with the fact that we are now a L1 club with the stuffing knocked out of us with little to get excited about.

[buctootim]

But I'm breaking no rules so why would I be banned?

Ah you believe in a rules based community rather than a principles based one with mods exercising sound judgement. Thats exactly how this forum ended up where it is and the financial crisis happened - two events which, to my knowledge, have not previously been linked...

[Smirking_Saint]

I accept that. I did find some of that stuff on the off topic forums mildly amusing. It was more deppo all over the main board which was irritating.

Why don't you just ignore it ??

You must be pretty easy to annoy if you can't just skip past his posts. It wasn't like he was a spammer was it ?

[benjii]

Quite simply, if you ban people for exhibiting wit or flair, you end up with a bunch of humourless twonks regurgitating the same tired points over and over...

[OldNick]

May i add i have met Granty and Baj. Both are good lads,(to me they are still lads, must be mid to late 30's ....kidding) even though Baj never sent me a DVD he said he would Lol

[hypochondriac]

Why don't you just ignore it ??

You must be pretty easy to annoy if you can't just skip past his posts. It wasn't like he was a spammer was it ?

I did ignore it. I didn't ban him I'm just saying I'm not displeased he has gone as personally I didn't find him funny. Others are extremely amusing on here. I think deppo would have been better if he contributed to the topics in a sensible way an posted other comments as well.

[Saint_clark]

I did ignore it. I didn't ban him I'm just saying I'm not displeased he has gone as personally I didn't find him funny. Others are extremely amusing on here. I think deppo would have been better if he contributed to the topics in a sensible way an posted other comments as well.

In his defence, I noticed a lot of posts from him that were indeed on topic.

[hypochondriac]

Quite simply, if you ban people for exhibiting wit or flair, you end up with a bunch of humourless twonks regurgitating the same tired points over and over...

That wasn't why he was banned though. Also I don't think he dd dismay much with tbh. Just my opinion though. Wish we still had access to the saintsforever archive. There was comedy gold on there

[dune]

I did ignore it. I didn't ban him I'm just saying I'm not displeased he has gone as personally I didn't find him funny. Others are extremely amusing on here. I think deppo would have been better if he contributed to the topics in a sensible way an posted other comments as well.

Agree.

[hypochondriac]

In his defence, I noticed a lot of posts from him that were indeed on topic.

Fair enough. Must have missed them.

[OldNick]

Has Alpine been banned??

[buctootim]

Has Alpine been banned??

Think he just finds the forum too depressing for his taste

[Saint_clark]

Nope, Alpine is still here. He hasn't been posting regularly for quite a while now.
http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/member.php?853-alpine_saint

[Kadeem Hardison]

I did ignore it. I didn't ban him I'm just saying I'm not displeased he has gone as personally I didn't find him funny. Others are extremely amusing on here. I think deppo would have been better if he contributed to the topics in a sensible way an posted other comments as well.

I was told by somebody who would know that Deppo was banned almost solely as a result of one poster who constantly reported him and built up his infractions. What a sad, humourless and vindictive individual that must've been, eh Hypochondriac?

[Robsk II]

So Deppo got banned as a result of the vendetta of ONE person!?? What kind of d*ck would do that!??

[hypochondriac]

I was told by somebody who would know that Deppo was banned almost solely as a result of one poster who constantly reported him and built up his infractions. What a sad, humourless and vindictive individual that must've been, eh Hypochondriac?

You can check with either admin to confirm that was not me.

[Baj]

So Deppo got banned as a result of the vendetta of ONE person!?? What kind of d*ck would do that!??

Yes, if you're to believe the evidence of one person, which is never a good idea on this forum

[dune]

So Deppo got banned as a result of the vendetta of ONE person!?? What kind of d*ck would do that!??

I think reporting posts is quite pathetic.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I did ignore it.

Really? That's not what the outgoing mods have reported.

[hypochondriac]

Really? That's not what the outgoing mods have reported.

O rly? Do you have that confirmed somewhere?

[Robsk II]

Yes, if you're to believe the evidence of one person, which is never a good idea on this forum

I know. I was just fascinated by the implication.

[egg]

Some very good points on this thread, but of course the problem is we would then be giving away for free a "facility" that subscribed members have paid the privilege for. Its all well and good saying we should just do it, but how would you (if you were in our shoes) deal with the complaints of those subscribed members who feel we have cheapened their membership. Hardly fair on them is it?

Simple, ask them. Have a poll. If the majority agree then implement it.

[St Chalet]

Has Alpine been banned??

Nope, but we might auction the rights for someone to do so if funds get low ;-) *

*NB This is Banter*

[buctootim]

*NB This is Banter*

Good plan. We could put this disclaimer on any post which isnt deadly serious. That way there wont be confusion as in the past ;)

[benjii]

If I see any post on the main bored which is not "serious" I will henceforth be reporting it.

You have been warned, you frivolous ****s.

[chrisobee]

Quite simply, if you ban people for exhibiting wit or flair, you end up with a bunch of humourless twonks regurgitating the same tired points over and over...

;)

Good point, now please go away :rolleyes:

[OttawaSaint]

That's a shame, I liked Deppo, added some much-needed humour to some pretty dark times involving the Saints..

[trousers]

That's a shame, I liked Deppo, added some much-needed humour to some pretty dark times involving the Saints..

+ 1

[St Chalet]

Deppo will be back to bring light to your lives when his ban ends. As far as I can see it is a sin-bin not a permanent ban.

I have called the Samaritans in Southampton and they have stood down their reserves now the news that he may be returning is in the public domain.

[St Chalet]

Given that this has turned into a thread of forum suggestions you may want to read and comment on Saint_Clark's proposal.

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?26034-Member-departures