Liverpool FC Forum

by **woof woof !** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:13 pm

drittsekk_mods wrote:If you want the definition of a wind up it is logging in here and seeign a thread where everyone is bitching and whining about the referee being the only reason why Manure won 5-1, it was like a kindergarten discussion group, totally childish

Childish ? certainly, but no more so than you logging in with a new name thats abusive to the moderating team.

Really Heimdall whatever you may think of the moderators we're not incapable of translating Norwegian.

by **drittsekk_mods** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:13 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:
drittsekk_mods wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:Ace was on a wind up pure and simple . He new it ,we new it and the mods new , result banned . Rightly so imo .

Just wish that Basque trouble maker would get banned aswell .

Only messin Ivan lash.

Shame he can't defend himself to that accusation eh?

So whenever someone has a different view to you are they always idiots, WUM's or glory hunters?

How gloriously simple your world must be with such clearly defined black and white.

Why are you guys so scared of a differing view, and if you are why do you join an open forum. It baffles me, it truly does.

So which one are you?

You can't tell?? Wow unobservant as well

by **dawson99** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:14 pm

you have to know norwegian to be a mod?

Thats racialist

by **Igor Zidane** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:16 pm

drittsekk_mods wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:
drittsekk_mods wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:Ace was on a wind up pure and simple . He new it ,we new it and the mods new , result banned . Rightly so imo .

Just wish that Basque trouble maker would get banned aswell .

Only messin Ivan lash.

Shame he can't defend himself to that accusation eh?

So whenever someone has a different view to you are they always idiots, WUM's or glory hunters?

How gloriously simple your world must be with such clearly defined black and white.

Why are you guys so scared of a differing view, and if you are why do you join an open forum. It baffles me, it truly does.

So which one are you?

You can't tell?? Wow unobservant as well

Look would you agree that this is an LFC forum ?

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:21 pm

An who may i ask made it personal with me, A pm i did not like an would not of liked whoever it was sent to, turned into me being called a liar an a bully, See thats the difference you have come on here an openly stated i deserved a card an i admire that because you said it openly, its the sneaky pms i cant abide, Thats why if ive got something to say ill say it so everyone can see, not were things can be twisted in pms, i can honestly say hand on heart i have never sent a bad pm to anyone on here , ive sent one apologising if i have offended them, an maybe to some i do deserve a card but what i said was how i was feeling. And i would of said the same thing about whoever that pm was about. I found it disgusting but maybe thats just me

by **Effes** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm

I missed something here I think - cant see any aggro in the football threads.

by **Effes** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:31 pm

Double post

by **rafatheman** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:32 pm

NANNY RED wrote:An who may i ask made it personal with me, A pm i did not like an would not of liked whoever it was sent to, turned into me being called a liar an a bully, See thats the difference you have come on here an openly stated i deserved a card an i admire that because you said it openly, its the sneaky pms i cant abide, Thats why if ive got something to say ill say it so everyone can see, not were things can be twisted in pms, i can honestly say hand on heart i have never sent a bad pm to anyone on here , ive sent one apologising if i have offended them, an maybe to some i do deserve a card but what i said was how i was feeling. And i would of said the same thing about whoever that pm was about. I found it disgusting but maybe thats just me

Heimdall does not really have a problem with you Nanny but a simple apology explaining that you got the wrong end of the stick or explaning how the PM Heimdall received was not the one you were referring to would have solved the problem but instead you went on the defensive and got quite abusive yurself.

Heimdall has never sent nasty PM's actually he has never sent abusive posts although he has received many himself. If you can stand by and not be disgusted by the posts from Ciggy directed at Heimdall yet act totally offended by the post LegBarnes sent then sorry but you are a liar and a hypocrite. I am willing to bet that you got swept up in the moment and couldn't back down, that is fair enough it happens. The injustice here is the banning of LegBArnes and Heimdall and non-banning of a member who threatened violence, Number 9.

It would also make such a nice change to actually have a moderator with the courage to explain why they ban certain people instead of just cowardly hiding behind their smug facade. Never has the term "Little Hitler" been better demonstrated than by the moderator's on this forum.

Heil Mods :bowdown

by **NANNY RED** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:45 pm

rafatheman wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:An who may i ask made it personal with me, A pm i did not like an would not of liked whoever it was sent to, turned into me being called a liar an a bully, See thats the difference you have come on here an openly stated i deserved a card an i admire that because you said it openly, its the sneaky pms i cant abide, Thats why if ive got something to say ill say it so everyone can see, not were things can be twisted in pms, i can honestly say hand on heart i have never sent a bad pm to anyone on here , ive sent one apologising if i have offended them, an maybe to some i do deserve a card but what i said was how i was feeling. And i would of said the same thing about whoever that pm was about. I found it disgusting but maybe thats just me

Heimdall does not really have a problem with you Nanny but a simple apology explaining that you got the wrong end of the stick or explaning how the PM Heimdall received was not the one you were referring to would have solved the problem but instead you went on the defensive and got quite abusive yurself.

Heimdall has never sent nasty PM's actually he has never sent abusive posts although he has received many himself. If you can stand by and not be disgusted by the posts from Ciggy directed at Heimdall yet act totally offended by the post LegBarnes sent then sorry but you are a liar and a hypocrite. I am willing to bet that you got swept up in the moment and couldn't back down, that is fair enough it happens. The injustice here is the banning of LegBArnes and Heimdall and non-banning of a member who threatened violence, Number 9.

It would also make such a nice change to actually have a moderator with the courage to explain why they ban certain people instead of just cowardly hiding behind their smug facade. Never has the term "Little Hitler" been better demonstrated than by the moderator's on this forum.

Heil Mods

I really find on this occasion i have nothing to apoligise for . I saw a pm an said i found it out of order. surely that is my right, i disagreed also with the pm being put openly on the forum, an said so, ok i called someone a grass an maybe that was out of order but i dont like sneakyness an posting that pm was sneaky, Its not for me to judge who slates who on here , thats what the mods are there for at the end of the day, But a hypocrite i am not . I said openly i didnt like something an was made out to be a liar, If i have something to say i will say it for all to see and not by sending a pm.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:36 pm

this is like a soap opera.

i shall continue listening to Paramore.

by **GYBS** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:39 pm

bigmick wrote:
GYBS wrote:So i dont think those people were carded because they are anti rafa etc .

To the best of my knowledge, nobody said they were.

Mick read your first post - you are talking about the fact three people from the anti rafa group got banned - but it had nothing to do with them being anti rafa so why mention it ?

by **dawson99** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:10 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:this is like a soap opera. i shall continue listening to Paramore.

red heads are rockin

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:17 pm

dawson99 wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:this is like a soap opera. i shall continue listening to Paramore.

red heads are rockin

i think she is hotter then Portman

but on a serious note, Anne Hathaway or Natalie Portman? i prefer Hathaway.

by **andy_g** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:46 pm

sheer craziness on all sides in my opinion. i don't think anyone involved in this ridiculous storm in a teacup - and that includes people i like and respect on here, ciggs, mods, barry, igor, all of yers. sorry fellas but thats the way it is. (i still love you all deeply, of course :;):

)

i've never been a big fan of ace's posts myself but i really don't see why he has received such a slating for this one. it doesn't diminish the fact that the mancs were again awarded a dodgy pen which may well have a big impact on the final run in to say that we should have more points ourselves if we'd done a little better earlier in the season. what's the big deal?

if people are finding it hard to deal with because of the timing then just take a deep breath and think about it again in a couple of days. i don't believe that ace is a wum or a manc, he's just an overly critical negative bar steward that didn't necessarily warrant a banning. i don't see why heimdall or leg barnes should be banned either from what i've seen in the thread.

anyway, just my two penneth. probably unnecessary but what the hell.

by **maguskwt** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:48 pm

Sabre wrote:Has somebody died Magus?

Sometimes when you (the forum) talk about the bans and cards it's as if the banned people are sent to a concentration camp never to be returned. And it's not the case, they're simply allowed not to post and in this after match incidents, it's normally for a short while. And then allowed back. Nobody dies really, Magus.

Magus, every ban and card has a history of spats behind, and the mods are in better position than you and me to know it. The mods do this for free and the least we can do is not to question every decission. You read isolated incidents, they read all the complains, all the threads, and they track the users. And that's not fun. Judging their decissions analysing an isolated incident is not fair, nor explains their decissions.

I don't think it's fair to assess that they have been banned thinking it was not a penalty. They were banned after many pages and when they were talking about liars and setting records right, and making public PMs.

And those users have a record. Remember the thread of LegBarnes asking cards for Lando the other day? that was just a public one, one of the dozens of complains and asking for cards the mods privately receive. Nor you nor me know the details. Nor you nor me are moderators. The bloody mods are not paid for the job, they rarely get a "thanks" for it, at least could we stop questioning their job every time?

As for Mick's opinion, I don't understand it. I don't think there are two sets of rules for antis and pros, and when I looked at the cards both sides have I can't confirm your pattern. Staunchiest pros like Lando have 4 cards, I have one (for using 3 words of a PM publicly you see, but as I say every card has an history Mick and the mods had been asked repeteadly to card me), Number9 had four, Ciggy had one, Emerald has one. Out of these some people have been banned too. So you move on, but you don't move on Mick because before you "move on" you tell them publicly they're biased. Class that.

Everyone of us could tell the mods whether they're biased or not, as everyone of us could give our opinion. I could defend the opposite of what you're saying about the moderators, as everyone of us can find decissions to back our opinion when taken isolatedly. And believe me I could make a case out of my complains. But the truth is that I'd feel shame of doing that publicly. I know it's not fair. It's not on. Let them do their stuff, and when we don't like it we always have other forums.

For once, I think we should leave them doing their fúcking job, and assume they'll make mistakes, and assume sometimes they'll put posters on the fridge (antis and pros) when the situation is unbearable. You know perfectly it doesn't take much more than apology and a chilling down to come back to posting within a few days. So let's not make a drama out of this.

As for the penalty, Magus, I'll talk when I'm a bit less angry, tomorrow or the next day. I'm controlling my blood pressure these days and I can't talk about the penalty right now.

Of course nobody died Sabre... this, however, doesn't mean that I can't voice my discontent if I see what I believe to be injustice. In any case I can only react to what I see and not what I don't see... the problem here is that emotions were high... ace disagreed with some of the mainstream reactions on the board. Both parties got abusive... action taken? to one side only... and here I totally agree with Bigmick's reply post to Nanny's post in the first page. Ace's first post did not warrant any banning whatsoever. He got called a wum and a wind up... of course he would react... mods should be abit more impartial in this situation... if there was a scuffle on the field in a football match and both sides contributed to the flare up, yellow cards to both players who started it... fair and square... So now ace got banned because of his timing? because he voiced his difference and the majority disagreed and so he was considered a wind up? I don't know sabre...

I agree totally with you that the mods have a difficult job though... but always keeping quiet even if one sees something that one believes is wrong with the actions of the authority and always complying with the authority? nahhh... I think we've progressed as a society far beyond that...

On the penalty though, my main point was not really to argue about whether it was a penalty or not. My point was even if it was a penalty unfairly given, there was no reason Spurs should have collapsed the way they did. The fact was that the mancs won because they were the better team. It was as simple as that. Yes, because it was at Old trafford, decisions might have gone their way more often than not. But whether they did not deserve the win? and they got the win because of the ref's preferential treatment? Very very hard to argue for. It was after all not like the controversy where stiles gave chelsea the penalty and they managed a 1-1 draw with us. That was a real injustice. This one, they won 5-2.
The penalty we won against Real, we weren't complaining were we? My point is that some of us might have reacted too emotionally, Ace disagreed , was called a wum and wind up, slanging match ensued, and the rest is history.

I do admit though that I am not fully aware of what's happening with all tose PM's by LB or heimdall or whoever...

Liverpool FC Forum

What kind of losers are we?

Who is online