Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

[Gaz237]

I had read his comment and then he was quickly banned.

Had to go back and re-read, as could not understand why he got banned for talking about vegetables.

 

[Kroffe]

 

[Kroffe]

No political message intended with above pic.
Was among the first results when i searched for "free prison picket sign.

#bringbackben

 

[geordiecolin]

Wrong, the reports were from men. As SRV said, "preconception is such a heavy load."

I presume that know you judge the validity of such complains and how you act of such frivolous complains has a very significant impact on the judgement of Casinomeister.com as the "advocate of fair play"?
Preconception works this way too.

 

[ladyhawke]

How was it offensive though?

Not a single person has posted they found it offensive, it's a shame the people who took the time to report it couldn't actually explain what they found offensive in case anyone ever offends them again.

Well, here is one.

I find the word 'vag' crass and offensive, although far worse is the 'c' word that has occasionally been thrown around this forum, although rarely directed at women - usually just a way to express extreme disgust.

That said, I did not find Ben's comment offensive in its overall meaning at all. In fact, I understood his post to be more of a social commentary, as the days of 'best person for the job' are long gone. Now it is all about quotas, quotas and more quotas.

So when I read his post, my initial thought for all of 3 seconds was: "FFS Ben, what a horrible word to use", then I just concentrated on the meaning of his comment, and moved past the vulgarity of his phrasing.

To summarise: I didn't report Ben either. He and I have had our differences in the past, when I did report him once which possibly led to one of his previously temporary timeouts, but we resolved everything in a PM, and once my painting lark has finished, I was looking forward to engaging with him again, particularly regarding Lady Sox.

 

[Mouche12]

"To summarise: I didn't report Ben either. He and I have had our differences in the past, when I did report him once which possibly led to one of his previously temporary timeouts, but we resolved everything in a PM, and once my painting lark has finished, I was looking forward to engaging with him again, particularly regarding Lady Sox."

Same here and it was cool... and let's not forget his Corona cooking...

 

[mack341]

Obviously I now wish I hadn't posted the comment Ben has ended up getting banned replying to, it was a point about tick box equality and the court's make-up, and he was making a joke about that situation.

Part of what makes some Jokes funny is going to the limit or beyond of what most people are prepared to say out loud, and often a joke or comedian is described as outrageous. I wouldn't really put V** in that category of shocking, but appreciate some females may narrow their eyes at seeing it used. [ though doubt many would get upset at someone using 'todger' in a similar context ]

The people that find themselves reporting posts [ In over two years since joining I've made zero ] maybe should express their dislike of a post, and there is an angry emoji, or engage in a bit of banter. It would make for more entertainment I'm sure.

I can't see the need to be po-faced or seeking to be censorious of other members from behind the curtain. In this case it was a man who reported the post, so I'm not aiming this only at women.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

I can't for one minute believe it was that post that caused this.

IMO it's more likely his streamer posts over the weekend have done this (towards one in particular). It's not uncommon for people who feel aggrieved by a forum member to threaten the site owners with legal action. In this instance the owner's hands become tied. As stupid as it sounds. So ultimately the whole situation becomes not worth the aggro.

It's a real shame. Ben is a top bloke who simply speaks his mind.

 

[colinsunderland]

So it seems no one was offended by the comment apart from the couple of men who reported it. Quite how a man gets offended by that is beyond me. A couple have said they don't like the word, but, as has been stated, worse gets used on here, yet those people don't get banned.

So it seems, if someone, somewhere, finds (or claims to find) something you post offensive, then all they have to do is report you and you get banned, regardless of anyone else's view.

I even googled the word 'vag' along with 'is it offensive' and couldn't find anything to suggest so in the first couple of pages of results.

The board is extremely quiet at the moment, can see it getting worse if this is whats to come

 

[paul7388]

So it seems no one was offended by the comment apart from the couple of men who reported it. Quite how a man gets offended by that is beyond me. A couple have said they don't like the word, but, as has been stated, worse gets used on here, yet those people don't get banned.

So it seems, if someone, somewhere, finds (or claims to find) something you post offensive, then all they have to do is report you and you get banned, regardless of anyone else's view.

I even googled the word 'vag' along with 'is it offensive' and couldn't find anything to suggest so in the first couple of pages of results.

The board is extremely quiet at the moment, can see it getting worse if this is whats to come

I would imagine if a couple of men reported it the word was not particularly offensive to them. They probably just went great some might find it offensive so we can use that as an excuse to report him.

Would hazard a guess that it was the poster not the post they dislike so much. Pretty sure if truth was to come out we would find that it was not the first report they have used against him lol.

 

[Borgie]

I did not report Ben either. The post in question whilst poorly worded and not a nice word or really necessary to use to get his point across did not offend me as such.

However as I see it Ben wasn't banned just because he got reported for that post . He was constantly getting temporary bans for posts like sinking/drowning refugees and gunning for streamers.. one in particular . Yes he spoke his mind but a lot of people put a point of view across without being offensive. If he had not got banned for this he would have offended again in the future ..next week or the week after.

Max has said the mods were all fed up with the work of trying to keep him in line.

This is Bryan and Max decision and they gave Playford... what 15 or so chances. Far more than anyone ever in the history of CM i would think. That really couldn't go on indefinitely . Plus who ever did report this post was free to do so. Not sure what purpose a witch hunt really serves .

The corona cooking was indeed fun and Sox was great. A shame it came to this.

 

[maxd]

So it seems, if someone, somewhere, finds (or claims to find) something you post offensive, then all they have to do is report you and you get banned, regardless of anyone else's view.

I hope you are aware how ridiculous that accusation really is. Ben was repeatedly banned for Rules violations and being a PITA on these forums. He was on yet another "2nd chance" probation and he blew it. As far as we were concerned enough was enough. You repeatedly ignoring these facts and trying to drum up some alternate reality interpretation of events in order to belittle us and our efforts here is not helpful.

The board is extremely quiet at the moment ...

Not true, posts are up slightly over the past month's average and user visits are notably up on average. Slight up-tick in new threads and registrations as well.

 

[colinsunderland]

I hope you are aware how ridiculous that accusation really is. Ben was repeatedly banned for Rules violations and being a PITA on these forums. He was on yet another "2nd chance" probation and he blew it. As far as we were concerned enough was enough. You repeatedly ignoring these facts and trying to drum up some alternate reality interpretation of events in order to belittle us and our efforts here is not helpful.


Not true, posts are up slightly over the past month's average and user visits are notably up on average. Slight up-tick in new threads and registrations as well.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone, no one except the couple of people who reported the post can see anything wrong with it. Certainly not ban worthy. Yes Ben had chances, and was on a last chance, but you still banned him for something that only a tiny minority of people found something wrong with.
I know reports are private, and no one has asked who reported it, but I don't understand why you can't explain what was actually wrong with the post, considering no one else found it offensive. Clearly from the comments it's not just me who doesn't understand what he did wrong. A couple of people have mentioned the word is a bit vulgar, but considering people say the c word (which I think a LOT of people would find offensive) without getting bans or suspended, I just don't see the logic behind banning someone for using a word even google doesn't show results for being offensive.

 

[maxd]

If you're not trying to belittle anyone then don't post crap like "if someone, somewhere, finds ... something you post offensive, then all they have to do is report you and you get banned". That is blatantly untrue. You are fabricating a narrative because it happens to suit your purposes. It's a lie and you know it. It's also being a troll which you may recall you have received a Warning for in the past.

As to "explain this" or "explain that" you seem to be under the misunderstanding that these forums are run by committee. They are not. They are owned by Bryan, managed by him and the moderators at his request. If you have an opinion express it, as you and others obviously have, but at the end of the day we make the decisions we feel are appropriate, and so we did.

In this particular case It's perfectly clear that Ben was a relentless abuser of the Forum Rules in pursuit of his own "style" and agenda and that eventually caught up with him, as it should. It will come as a surprise to no one that I fully support his ban in this latest instance -- please remember that it was Bryan's decision -- and sincerely hope it is the last time we have to go deal with that particular individual on these forums.

You obviously don't like that. Fair enough, duly noted. It's also been noted that you have supported Ben no matter what he said or did and that your objection here also comes as no surprise. Great! Feel free to visit Ben in whatever corner of the web he next calls home. If it's somewhere that is comfortable accommodating his manner of conduct I'm sure you too will be welcome.

 

[colinsunderland]

yeah ok, so no transparency, and as usual you take any comment against you as a personal attack, what is wrong with you that you cannot just have a conversation with someone without accusing them of attacking you? I'm not a liar, I asked questions that you could quite easily answer, but you haven't, making people feel the ban was unjust.
I'm done here.

 

[greylady]

If you're not trying to belittle anyone then don't post crap like "if someone, somewhere, finds ... something you post offensive, then all they have to do is report you and you get banned". That is blatantly untrue. You are fabricating a narrative because it happens to suit your purposes. It's a lie and you know it. It's also being a troll which you may recall you have received a Warning for in the past.

As to "explain this" or "explain that" you seem to be under the misunderstanding that these forums are run by committee. They are not. They are owned by Bryan, managed by him and the moderators at his request. If you have an opinion express it, as you and others obviously have, but at the end of the day we make the decisions we feel are appropriate, and so we did.

In this particular case It's perfectly clear that Ben was a relentless abuser of the Forum Rules in pursuit of his own "style" and agenda and that eventually caught up with him, as it should. It will come as a surprise to no one that I fully support his ban in this latest instance -- please remember that it was Bryan's decision -- and sincerely hope it is the last time we have to go deal with that particular individual on these forums.

You obviously don't like that. Fair enough, duly noted. It's also been noted that you have supported Ben no matter what he said or did and that your objection here also comes as no surprise. Great! Feel free to visit Ben in whatever corner of the web he next calls home. If it's somewhere that is comfortable accommodating his manner of conduct I'm sure you too will be welcome.

Wow I find your post more offensive than Ben's (or anyone else's come to that) has ever said!

Calling a member a liar and a troll merely for seeking clarification, wow just wow - communication is not your strong point!

 

[maxd]

yeah ok, so no transparency, and as usual you take any comment against you as a personal attack, what is wrong with you that you cannot just have a conversation with someone without accusing them of attacking you? I'm not a liar, I asked questions that you could quite easily answer, but you haven't, making people feel the ban was unjust.
I'm done here.

More fabrications. You attacked the management of the site by saying we ban people for single Reports from "someone, somewhere". That was a lie and had the sole purpose of belittling the site and the moderators. I responded to that and now you are the wounded party. Nice try.

And I've already told you: why someone Reports something is none of your business. Full stop. You have no grounds to ask that it be "explained" to you, now or ever. Just as they would have no business asking us to explain why you might Report something, for example.

As to the explanation of Ben's latest ban I've also been over that several times for you. He repeatedly broke the Forum Rules, he ignored the MANY warnings he received from us, and he was a big time PITA from the moderators point of view. Whatever tipped the scale is pretty much irrelevant, the point is that he was on last probation and he continued to do the same old shit. So big surprise, curb time. Not the first time that's happened and likely not the last. The only difference here is that he in particular had been given an exceptional number of "2nd" chances. Whatever, the end is the end and that's where this is at.

 

[maxd]

Wow I find your post more offensive than Ben's (or anyone else's come to that) has ever said!

Calling a member a liar and a troll merely for seeking clarification, wow just wow - communication is not your strong point!

I believe you've intentionally missed the point but feel free to Report it. I'd be genuinely interested to have your accusations looked at by Bryan and the other mods.

 

[greylady]

I believe you've intentionally missed the point but feel free to Report it. I'd be genuinely interested to have your accusations looked at by Bryan and the other mods.

Now you are accusing me too!

If I thought there would be an unbiased approach I would have reported it!

 

[maxd]

If I thought there would be an unbiased approach I would have reported it!

Not unbiased? Not Bryan? Not dunover? Not anyone?
In private -- because that's what a Report is -- they're all going to be unable to look at the post you found objectionable without bias?
Disappointing to hear that you have so little faith in the management of the site.

 

[rena35]

I said I would not comment again but...
In light of reading more posts about this i have came to the conclusion that Ben has never been forgiven for his other transgressions when let back in. Why let him back in the first place if he had no chance of ever having the slat wiped clean. Ben was a member here and yes he had a way of speaking that could be considered brash. He seemed an honest enough fellow which was refreshing. I would rather know where someone stood instead of being fake. He was not judged on this post but on previous posts. No matter what anyone says i will never think anything other then unfair. I have been here since 2012 and never felt so upset by something before. Of course no one has to explain decisions made by CM to any of us members but please try to understand how this looks to us. The poor fellow never had a snow balls chance in (you know). I guess my use of the word snow balls could be report worthy. I can not stand by and see someone else treated like this. He probably has nothing to do just like me during this time and feels out casted by a place he felt was a second home. He most certainly contributed more to CM then i have because he was able to play and review the casinos. It is a very sad day to imagine how he feels.

 

[thr0b]

On the flip side - it’s just a forum. He can still read it, but it’s someone else’s property. They don’t have to let him in anymore. Hopefully he isn’t too down about it, but ultimately nobody has a right to post here.

 

[maxd]

... In light of reading more posts about this i have came to the conclusion that Ben has never been forgiven for his other transgressions ...

Please consider two things:

• it was Bryan who made the final decision and veteran readers here, like yourself, will know that he is very much NOT prone to vendettas or grudges. Quite the opposite in fact, he is renowned for his leniency and even-handedness.
• as I've said several times here (because it is directly applicable to this case) and repeated many times over the years, if someone is too much of a PITA for us as the forum managers then their chances of sticking around are severely diminished. It's even written into the Forum Rules, item 1.18:

  1.18 - Don't be a PITA Members who just don't have a clue on what is socially acceptable, or are just too annoying will have their accounts closed. The administration and moderators of Casinomeister reserve the right to close accounts at our discretion. This may be a public forum that encourages freedom of expression, but it's still our house. Abuse it and lose it.

I'll freely admit that I have in the past and again recently advocated for his removal from the forums, for exactly the reasons given in that rule 1.18: "no clue what is socially acceptable", "just too annoying". I found him to be racist, misogynistic and overly fond of hate-mongering statements in public on these forums. Take that as you wish but I assure you that I'm in pretty good company in feeling that way. Call us "snowflakes" or whatever if you must but I believe he behaved appallingly and unacceptably, on endless repeat.

I believe the bottom line here is that we were forced to choose between letting him do his dirt and thereby implicitly support it, or say "enough is enough" and put an end to it. Obviously, and until further notice, we chose the latter.

I get that some of you were fans of his and had little or no problem with his manner of conduct but at the end of the day I (for one) believed he wasn't worth the effort and the collateral damage he caused. I'm most definitely not speaking for Bryan or the other mods here, only for myself and the vote I have, did, and would again cast (assuming circumstances were unchanged).

 

[rena35]

Please consider two things:

• it was Bryan who made the final decision and veteran readers here, like yourself, will know that he is very much NOT prone to vendettas or grudges. Quite the opposite in fact, he is renowned for his leniency and even-handedness.
• as I've said several times here (because it is directly applicable to this case) and repeated many times over the years, if someone is too much of a PITA for us as the forum managers then their chances of sticking around are severely diminished. It's even written into the Forum Rules, item 1.18:

I'll freely admit that I have in the past and again recently advocated for his removal from the forums, for exactly the reasons given in that rule 1.18: "no clue what is socially acceptable", "just too annoying".

I get that some of you were fans of his but at the end of the day I (for one) believed he wasn't worth the effort and the collateral damage he caused. I'm most definitely not speaking for Bryan or the other mods here, only myself and the vote I have, did, and would again cast (assuming circumstances were unchanged).

Not a fan. I have never spoken directly to him or 98% of the members here. I comment sometimes or make a post every now and then (usually years apart) but I only know a few people here from past crossings. I understand the rules and hope to never be on the end of breaking any of them. The only thing i can do is stick by my post . I do hope CM views these posts and find it in him to agree that Ben's past transgressions should not be the reason he is banned now. I also agree that from what I have seen CM has always been fair. If anyone should read my past posts they will see how remarkable it is that I am posting this now. If i even thought for a moment Ben got what he deserved i would have done what i always do and move on the the next post. I can not in good conscious by pass this. For those who do know me, they also know i would never put myself in the middle of something like this without good cause and thought. What ever is decided will be accepted but i would hope that CM will give it thought before the final hammer falls.

 

[geordiecolin]

I can't for one minute believe it was that post that caused this.

IMO it's more likely his streamer posts over the weekend have done this (towards one in particular). It's not uncommon for people who feel aggrieved by a forum member to threaten the site owners with legal action. In this instance the owner's hands become tied. As stupid as it sounds. So ultimately the whole situation becomes not worth the aggro.

It's a real shame. Ben is a top bloke who simply speaks his mind.

I agree. It is open people like Ben that are the lifeblood of forums because they provoke others to interact and increase traffic.
A forum for likemindedness would just die as will fora that are too heavily censored

 

[mina1929]

I was not offended by Ben's post, why because of a word, he did not insult anyone personally.

Why are people so fragile, read past it. Ben is not a bad guy.

 

[geordiecolin]

It has nothing to do with being a "fan" but is everything to do with fairness and being seen to be fair and without prejudice.
In this instance casinomeister appear to be the antipathy of fairness.
And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?

 

[maxd]

It has nothing to do with to do with being a "fan" but is everything to do with fairness and being seen to be fair and without prejudice.
In this instance casinomeister appear to be the antipathy of fairness.
And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?

Where do I start? Obviously some people are fans of Ben, others aren't. So be it.

"fair and without predjudice"? We're not the courts or any such thing. Sure, we strive to be fair but we have no obligation to be "without prejudice". Obviously we do have our prejudices -- like the importance of being decent and not hate-mongering on our forums for instance, not to mention our prejudice against scammers and cheating casinos -- and so do you. Surely this comes as no surprise.

"the antipathy of fairness"? Nice accusation, prove it. And don't forget to include his endless Warnings and 2nd chances while you are at it.

"And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?"
I have no idea but I can say that it may have gone unnoticed, and we -- like anyone -- have to pick our battles. Pragmatism may be the simplest answer.

 

[thr0b]

Come on - they’ve been more than fair with him. He’s been banned so many times since I started reading this forum, I’ve lost count. Most people get banned and don’t get another chance.

How many chances should anyone get? Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular post, it was enough for the site owner to decide enough is enough. No need to debate further. His gaff, his rules.

 

[geordiecolin]

yeah ok, so no transparency, and as usual you take any comment against you as a personal attack, what is wrong with you that you cannot just have a conversation with someone without accusing them of attacking you? I'm not a liar, I asked questions that you could quite easily answer, but you haven't, making people feel the ban was unjust.
I'm done here.
[/QUOT}
Edited

 

[Davey86]

Me thinks someone could do with putting less piss in their tea today

 

[rena35]

Still judging on the past ? He was banned for the post in this thread I thought. Nothing else should matter. I keep seeing what he did in the past. It brings me back to why let him back in if his past was going to keep biting him. If his comment was the reason he was banned then why do i keep seeing what he did in the past. He had no chance IMO .

 

[geordiecolin]

Where do I start? Obviously some people are fans of Ben, others aren't. So be it.

"fair and without predjudice"? We're not the courts or any such thing. Sure, we strive to be fair but we have no obligation to be "without prejudice". Obviously we do have our prejudices -- like the importance of being decent and not hate-mongering on our forums for instance, not to mention our prejudice against scammers and cheating casinos -- and so do you. Surely this comes as no surprise.

"the antipathy of fairness"? Nice accusation, prove it. And don't forget to include his endless Warnings and 2nd chances while you are at it.

"And I used the word Vag in a post in response to Playford. Why have I not been given an infraction?"
I have no idea but I can say that it may have gone unnoticed, and we -- like anyone -- have to pick our battles. Pragmatism may be the simplest answer.

The only proof I need is the responses to casinomeisters banning of a member for no good reason and the inability to justify it on the grounds of the post they where banned for.
Advocate of fair play for over 20 years has not helped much in this instance

 

[pinnit2014]

Me thinks someone could do with putting less piss in their tea today

Switch it up for green tea.

You won't notice the difference.

 

[Davey86]

Switch it up for green tea.

You won't notice the difference.

Could possibly improve ones disposition

 

[greylady]

For clarity I am not a 'fan' of anyone on this forum!

Admittedly I have my preference as to who I converse with as we all do in everyday life but not being a sheep I would stick my head above the parapit for anyone I thought had been treated with bias and a closed mind!

 

[paul7388]

Come on - they’ve been more than fair with him. He’s been banned so many times since I started reading this forum, I’ve lost count. Most people get banned and don’t get another chance.

How many chances should anyone get? Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular post, it was enough for the site owner to decide enough is enough. No need to debate further. His gaff, his rules.

I can agree with you in that he had been given loads of chances.

And if he had posted an offensive comment against a member or had made a racist mark etc. then getting banned would have been his own fault.

But in this case he has made a remark that is in no way offensive and against noone. So why the ban.

As Geordie said he used the same word and in fact commented more than Ben about the subject. Yet he never got as much as a warning.

As Max said it was probably because noone had noticed his use of the word.

Which is the whole point. People have been reporting anything Ben said. If they were that offended by the word how come they never reported Colin as well.

Because it was not the word or any offence. It was because it was any excuse to report Ben.

And like Greylady i do not particularly have friends on here. I say what i think and if someone doesn't like it no skin of my nose.

But if people are going to use the fair play bit then do it right. If you are going to say oh well Ben has had plenty chances and he has stepped out of line so we need to Ban him. Fair enough but to let another member use the same word and not as much as say that word is offensive please do not use it is wrong. That in itself shows that it was any excuse to take action against Ben as it could not have been serious if other members did the same with nothing said.

And no way do i want Colin in trouble. Merely stating what he said himself. After all there was nothing offensive in the first place.

 

[greylady]

It's interesting to note who has posted in this thread and didn't 'report' Ben. Food for thought as there are not that many prolific posters remaining who have not commented - if they found it so offensive, why have they not commented to explain themselves?

I for one wouldn't condemn them and I would stand my ground with anyone who did as I would have more respect for their transparency opposed to hiding behind a mod - community spirit, what a joke!

 

[Oscar Arnhem]

Ben.s
Lives
Matter

#bringbenback

 

[dealer wins]

Playford should know by now the PC word is not what he said but "cervix"

 

[dealer wins]

Ben.s
Life
Matter

#bringbenback

Matters lol

 

[maxd]

It's interesting to note who has posted in this thread and didn't 'report' Ben. Food for thought as there are not that many prolific posters remaining who have not commented - if they found it so offensive, why have they not commented to explain themselves?

I for one wouldn't condemn them and I would stand my ground with anyone who did as I would have more respect for their transparency opposed to hiding behind a mod - community spirit, what a joke!

Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.

 

[greylady]

Of course you are free to ask and are welcome to your opinions on this but ...
no one who reported here or anywhere else should ever feel compelled to explain themselves to you or anyone else.

A Report is a private communication between the person and the forum management. If they want to discuss it later in public that's their business.

As to your disparaging comment on community spirit, well, it's obvious that you have contempt for many if not most here so I hope anyone reading your post and is feeling the slightest amount of pressure takes that into consideration before they proceed. Haters gonna hate, readers should take what they say/request/demand in context.

You assume a lot but know very little!

 

[goatwack]

I think with written text a lot can get confused. In this case, as a standalone word it's not wholly offensive, given what alternatives could have been used instead.

In fact it's just about the only polite way of phrasing that word bar 'vagina', so perhaps the shortened slang version is what looked crude to some?

I also believe that someone mistook the context of that comment as an affront to women/ or women getting into positions of power, rather than just the word, hence the outrage.

So clearly it matters little as to exact details of a word, the fact remains someone is looking to nail Playford to the mast at every opportunity given his chequered past on CM, so if it wasn't going to be this week it would have just been in a couple of days or a week or whatever. This is the situation he's found himself in, and to be honest, I'm not even sure he'd want to even carry on posting with that weighing over him.

Just to state he's his own man and can take account for his own actions, no one's his keeper. But the 'power' of expression now lies in the hands of anonymous reporters, and the whole thing has shifted towards that. Because any other given day, that comment would not be 'fine' as such, but would have been largely ignored, and readers would have moved swiftly on

 

[vorcirion]

It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?

 

[goatwack]

It's still not about that one single post. It would be ridiculous to think that.

I did report him for his post about sinking a refugee ship. Pretty sure none of you Ben's defenders said anything about it. Some of you thought it was funny even. You really love to remain silent when he says something that's actually offensive and now you're somehow victims of anonymous people who reported Ben. Maybe you're silent 'cause you actually think like Ben, but just don't want to say it. Maybe you want this forum to be only for white old men...I don't.

I'm pretty sure it went somehow like this: Ben gets tons of reports from some of his actually offensive posts ---> gets banned ---> gets back to forum and promises to not do those things again. Then that repeats couple more times. And now he probably got many reports from that refugee ship post. Probably not many reports from the last post but mods/CM just decided that they don't want to deal with the same situation over and over again. It's been proven that Ben won't change his behaviour. How many 2nd chances he should get? Endless?

You're doing that thing again where you claim to speak for everyone and paint everyone the same. This isn't the Trump thread

No one mentioned anything about white men, and if you bothered to take some time out and read, it's been stated he's his own man and accountable for his own actions? Giving a possible reason for something happening isn't being an automatic Playford fanboy

Wow

 

[dunover]

The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.

 

[dionysus]

judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit,I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.

Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

edited for clarity - see further down

 

[ternur]

This has escaleted beyond just being about Ben.

Yes, some of his comments have shown poor judgement. I've called him about to comments in the past myself.

But I don't think I've never reported a single post here (other than obvious newbie spammers). I believe it's better to discuss these kinds of things either in public or via private messages. Some may feel no need to do so, and rather use the report function (whatever their reasons for doing so may be).

Is the forum a better place now? That's up for a debate. If anything, this has shown a somewhat nastier side of the membership. And that's excluding Ben here.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

The word 'vag' is clearly a truncated version of 'vagina'. The word isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise. Then the suggestion that the same alleged positive bias could be used for the replacement appointment, i.e. another female or ethnic minority, or both, depending on whether Trump or his possible successor got to nominate the said judge.

The post did get a few reports, they were carefully examined and then passed to Bryan due to the extensive history involved here. Was the post itself ban-worthy? IMO, in isolation, no. The ban was done under a totting-up decision - think points on your driving license. There comes a point where a straw breaks the camel's back, or in this case Bryans.

I actually think he tried his best to tow the line. You could clearly see the effort he was making.

From PMs with him he clearly valued his membership here and I have to repeat, it was blatantly obvious he is a thoroughly decent guy.

I'm no 'fanboy' but I live my life trying to see the best in people rather than jumping to spurious assumptions about their character. This being said, some people are outright wronguns but Ben is not in that category.

I'm of the opinion that if you own a forum then you have a duty to accommodate personalities of all varieties...apart from ones that are there just to blatantly troll and cause mither (otherwise what's the point in even having the forum?). Again, I don't think this was Ben's intention.