Yes.
Wine taster Page 4
Aaron, I've never made this clear but I f**king love your running of these boards. You're easily in my Top-3 BSGers.
Quote: aaron_the_dictator @ July 11 2008, 1:52 PM BSTThe engagment party: sketch
42 strokes
My new friend
UN investigation
Bye election
Sex & simulated violence, 1st 7 pages of a sitcom
A joke (and I am using the term joke very loosely)i was merely wondering why you were picking on me specifically.
you banned me without any warning or chance to put my side across.
that is unjust, would you run your personal life in such a way if it were possible?
if you did you'd be a dictator.
i would have started using capitals if you'd asked more polietly and not been so abrupt.
Cheeky blighter all mine are capitalised, unfunny, unreadable, and needlessly offensive,
but capitalised none the less.
i'd have started using capitals if you'd actually warranted my argument that was not the only one who doesn't use capitals but you didn't. you said 'yes' which was a lie.
well ban me twice seeing as you hold that power - i want nothing to do with someone who uses their power over people in such a way.
i'm off to writersdock.
they tell you off if you step out of line and quite rightly but they'd rather iron out the disagreement than ban anyone.
that's because they're decent people.
Quote: Stuart Laws @ July 12 2008, 2:33 PM BSTAaron, I've never made this clear but I f**king love your running of these boards. You're easily in my Top-3 BSGers.
Thanks. Much appreciated. 
Sooty, you like 1984? What a book.
As to the sketch - way too long, although with a good punchline.
Probably one of the best books ever.
After re-reading the Writers' Dock thread's latest posts, I thought I'd clarify the situation.
This site, like any other interactive one, has a set of rules. These rules are for the benefit of users as a whole, the moderators, 'lurking' visitors, and search engines.
The rules set out for the message board are very liberal in comparison to many sites, and are extremely loosely enforced. A number are there as contingency for extreme situations rather than being solid no-exceptions. For example, point 8 stipulates that avatar and signature images should not be animated; if something is changing just once every two seconds, like a number of our banner adverts do, then that's really no problem. However, if something is brightly and quickly flashing, it could trigger seizures for photosensitive users.
The rules relating to "txt spk", grammar and spellings are often not enforced to the line, but out of simple courtesy to other users should be followed. It is far easier to read this part of this sentence, den diss wun init yo? Particularly for writers, such laziness is really inexcusable.
Just as in the real world, ignorance of rules is not a justifiable excuse for failing to adhere to them. Immigrants don't get away with murder, vandalism, rape or domestic violence because they're new in the country and didn't realise that they were naughty things to do.
In regards to this thread, waring got himself banned through his obnoxiousness and refusal to accept a simple request from a member of staff, not because he didn't use a capital letter. The latter is the mark of communism.
This thread was originally entitled "wine taster". I made a simple point that upper case letters should be used in thread topics, and edited the topic to include said capital (now "Wine taster"). Rather than, as other polite members have done, apologising for his mistake, or perhaps asking to clarify what I meant, his reply was confrontational in tone and obtuse in content.
A further request was then met with a blunt "no", and it was this obnoxiousness which lead to his account's suspension. This suspension would have only lasted a few hours, except he saw fit to send a rather rude e-mail to me via the site's contact form, and then signed up this rather amusing and highly mature (!) 'aaron_the_dictator' account. Another violation of the site's rules.
It was at this point that his account was moved from suspension to permanent banning.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only person on Writers' Dock who has seen through waring/waringhudsucker's classy behaviour has been one of the site's moderators, Gaviano: such a blunt obnoxiousness and refusal of a site's rules and staff requests as waring showed really gave me no option other than to suspend his account.
As has been seen with other members in the past, one such refusal often leads to another, and I really have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with people who are not courteous enough to make their posts readable to others. I wouldn't expect such an immature attitude from my 8-year old cousin, let alone anyone posting somewhere the whole world can see it.
And just in regards to banning in general, I'd like to remind everyone that in 2 years, coming up to 8,500 threads, little short of 4,500 members and almost 205,000 individual posts, only 92 accounts have been banned or suspended. That's about 2%. Approximately half of those were spammers, and half of the rest are duplicate accounts. In a number of cases, the person behind them now posts with another account, and is an active, perfectly happy member of the site. The board wouldn't be here if I didn't want anyone around to make use of it, and I have reversed bannings and suspensions issued by other members of staff in the past, and blocked others from being made.
The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with the current arrangement, many have shown appreciation for the way things operate, and as long as I'm around, the site will continue to be run in this manner. You may or may not like me personally, but anyone who doesn't like the rules or takes advantage of my liberal rule-enforcement is less welcome to leave and more invited to do so.
Quote: Aaron @ July 12 2008, 8:51 PM BSTJust as in the real world, ignorance of rules is not a justifiable excuse for failing to adhere to them. Immigrants don't get away with murder, vandalism, rape or domestic violence because they're new in the country and didn't realise that they were naughty things to do.
I'm sorry, Aaron, but that's a ridiculous statement. How on earth can you compare breaking rules of grammar to rape?
And how exactly do you decide what is and isn't grammatically correct? Are there legal and illegal rules of grammar? No. There isn't. It's one of the most murky areas of literature.
I think Aaron should use "The Most Despicable Writers' Site On The Internet" as a strapline on the homepage.
Quote: Aaron @ July 12 2008, 8:51 PM BSTThis suspension would have only lasted a few hours, except he saw fit to send a rather rude e-mail to me via the site's contact form, and then signed up this rather amusing and highly mature (!) 'aaron_the_dictator' account. Another violation of the site's rules.
Which rule is this? Are we not allowed duplicate accounts or are we not allowed to make fun of Aaron? If it's the latter we're all truly f**ked.
Quote: Winterlight @ July 12 2008, 9:05 PM BSTI'm sorry, Aaron, but that's a ridiculous statement. How on earth can you compare breaking rules of grammar to rape?
It's the principle, not the individual 'crime'. Ignorance of a law or rule is neither a reasonable nor an accepted defence when one breaks it.
Quote: Winterlight @ July 12 2008, 9:05 PM BSTAnd how exactly do you decide what is and isn't grammatically correct? Are there legal and illegal rules of grammar? No. There isn't. It's one of the most murky areas of literature.
You're being almost as obtuse as waring! I'm flexible. I neither ask for nor expect 100% total accuracy. But I do expect people to make a reasonable attempt. The rules haven't been set out just to amuse me, but to try and ensure that posts are as easy to read as possible. For the benefit of everyone.
Quote: PhQnix @ July 12 2008, 9:15 PM BSTWhich rule is this? Are we not allowed duplicate accounts or are we not allowed to make fun of Aaron? If it's the latter we're all truly f**ked.
Duplicate accounts. I'd have had to have banned myself if it were the latter.
Point 1: https://www.comedy.co.uk/info/terms_of_use.shtml#UserAccounts
Quote: Aaron @ July 12 2008, 8:51 PM BSTAfter re-reading the Writers' Dock thread's latest posts, I thought I'd clarify the situation.
This site, like any other interactive one, has a set of rules. These rules are for the benefit of users as a whole, the moderators, 'lurking' visitors, and search engines.
The rules set out for the message board are very liberal in comparison to many sites, and are extremely loosely enforced. A number are there as contingency for extreme situations rather than being solid no-exceptions. For example, point 8 stipulates that avatar and signature images should not be animated; if something is changing just once every two seconds, like a number of our banner adverts do, then that's really no problem. However, if something is brightly and quickly flashing, it could trigger seizures for photosensitive users.
The rules relating to "txt spk", grammar and spellings are often not enforced to the line, but out of simple courtesy to other users should be followed. It is far easier to read this part of this sentence, den diss wun init yo? Particularly for writers, such laziness is really inexcusable.
Just as in the real world, ignorance of rules is not a justifiable excuse for failing to adhere to them. Immigrants don't get away with murder, vandalism, rape or domestic violence because they're new in the country and didn't realise that they were naughty things to do.
In regards to this thread, waring got himself banned through his obnoxiousness and refusal to accept a simple request from a member of staff, not because he didn't use a capital letter. The latter is the mark of communism.
This thread was originally entitled "wine taster". I made a simple point that upper case letters should be used in thread topics, and edited the topic to include said capital (now "Wine taster"). Rather than, as other polite members have done, apologising for his mistake, or perhaps asking to clarify what I meant, his reply was confrontational in tone and obtuse in content.
A further request was then met with a blunt "no", and it was this obnoxiousness which lead to his account's suspension. This suspension would have only lasted a few hours, except he saw fit to send a rather rude e-mail to me via the site's contact form, and then signed up this rather amusing and highly mature (!) 'aaron_the_dictator' account. Another violation of the site's rules.
It was at this point that his account was moved from suspension to permanent banning.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the only person on Writers' Dock who has seen through waring/waringhudsucker's classy behaviour has been one of the site's moderators, Gaviano: such a blunt obnoxiousness and refusal of a site's rules and staff requests as waring showed really gave me no option other than to suspend his account.
As has been seen with other members in the past, one such refusal often leads to another, and I really have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with people who are not courteous enough to make their posts readable to others. I wouldn't expect such an immature attitude from my 8-year old cousin, let alone anyone posting somewhere the whole world can see it.
And just in regards to banning in general, I'd like to remind everyone that in 2 years, coming up to 8,500 threads, little short of 4,500 members and almost 205,000 individual posts, only 92 accounts have been banned or suspended. That's about 2%. Approximately half of those were spammers, and half of the rest are duplicate accounts. In a number of cases, the person behind them now posts with another account, and is an active, perfectly happy member of the site. The board wouldn't be here if I didn't want anyone around to make use of it, and I have reversed bannings and suspensions issued by other members of staff in the past, and blocked others from being made.
The vast majority of people are perfectly happy with the current arrangement, many have shown appreciation for the way things operate, and as long as I'm around, the site will continue to be run in this manner. You may or may not like me personally, but anyone who doesn't like the rules or takes advantage of my liberal rule-enforcement is less welcome to leave and more invited to do so.
Can you elucidate Aaron?
Waring was really OTT in his response to Aaron. Even I'd have reached for the ban stick, and I'm $%£"-ing hard to rile.
Sooty, got to agree re: 1984. Awesome. Only Catch-22 and a few others rank up there, imo.
Quote: Marc P @ July 12 2008, 10:59 PM BSTCan you elucidate Aaron?
Yes.