Petition to get Claire reinstated (21 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jaecole

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2005
3,017
++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++


Like I mentioned before, I'll repeat myself for you in case you missed it- I've been reading up on what I missed. I saw what happened when Fecal Matter attacked mikhail.

Funny that jaecole proceeded to criticise mikhail's actions, but didnt say anything about fecal matter's unprovoked attack.

Im not one to judge, but its universally accepted that Claire's behavior toward people are wrong. Do you disagree? Or do you think all of her previous accounts were unfairly banned, she's an angel who did nothing wrong, and became a victim to unfair policies and biased moderation?

As for people liking her, Kaiser Franco does apparently, as does Nicole. Nightmare on Elm Street was a great movie, very entertaining to watch, but I wouldnt catch myself going out for coffee with Freddy, or praising his personality.

Am I wrong to say you are biased in your support for her and her actions?
I'm not supporting her and I never said she shouldn't have been banned. I just draw the line at personal posts and person judgement based on posts on an internet board.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
Fair enough. Have you drawn that line in Claire's case only, or do you believe that rule applies to everybody?

And do you believe that her actions somehow provoked the personal judgement?
 

jaecole

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2005
3,017
++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++
Fair enough. Have you drawn that line in Claire's case only, or do you believe that rule applies to everybody?

And do you believe that her actions somehow provoked the personal judgement?
Everyone. Who are we to say that kind of thing about someone. Online isn't real and whatever her agenda here, is nothing on her as a person. Nothing at all.

Her actions haven't been as bad as you are making out. She said she wanted to kill a cop, she argued with some people she didnt like and she was banned, she returned she argued some more and she was banned etc. To say she plans that and that was her reason for being her is fundamentally wrong considering she originally came and posted as a normal/above normal member to the knowledge of Andy and did it for a very long time without problem. I don't know why she banned first time, but I hear it wasn't right.

On the other hand Burke has been a bigot and a racist. He has posted pornography and degraded Claire herself over peronal issues and Emma over sexual issues. He posted a picture of his testical. He has never posted anything good ontopic, nothing that any half assed football fan couldnt post. Sometimes I feel he only posts on topic to pass himself.

Yet on the very day Claire is banned his account is reinstated and we spend our evening cursing Claire. A member who has given more than Burke and who hasn't did have the shit he has.

Big deal if i'm siding for her, am biased or whatever else. It's just not right so I'll say so.
 

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
So far, Burke seems to have calmed down a lot though. Did you see his post in my thread? ;)

And yes, I saw the testicle too. :eek:

PS- arguments develop from differences in opinion, usually started off by polite disagreement and then spiralling downward into shit-slinging.

I didnt see that in the mikhail case where fecal matter got banned. Did you? Look at it and tell me what you think.

ps- I find you a very logical and reasonable person to talk to. Respect.
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
Whilst a good post swag... what has the following got to do with anything...

++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
I personally have nothing against Claire. I've butted heads with several people on this forum in the past. But her actions here seem to indicate that she comes from a place we don't know and would probably never understand. Call it a cry for help, a deeply wounded soul that has an unsatisfied need to lash out ... who knows. It's not our place to ask. The only thing we can judge are acceptable rules of conduct we expect as a courtesy to each other... but that must also include what we reasonably expect from "good" forum members on their nastiest and most apologetic of days.
At the end of the day we dont know what anyone here as been through or seen or done... its irrelevant... Everyone is treated (or should be) the same and must follow the same guidelines... there are no special cases
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,777
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
Whilst a good post swag... what has the following got to do with anything...



At the end of the day we dont know what anyone here as been through or seen or done... its irrelevant... Everyone is treated (or should be) the same and must follow the same guidelines... there are no special cases
Hey Paul. Just that most people here don't seem to understand why a person would seem like they're having such a terrible time here with others, get banned multiple times, etc., and yet keep coming back for more. Point is that some people have motivations, incentives, and disincentives that might not conform to the 'norm' (if there ever was such a thing) -- so you cannot presume those work for everyone.
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
Point is that some people have motivations, incentives, and disincentives that might not conform to the 'norm' (if there ever was such a thing) -- so you cannot presume those work for everyone.
Of course we cant , however there needs to be rules and they need to be the same for everyone... members need to shape themselves to the rules not the other way round
 

jaecole

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2005
3,017
++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++
So far, Burke seems to have calmed down a lot though. Did you see his post in my thread? ;)

And yes, I saw the testicle too. :eek:

PS- arguments develop from differences in opinion, usually started off by polite disagreement and then spiralling downward into shit-slinging.

I didnt see that in the mikhail case where fecal matter got banned. Did you? Look at it and tell me what you think.

ps- I find you a very logical and reasonable person to talk to. Respect.
That was just a rehash of an old argument. Mikhail and Claire don't get along and have a history. She brings it up and he bans her. That's all I found off and a complete misused of his moderation powers. He banned her because he didn't like her and that is something that should be looked at imo. Or because she has a problem with how he moderates? Why can't she say it?

FYI it was something to do with how he closes threads.

As for Burke. Whatever, was the same last time. He came back, he apologised, he was nice to everyone and two months later Emma broke him again.

Claire insults and shouts sometimes when people take it too far with her. Burke loses it very easily posts his testicals, posts coffins, posts racial insults etc. Yet on the very day Claire is banned over a little argument with Mikhail we reinstate Burke.

Most of the problem I think is people mix Emma up with Claire. And by that I mean they take everything Emma does and dump it on Claire. It's easy to do, one is a blonde haired blue eyed, funny and classy girl. The other is a drug user, a 'goth' and a general bastard. Emma is the one who is manipulating the forum and laughing her ass off though imo. Claire is just a chick with some angst. A girl who can post more about football than half of us.

Now she is far from innocent indeed, should she have been banned from Juventuz? Yes. Many times. I'm not asking for her return, nor do I want it nor do I think she should come back herself.

I miss her posting though because sometimes it's good for the egos to get what's theirs. Claire went for the incubos and burkes. Nicole is gunning for the Juve_The_Bests and Ginos. I see no difference except the bigger they are the bigger the mess.

Should Burke have been reinstated the next day? Should we personally judge Claire? Should Mikhail ban someone who opposes him? Well that's your own opinion.

Though I'll stop posting on this now, as per request.

And cheers.
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++


Hey Paul. Just that most people here don't seem to understand why a person would seem like they're having such a terrible time here with others, get banned multiple times, etc., and yet keep coming back for more.
The idea that someone gets banned time after time and keeps coming back i understand perfectly... the idea that a member has an argument announces their departure and then returns later... i understand...

The constant... i want to be banned, i dont want to come back, i hate this place... and yet allways returning i dont really get
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,777
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++


Of course we cant , however there needs to be rules and they need to be the same for everyone... members need to shape themselves to the rules not the other way round
Agreed about the consistency of rules. The issue that isn't as cut and dried to me is the sense of a unilateral means of enforcing them. While good in theory, there are many exceptions that may need consideration for different handling based on the offender -- because disincentives, etc., may not have the same effect from one person to another.

For example, this is why children, the criminally insane, and the mentally retarded may not get the same correctional sentencing as what might be otherwise considered for a "rational adult". And it's why the recidivism in something like sexual offenders has lead many criminal systems to resort to rules of neighborhood notifications and mandatory check-ins, even after the sentence is served, when this is not the case for most other types of offenders.

Of course, a ban is a ban -- there's no fudging around that kind of "sentencing". But you must admit there are many ways around a ban.

I'm not saying that I have all the answers by any means here. Just trying to highlight some considerations for them.
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by jaecole ] ++
You've said 'I'm gone' in a hissy fit before and returned soon after. Look to yourself and maybe you'll understand.
how about reading what i wrote before commenting... is it so hard


btw : The only time i ve ever said im leaving this forum , ive been gone for several months (and only then returning on the request of others)... Yes ive said im gone refering to walking from an argument or thread (who hasnt)... not from the forum itself

As i said in the post you clearly didnt read... the idea of a reaction to leave after an argument etc and then to return later is understandable... its normal and most members have either done it (with or without mentioning it) or considered it....

The constant need to get yourself banned, say you hate the place, say you dont want to come back, say your glad you were banned... aand then come back... i do not get... that is not normal...

And those are not the same things in any way ,shape or form
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++


Agreed about the consistency of rules. The issue that isn't as cut and dried to me is the sense of a unilateral means of enforcing them. While good in theory, there are many exceptions that may need consideration for different handling based on the offender -- because disincentives, etc., may not have the same effect from one person to another.
Of course... But surely these are all concerns that the mod team should have discussed and came to a plan that is as fair as possible to all members
 

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++


Of course... But surely these are all concerns that the mod team should have discussed and came to a plan that is as fair as possible to all members
Dont mean to butt in, but the complicating factor there was that the Mods themselves were involved in the community and had a personal bias, either for or against the petty arguments, social circles, etc.

em411.com has moderators who are invisible and unidentifiable. they also dont take part in the community. its magical. :cheesy:
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
++ [ originally posted by Layce Erayce ] ++


Dont mean to butt in, but the complicating factor there was that the Mods themselves were involved in the community and had a personal bias, either for or against the petty arguments, social circles, etc.
Thats a hard thing to get away from... But the maturity and ability to seperate your own feelings for the rules should imo be a major factor in picking your mod team

em411.com has moderators who are invisible and unidentifiable. they also dont take part in the community. its magical. :cheesy:
That is prob the perfect answer... but i doubt many would like to mod a forum they have no association with... plus overtime from reading they would grow preferences to some members anyway
 

Layce Erayce

Senior Member
Aug 11, 2002
9,116
Agreed 100%

It would be good to encourage mods to develop objectivity in these matters. In fact, Im beginning to wonder myself whether Im biased toward this Burke issue.

Maybe it was M2 who decided to have a sweeping amnesty, permitting Burke's entry after which Fecal Matter managed to get herself banned.
 

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
125,388
I got this request from Claire to post it here and I quote:

Oh im sorry. If I dont have a cigeratte every 5 minutes I can get a little snappy. I cant go buy more because a chav will punch me and taxi my money. Or maybe Im still wrecked on pills when I wake up. Or I can be alittle bitter sometimes that I live in a shit appartment with a bastard cat from hell, that my best friend is in a coffin or that I have this 30something scouse taxi driver in my living room whos dodgy as hell. He is my new friend though he will probably rob me.

Oh forgive me please.

Forgive me please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 21)