[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Greg!

LT you always spell boke wrong and it gets on my wick!

its boak not fecking boke ya bam


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boak

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

its boak not fecking boke ya bam


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boak

it is Boke which is less filthy than boak

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

its boak not fecking boke ya bam


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boak

That is correct LT, but I'm pretty sure it can be spelt both ways just to confuse things a bit more

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

That is correct LT, but I'm pretty sure it can be spelt both ways just to confuse things a bot more

[Greg!]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

its boak not fecking boke ya bam


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boak

google says it's boke so piss off?

[bitontheslide]

I have to side with LT it is and always has been boak

[Josy]

In Scotland its boak

[Vicky.]

I have always known it be boak too tbh

I hate the word too. So piss off all of you with this convo

[Calderyon]

This thread is off the rails.

[JerseyWins]

Wtf is a boak/boke

Other than the sound a chicken makes!

[Calderyon]

Originally Posted by JerseyWins

Wtf is a boak/boke

Other than the sound a chicken makes!

I searched it.

I think it means vomiting.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Calderyon

I searched it.

I think it means vomiting.

its a good scottish puke

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There is a difference between a thread that was asking if Michael 21 is fake or not, and a thread saying he is a good member,

Feel free to make a positive thread about michael21

I know kirk did not mean the thread in a negative way, but it would clearly go that way with the Op asking if people thought M21 was fake or not. And the reason it was deleted was that, along with...if someone made a thread asking if (for example) brillopad was fake or not...it would be reported and there would be hell on if it was not removed. And if not reported straight away, then once people said 'yes I think so' it would be reported.

Actually, there were reports from inside that M21 thread about people answering 'yes he is fake' or whatever. But the actual thread was not reported itself, but people were reported for ANSWERING the OP. So quite how a thread could remain, when if people answered the question one way there were reports, I don't know?

I seem to be writing essays today, but yeah, if you want to make a thread to actually say M21 is a great member, knock yourself out.

Michael 21 sent me a friends request after I made that good-natured tongue-in-cheek friendly thread but whatever, Vicky.

My question is; did I deserve Infracting for it?

Why not just a friendly pm advising me just why such a thread wasn't such a good idea?

I have had 3 Infractions in a week and all of them are pure B.S. - In my opinion.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Michael 21 sent me a friends request after I made that good-natured tongue-in-cheek friendly thread but whatever, Vicky.

My question is; did I deserve Infracting for it?

Why not just a friendly pm advising me just why such a thread wasn't such a good idea?

I have had 3 Infractions in a week and all of them are pure B.S. - In my opinion.

Kirk I specifically said (twice I think but not reading back, but it does actually say in the post you quoted) that I know you did not mean it in a bad way. However it was inviting negative posts about micahel and there were reports from the thread too which showed us the way the thread would end up.

I would not have infracted you for that, no. I would have sent a PM or maybe a warning. But I would have deleted the thread for sure.

Edit. I agree with the other infractions though, just checked them.

[jet]

Well, threads asking is there a better forum member than Daniel X could also invite negativity like 'of course there is, he/she is a s*** member, what are you on about' (not that I know anything about Daniel at all so that is no reflection on that poster)...
So were the posters who made negative remarks about Michael infracted ...and why was Kirk infracted when it is said it is understood his thread wasn't meant in a bad way? If you wouldn't have infracted him Vicky, then why WAS he infracted? It all sounds dodgy to me.
This forum is a minefield of confusion about what is and isn't allowed and tolerated depending on the mod online at the time, it's currently an uncomfortable place to navigate re the rules which treat us a bit like like children and feels stifling to post on when one mod will do one thing and another do something else - which is why I don't bother anymore and many long time posters are losing their love for this place.

[Vicky.]

If you wouldn't have infracted him Vicky, then why WAS he infracted? It all sounds dodgy to me.

Because mods are human, are different people and use discretion?

Seriously do you think we all agree with each others actions constantly? I wish you could see the admin forum, really.

The only way to get totally consistent moderating is to take humans out of the equation completely. Which clearly is not a possibility. Also context and such is important too most of the time, so blanket rules would not really work.

As I said, I would not personally have given an infraction for that, however I see why the thread was removed, and I also agree with the other infractions kirk is talking about which are apparently 'BS'. So yeah, wish I had stuck to not discussing this michael thing tbh. I can see how this thread is going to go now.

[Marsh.]

Oh fgs, can the moans about infractions be relegated to their own bloody section? (ie. Vicky's inbox. Bother her in private )

[Vicky.]

Thanks for that marsh.Great suggestion

[Marsh.]

Josy told me your inbox is very accommodating.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Josy told me your inbox is very accommodating.

A Danielle Lloyd tea

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

A Danielle Lloyd tea

Vicky the Monster Munch Queen?

[T*]

MARSHALL

[Marsh.]

Thomas.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Because mods are human, are different people and use discretion?

Seriously do you think we all agree with each others actions constantly? I wish you could see the admin forum, really.

The only way to get totally consistent moderating is to take humans out of the equation completely. Which clearly is not a possibility. Also context and such is important too most of the time, so blanket rules would not really work.

As I said, I would not personally have given an infraction for that, however I see why the thread was removed, and I also agree with the other infractions kirk is talking about which are apparently 'BS'. So yeah, wish I had stuck to not discussing this michael thing tbh. I can see how this thread is going to go now.

Members are human too, yet they have to stick to rules and regulations or they will be punished. Fair enough..but why do mods not have rules and regulations when it comes to infractions? Members have to navigate how they word stuff to avoid being penalised, but mods can 'be human and themselves' and that's okay and they never get any infractions or bans for wrong decisions or indeed for anything that mere members get infracted for. Not getting at you here Vicky, as you are very fair...but we are ALL human, and if one person pays a price for being human, then we all should.
Unless its understood that mods are allowed that luxury and members aren't, maybe we should be told that once and for all?

[Vicky.]

Told what once and for all? Yes members are human too. Except arista.

Mods can get infractions and bans from admin also. I thought this was common knowledge.