Can we talk about Scott...

[Ammi]

..and his ban..?...reasonably/without arguments/discuss...

..I think it's been 3 months now, I have never condoned what he did but he wasn't the only person involved...I know the 'anon' thing was the problem with that but I think that also has to be factored in, that a 'forced leniency' to some should also mean that he has one as well..that's fair..?...

...a sanction for anything should always be clearly defined and this one isn't..he can't 'prove himself' unless he is given the opportunity to prove himself and if he messes up, no one knows more that he does that this could be/will probably be his last chance....there are many things that have happened this year, which have hurt/offended TiBB members and it's bad for the forum/for everyone if we can't move on from them/we have to move on from them...can we move on from Tumblr and give him the same 'fairness'....they were only words and words do not have the ability to hurt, unless we allow them to....Scott is 'controversial'/some members are 'controversial' and forums/groups need that.. but for many people, he is also a big part and a big heart of TiBB....


..I think this 'offsite' stuff has been a 'first' this year, so it was good in a way to give a harsh/lengthy ban...but it has been harsh and lengthy enough..?..I mean there is no point in a ban/sanction that isn't aimed to achieve something/learn from it and if that hasn't been done in 3 months, then it's not ever going to...what's the purpose/but to see if anything has been learned, and the only way to know that is to end the ban and see...

[Kate!]

Absolutely not.

As stated at the time there was far more to it than the majority know, I'll not further malign his character by saying anymore, and the appropriate thing for you to be doing here Ammi, with the utmost respect, is to be approaching staff/admin with this rather than making a thread?

[Samm]

I hope he comes back soon

[GypsyGoth]

I feel it would be good to chat about it, as far as I know he insulted folks here whilst on another site. And it's Scott he most likely did it out of boredom and not with any malice.

And Kate can you not find it inside you to give him another chance? Forgiveness can set you free of the anger you feel towards him.

Plus we have an ignore feature here, so perhaps anyone who doesn't get on with Scott could use that?

[Glenn.]

I agree Ammi. The Tumblr thing was a stupid and reckless idea he had, which snowballed into with a select few of idiots who ran with it. I'm not innocent in it, I posted a couple of things on there that night, though not as extreme as others. I had terrible stuff said about me and my sister that night.

This ban for an offsite incident, no matter how it affects TiBB is completely unfair IMO. If it's the same rule for all then there should be a few members on a ban.

[Cherie]

I've never really understood banning people forever (especially when the person is in their teens or barely out of them) , I don't know what went on, but we all make mistakes and as long as we learn from them I don't really see the harm in letting him back on the premise that it would never happen again.

[thesheriff443]

scott's ban is not up for discussion,
everyone is to be treated by the same rules even me!
ammi for someone that is so vocal in supporting the mods, I find this some what of a shock.

[Smithy]

I feel it would be good to chat about it, as far as I know he insulted folks here whilst on another site. And it's Scott he most likely did it out of boredom and not with any malice.

And Kate can you not find it inside you to give him another chance? Forgiveness can set you free of the anger you feel towards him.

Plus we have an ignore feature here, so perhaps anyone who doesn't get on with Scott could use that?

[2]

I can think of a couple other sites where members get insulted all the time, but this time it is out of malice :idc:, the only difference is that it's not public so they get away with it

Alsoncan I add, I wasn't even here when this burn blog thing happened I was away & idk if anything was said about me (it probably was) but I honestly don't care, some people take the internet far too seriously at times

[Jesus.]

Scott should be allowed to come back now. The vagueness of an indefinite ban seems like a bit of a nice title that can be assigned without anyone really having to address or discuss it anymore, so if he isn't going to be allowed to come back, then tell him he's permabanned,

I've never really understood banning people forever (especially when the person is in their teens or barely out of them) , I don't know what went on, but we all make mistakes and as long as we learn from them I don't really see the harm in letting him back on the premise that it would never happen again.

That is a completely fair, and the reasonable post, that it should be difficult for anyone to argue against.

scott's ban is not up for discussion,
everyone is to be treated by the same rules even me!
ammi for someone that is so vocal in supporting the mods, I find this some what of a shock.

Not sure why you find it's shocking to be supportive of mods, and supportive of Scott at the same time. Yeah, everyone does need to be treated by the same rules. Everyone.

[Natalie.]

Haven't seen him on here before/don't know what he did but he seems to be loved..

[thesheriff443]

..and his ban..?...reasonably/without arguments/discuss...

..I think it's been 3 months now, I have never condoned what he did but he wasn't the only person involved...I know the 'anon' thing was the problem with that but I think that also has to be factored in, that a 'forced leniency' to some should also mean that he has one as well..that's fair..?...

...a sanction for anything should always be clearly defined and this one isn't..he can't 'prove himself' unless he is given the opportunity to prove himself and if he messes up, no one knows more that he does that this could be/will probably be his last chance....there are many things that have happened this year, which have hurt/offended TiBB members and it's bad for the forum/for everyone if we can't move on from them/we have to move on from them...can we move on from Tumblr and give him the same 'fairness'....they were only words and words do not have the ability to hurt, unless we allow them to....Scott is 'controversial'/some members are 'controversial' and forums/groups need that.. but for many people, he is also a big part and a big heart of TiBB....


..I think this 'offsite' stuff has been a 'first' this year, so it was good in a way to give a harsh/lengthy ban...but it has been harsh and lengthy enough..?..I mean there is no point in a ban/sanction that isn't aimed to achieve something/learn from it and if that hasn't been done in 3 months, then it's not ever going to...what's the purpose/but to see if anything has been learned, and the only way to know that is to end the ban and see...

just to add, if you let scott come back, then you will have to let every one else come back.
after all, you could argue that all those that have been banned could learn from their mistakes.

I like scott, but at times his posts made disturbing reading.

[Marc]

scott's ban is not up for discussion,
everyone is to be treated by the same rules even me!
ammi for someone that is so vocal in supporting the mods, I find this some what of a shock.

I don't see the point in posting the part about Ammi and MODs. Seems totally irrelevant to the issue and just a cheap shot at Ammi

[Jake.]

Somebody called me an arselicker on that site so he can remain banned :hmph:

[arista]

Absolutely not.

As stated at the time there was far more to it than the majority know, I'll not further malign his character by saying anymore, and the appropriate thing for you to be doing here Ammi, with the utmost respect, is to be approaching staff/admin with this rather than making a thread?


Yes thats the only way

[thesheriff443]

I don't see the point in posting the part about Ammi and MODs. Seems totally irrelevant to the issue and just a cheap shot at Ammi

that's your opinion, clearly marc you cant have your cake and eat it.

ammi should not be doing this in public, she should take it up with the mods in private.

not come on the forum and bring up members bans, after all how many times in the past have members been jumped on for talking about banned members.

[Kate!]

Ok, hear me out. I do listen to other people's opinions and am one of the most forgiving people alive lol, I'm very soft hearted. I made up with Glenn, despite months of ranting at each other and even telling each other to eff off and other nice things :p

I was (IMO) very close to Scott, he's from my hometown, I felt a bond with him, he made me laugh so so much, and also I really really feel for him and his problems. I used to post on his wall a lot, just random stuff to try and boost his spirits (daft gifs etc).

No-one, except Glenn to his credit, has ever had the decency to apologise for anything said in this whole affair, but then again they are hiding behind anonymity as Ammi says and so Scott faced the flak alone.

It made my (and others affected by it) blood boil when people instantly jumped to Scott's defence and I personally saw him comment after the event that we should all die, in a rant offsite which hardly demonstrates any remorse?

However, I'll say this. IF he's allowed to return here at any point, I won't be raising an objection, I do know how much he loves this place and people love him. I do think what he did was bad enough to justify the action taken, but I also feel (in all honesty, and I said this at the time) that he was hung out to dry by the others who happily took part in the vitriol and then put their heads down and let him be the scapegoat.

I've had a crap year, I'm signed off work sick ATM and I'm just about managing to keep it all together. I don't want to go into 2014 with bad feeling between me and anyone on here. I mean ANYONE. If Scott ever came back I'd consider it a clean slate, which I actually think is MORE courtesy than his actions merit but there you go.

[Kate!]

Ok, hear me out. I do listen to other people's opinions and am one of the most forgiving people alive lol, I'm very soft hearted. I made up with Glenn, despite months of ranting at each other and even telling each other to eff off and other nice things :p

I was (IMO) very close to Scott, he's from my hometown, I felt a bond with him, he made me laugh so so much, and also I really really feel for him and his problems. I used to post on his wall a lot, just random stuff to try and boost his spirits (daft gifs etc).

No-one, except Glenn to his credit, has ever had the decency to apologise for anything said in this whole affair, but then again they are hiding behind anonymity as Ammi says and so Scott faced the flak alone.

It made my (and others affected by it) blood boil when people instantly jumped to Scott's defence and I personally saw him comment after the event that we should all die, in a rant offsite which hardly demonstrates any remorse?

However, I'll say this. IF he's allowed to return here at any point, I won't be raising an objection, I do know how much he loves this place and people love him. I do think what he did was bad enough to justify the action taken, but I also feel (in all honesty, and I said this at the time) that he was hung out to dry by the others who happily took part in the vitriol and then put their heads down and let him be the scapegoat.

I've had a crap year, I'm signed off work sick ATM and I'm just about managing to keep it all together. I don't want to go into 2014 with bad feeling between me and anyone on here. I mean ANYONE. If Scott ever came back I'd consider it a clean slate, which I actually think is MORE courtesy than his actions merit but there you go.

[Jake.]

Kate :love: that's really good of you tbh

[Marc]

I don't see the immediate trouble with discussing the matter. Regardless of the number of supporters the decision is left to the MODs and ultimately James. For example of this is the Razzies; that poll was overwhelming in favour but it's not happening on the forum.

So I don't see a problem discussing it; other banned members get discussed all the time. It's not going to be a problem just discussing it

[Jesus.]

Somebody called me an arselicker on that site so he can remain banned :hmph:

Not quite the same level as a 55yr old sex offender. I wouldn't mind but I'm only 54. :hmph:

[GypsyGoth]

Thanks Kate :hug:


And Sheriff, Scott was given an indefinite ban, not a permanent one. From what I know the whole point of that type of ban was so it could be reviewed later and lifted when appropriate.

[Jake.]

Not quite the same level as a 55yr old sex offender. I wouldn't mind but I'm only 54. :hmph:

:laugh2:

[AnnieK]

Not quite the same level as a 55yr old sex offender. I wouldn't mind but I'm only 54. :hmph:

Yeah but you look 65 so take it.....

[Jake.]

Boom!

[thesheriff443]

Thanks Kate :hug:


And Sheriff, Scott was given an indefinite ban, not a permanent one. From what I know the whole point of that type of ban was so it could be reviewed later and lifted when appropriate.

you know I love gg!
the problem is, it should not be up for discussion on the forum.
ammi is well respected on this site, she should be doing this by pm.

but this subject raises the question of fairness,

[Vanessa]

Are we allowed to talk about banned members? I thought it was against the rules. :suspect:

[AnnieK]

Ammi, Kate, Jesus, Jake and Glenn were all mentioned in the blog and are discussing it so I don't see a problem personally. As Kate said this year on here has been harsh on many members so why not try and air everything to try and dilute bad feeling.

[thesheriff443]

I don't see the immediate trouble with discussing the matter. Regardless of the number of supporters the decision is left to the MODs and ultimately James. For example of this is the Razzies; that poll was overwhelming in favour but it's not happening on the forum.

So I don't see a problem discussing it; other banned members get discussed all the time. It's not going to be a problem just discussing it

you no, that's not true, when kate was banned people got told to stop or else!,
in fact kates name on here was a swear word.
im not talking about scott and his ban anymore.

[Marc]

that's your opinion, clearly marc you cant have your cake and eat it.

ammi should not be doing this in public, she should take it up with the mods in private.

not come on the forum and bring up members bans, after all how many times in the past have members been jumped on for talking about banned members.

This is an open discussion about everybodies opinion on the matter and I don't think it's significantly impacting the forum. People don't have to come in or post in here; if you're not happy with it then fine. Like I've said, it's ultimately James' decision

[thesheriff443]

This is an open discussion about everybodies opinion on the matter and I don't think it's significantly impacting the forum. People don't have to come in or post in here; if you're not happy with it then fine. Like I've said, it's ultimately James' decision

you are clearly breaking the rules discussing a banned member!

[Jesus.]

Yeah but you look 65 so take it.....

In the words of Annie when seeing my picture:

"I would..."

Boom.

[Jesus.]

you no, that's not true, when kate was banned people got told to stop or else!,
in fact kates name on here was a swear word.
im not talking about scott and his ban anymore.

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

[GypsyGoth]

you know I love gg!
the problem is, it should not be up for discussion on the forum.
ammi is well respected on this site, she should be doing this by pm.

but this subject raises the question of fairness,

I understand that and I agree but the solution should be that we can discuss banned members like this, in a thread where there is no arguing and people are listening to each other's point of view.

[thesheriff443]

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

so what's the difference in what ammi is doing?
I wont be here to read your reply, im of to do the food shopping.

[Ammi]

..what I am asking for and the point of this thread...is for there to be exactly what someone mentioned, which is fairness..there was no fairness in Scott being the only person on this forum who has received a sanction for offsite stuff...it’s also the first time..(to my knowledge..) that an indefinite ban has been given...so if that indefinite time means he can come back, then nothing that hasn’t been achieved/learned in 3 months will be learned in 6 months, 9 months etc...so if it’s to be permanent...which I and everyone else would have to accept..then 3 months is also long enough in my opinion to be told that decision...what, for forum members will it achieve by being left uncertain for any longer...other than probably, people constantly asking /possible arguments/frustrations etc...so how does that make the forum ‘move on’ ...which is something that I personally believe it should...from everything....

..this is not the same as other people who have been banned and did something which was in cohesion with other member who had no sanctions at all, while action was only taken against them..their bans were also clearly defined which a sanction should also be otherwise, there is no effectiveness in it at all....


..Kate, I very much respect your post and you for making it..I know you felt personally hurt but holding on to that hurt will only ever hurt you more than it will anyone else...thank you so much for giving this thought, which is all I’m asking....oh and by the by, my dad used to have a saying...'it's easy to treat your friends well..but it's how you treat your 'enemies' that makes the difference to who you are...'..so thank you, Kate....

[Kate!]

That was her friends - no one else. Anyone that even mentioned the wedding were reported, so it wasn't that Kates name was banned, but her close friends tried to make that the case.

Can you not drop this? Polite request?

[Jesus.]

so what's the difference in what ammi is doing?
I wont be here to read your reply, im of to do the food shopping.

The difference here, is that Scotts friends (of which both Ammi and I are 2) are encouraging discussion about his situation, not trying to prevent anyone from even saying his name, like he's tibbs version of beetlejuice.

[Jesus.]

Can you not drop this? Polite request?

Kate I haven't raised anything, or had a go at anyone. Sheriff brought up that point, and I explained what happened. There is nothing to drop really.

[Marc]

Ammi.. Scott brought the matter onto the forum, posting the link more than once after being warned. He deliberately tried to get the blog some attention.

[Ammi]

No Admin have control
and Other mods take views that are under Admins rule



Yes we are not North Korea
but a Red line was crossed other members were hurt
is nothing to do with us now

..you're right, Arista..this isn't our decision but if it's to be permanent, then it's not unreasonable after 3 months to want to be told that decision...there will be no confusion then for anyone including Scott, himself...

[Smithy]

Someone please point out in the rules where it says you're not allowed to discuss banned member? :idc:

If people who were most offended by the blog say he should be given another chance, don't really see the problem, just make sure Scott knows it's his last chance and any more stupid **** and he'll be permbanned :shrug:

[Lee.]

Ok, hear me out. I do listen to other people's opinions and am one of the most forgiving people alive lol, I'm very soft hearted. I made up with Glenn, despite months of ranting at each other and even telling each other to eff off and other nice things :p

I was (IMO) very close to Scott, he's from my hometown, I felt a bond with him, he made me laugh so so much, and also I really really feel for him and his problems. I used to post on his wall a lot, just random stuff to try and boost his spirits (daft gifs etc).

No-one, except Glenn to his credit, has ever had the decency to apologise for anything said in this whole affair, but then again they are hiding behind anonymity as Ammi says and so Scott faced the flak alone.

It made my (and others affected by it) blood boil when people instantly jumped to Scott's defence and I personally saw him comment after the event that we should all die, in a rant offsite which hardly demonstrates any remorse?

However, I'll say this. IF he's allowed to return here at any point, I won't be raising an objection, I do know how much he loves this place and people love him. I do think what he did was bad enough to justify the action taken, but I also feel (in all honesty, and I said this at the time) that he was hung out to dry by the others who happily took part in the vitriol and then put their heads down and let him be the scapegoat.

I've had a crap year, I'm signed off work sick ATM and I'm just about managing to keep it all together. I don't want to go into 2014 with bad feeling between me and anyone on here. I mean ANYONE. If Scott ever came back I'd consider it a clean slate, which I actually think is MORE courtesy than his actions merit but there you go.
What a nice post! :)

[Ammi]

Ammi.. Scott brought the matter onto the forum, posting the link more than once after being warned. He deliberately tried to get the blog some attention.

..yeah, I do know that, Marc..that was why I assumed he had a 3 week ban, which I actually totally supported as anyone I know would tell you...but the indefinite ban came at the end of that 3 weeks and seems more than adequate for posting the links....

[Kate!]

Kate I haven't raised anything, or had a go at anyone. Sheriff brought up that point, and I explained what happened. There is nothing to drop really.

I don't feel you were having a go just to clarify, and I'm not having one either. I'm tired of rehashing it all that's all.

[arista]

..you're right, Arista..this isn't our decision but if it's to be permanent, then it's not unreasonable after 3 months to want to be told that decision...there will be no confusion then for anyone including Scott, himself...


The problem is Other People have had Perm bans
and threads on them are banned.


So you are unreasonable

[Ammi]

Someone please point out in the rules where it says you're not allowed to discuss banned member? :idc:

If people who were most offended by the blog say he should be given another chance, don't really see the problem, just make sure Scott knows it's his last chance and any more stupid **** and he'll be permbanned :shrug:


..yeah, I would have no defence/sympathy for him if there was any future 'incidents'..but no one knows that more than he does...

[Ammi]

The problem is Other People have had Perm bans
and threads on them are banned.


So you are unreasonable

..I am aware that there have been perma-bans and that makes it very clear..but an indefinite ban is a 'first' and isn't clear at all...

[MeMyselfAndI]

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

[Lee.]

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

Stacey's permabanned, Scott's not

[Ammi]

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then

..Jack, every serious action has to be looked at separately, depending what it is...so far as I know, Stacey wasn't in cohesion with any other members when she did what she did...she was also never given an indefinite ban, which indicates a ban which will be reviewed...

[Pete.]

what did he do (wasn't here)

[AnnieK]

In the words of Annie when seeing my picture:

"I would..."

Boom.

:hmph:

[arista]

It would only be fair for Stacey too be unbanned too then


yes Admin can now do that

[MeMyselfAndI]

Loads of people have come back from a perm ban & Stacey was 15 at the time.
Also loads of members have done what Stacey did (save pictures) & then go further & contact another members family with malice with said pictures. But because it was done as a group, nothing happened, when the 4 people were all 18+. So what they actually did was worse, and the mods response, "it was offsite we cant do anything". Well so was Staceys... Hypocrits. Then there response is, "It was admin's decision".

[Ammi]

...this ban and the clarity of it has no similarity at all with any permanently banned members or their return, which has already been made clear and for good reasons...

[Smithy]

This thread isn't about Stacy, if you want her unbanned go make a thread asking for it, but she's a vile vicious bully so no she shouldn't be unbanned

[Ammi]

Loads of people have come back from a perm ban & Stacey was 15 at the time.
Also loads of members have done what Stacey did (save pictures) & then go further & contact another members family with malice with said pictures. But because it was done as a group, nothing happened, when the 4 people were all 18+. So what they actually did was worse, and the mods response, "it was offsite we cant do anything". Well so was Staceys... Hypocrits. Then there response is, "It was admin's decision".

..I'm sorry, Jack but this thread isn't about Stacey or her ban ...

[Ammi]

This thread isn't about Stacy, if you want her unbanned go make a thread asking for it, but she's a vile vicious bully so no she shouldn't be unbanned

..lol....snap...

[Kate!]

I'm going out now, damn. I wanted to continue posting in here. We are actually managing to discuss this positively (surprisingly) so despite my initial opposition to the thread being made, I hope it's still open and ongoing when I come back.

[AnnieK]

I agree Kate, this is what was needed...

[Ammi]

I'm going out now, damn. I wanted to continue posting in here. We are actually managing to discuss this positively (surprisingly) so despite my initial opposition to the thread being made, I hope it's still open and ongoing when I come back.


...yeah, who would have thought it, LOL...enjoy your day...

[Jesus.]

http://i.imgur.com/NyVlto1.jpg

[Ammi]

..anyway, I have to go offline for a bit soon as well but I think Kate and I are like-minded in this...if we're going to move on, then we have to completely move on from what's happened this year, which hasn't had a good effect on TiBB or members...even if it means Scott is told he can never come back..I obviously hope that isn't the case because, I feel that would be a very unfair sanctionindeed...but at least it would be clear, which it needs to be...I can't see anything could be achieved from waiting longer than 3 months for him to be told, or other forum members to be told...I hope that people will discuss it..(reasonably..)..and give it thought and not just act on initial instinct....

[Lee.]

http://i.imgur.com/NyVlto1.jpg

:joker:

That's so beautifully done!

[Marc]

I would argue that what Stacey did was onsite since she took the photos from MTM. The MODs are working towards getting out a clearer understanding of Indefinite Bans and how they'll come into action (if we continue to use them).

[Tom4784]

Stacey was permabanned, Scott isn't. End of discussion on that front.

As for Scott, I talked about it on Plug last night and I'll basically repeat what I said here. I didn't really agree with Scott's ban, I think modding offsite stuff is a slippery slope and it's impossible to be consistent in this area since then we'd have to then ban people for their actions in Plug, Tinychat, and other loosely-related-to-tibb forums which is ridiculous and unrealistic. I personally think enough time has passed and if it was down to me, I'd give him another shot.

[Vanessa]

I'm not opposed to this thread if it's allowed. I think Scott has been a massive part of the forum and i miss him myself. :)

[Ammi]

..I think it's exactly what Dezzy said..if it's a 'cool off period' to reflect on his part in what happened..if it's a sanction to 'learn a lesson', then what's the purpose/to be achieved by it being longer than 3 months, which is a significant ban length..and if it's to be more permanent, then what's to be achieved from either Scott or the forum knowing this because while none of us do, nothing can be 'moved on from..'..so it all becomes counter-productive....

[Cherie]

There are some very valid points being made here on both sides of the divide. It's certainly thought provoking. Maybe an amnesty for those banned members who would like to return could be trialed on a 3 strikes and you are out basis?:shrug:

[Vanessa]

There are some very valid points being made here on both sides of the divide. It's certainly thought provoking. Maybe a months amnesty for those banned members who would like to return could be trialed on a 3 strikes and you are out basis?:shrug:

I think that's a good idea, Cherie.

[Cherie]

I think that's a good idea, Cherie.

Thanks Vanessa I removed the "month" though as that was misleading.:joker:

[Ammi]

There are some very valid points being made here on both sides of the divide. It's certainly thought provoking. Maybe an amnesty for those banned members who would like to return could be trialed on a 3 strikes and you are out basis?:shrug:

..it isn't a permanent ban though Cherie, that's the thing..on TiBB, this ban is only specific to one member and is unclear and maybe time to be clarified..?...

[Cherie]

..it isn't a permanent ban though Cherie, that's the thing..on TiBB, this ban is only specific to one member and is unclear and maybe time to be clarified..?...

Yeah I agree it needs to be clarified one way or the other.

[Jordan.]

Stacey and Scott unbanned please

[Tom4784]

Indefinite Bans are definitely a confusing creature and it's failure on our part that they weren't clearly defined when we first put Scott on one. We're working on it though and we've got a pretty decent idea of what an 'IB' entails, we just need James' input.

As for permabanned members I go back and forth on it all the time, there's some permabans that I would undo if given the chance but I definitely think others should remain banned. When we were discussing indefinite bans a few months back we toyed with the idea of putting permabanned members on one but we were ultimately divided on it. I'd be up for giving someone like Stephanie a chance but Setanta? I'm not sure that would be a good idea at all.

[Jordan.]

Loads of people have come back from a perm ban & Stacey was 15 at the time.
Also loads of members have done what Stacey did (save pictures) & then go further & contact another members family with malice with said pictures. But because it was done as a group, nothing happened, when the 4 people were all 18+. So what they actually did was worse, and the mods response, "it was offsite we cant do anything". Well so was Staceys... Hypocrits. Then there response is, "It was admin's decision".

http://a.mod-site.net/s/appl.gif

People saying Scott will have learnt from his 3 month ban Stacey has waited coming up 3 years...

[Jesus.]

I don't think mixing in Stacey with this thread is advancing your cause. I don't know Stacey, or the exact details of what she did, but I think 3 years is definitely enough time for a 15yr old to learn a lesson, so she should probably also be given another chance.

I think you need to take that up separately with James/mods/own thread though.

[DrunkerThanMoses]

What did he do?

[joeysteele]

I don't like the thought of members banned for good or indefinitely but I do abide by what the mods decide, after all they have to do what is 'best' for the whole forum, not a snapshot of members.

Whether I get along with anyone or not wouldn't cloud how I feel as to giving people another chance with them being given the full knowledge that one more incident would have them banned indefinitely or permanently.

I myself didn't particularly get on with Scott as I recall but I would support a review and I had absolutely no big issues with him at all.
As I hadn't with Stacey either,I never got why she was banned,I really liked her,she got me into liking Taylor Swift and we had some good discussions as to her CDs.

In the end it is down to the mods and admin on this issue and I am sure overall they do what is best for the whole forum as to these things so I support their judgement on this.

[Benjamin]

I'm in two minds. I like Scott, he does make me laugh most of the time but this blog of his he knew how spiteful it was and he controlled every thing that was posted to it and then made sure it was brought onsite for everyone to see.

[Ammi]

http://a.mod-site.net/s/appl.gif

People saying Scott will have learnt from his 3 month ban Stacey has waited coming up 3 years...


..the thing is, if Stacey had been given an indefinite ban and it had been 3 months, we'd probably be having this discussion about her as well...but her ban was specific and clear when it was given...it's not about lengths of bans, whether you have a 3 week ban/3 months/6 months/permanent etc...you know exactly what that ban time period is...but none of that applies to Scott's ban, his isn't clear at all...it kind of just isn't effective or fair to sort of say..well, we'll just decide as we go along and take it each day at a time...the person has to be clear as to what they're being sanctioned for and exactly what that sanction is...

[Pete.]

what did stacy do?

[Ammi]

I'm in two minds. I like Scott, he does make me laugh most of the time but this blog of his he knew how spiteful it was and he controlled every thing that was posted to it and then made sure it was brought onsite for everyone to see.

Could he not return on say a trial period f 3/6months?

..any period of return is a 'trial period' though, because it's his 'last chance' and no one knows that more than he does....

[Ammi]

what did stacy do?

..that's really not something to be discussed here, Pete..

[Benjamin]

what did stacy do?

In a nutshell she took pictures from MTM and saved them on her PC.


But let's keep this thread about Scott which tbh we can talk about all day but the decision will lie with admin and what they see best for the forum.

[Kazanne]

I never had much to do with Scott , to be honest I found him a bit 'strange' that is why I used to just pass over his posts , I know some members found him hilarious , so for their sakes maybe another chance could be given , lets hope he doesn't abuse it this time.

[Ammi]

..yeah, I am aware that the decision rests with admin but an indefinite ban isn't a definite decision...whatever that may be..it's also something which had a personal effect and bearing on members so it's interesting and relevant..(I think..) to have member's opinions...

[Benjamin]

Are we allowed to talk about banned members? I thought it was against the rules. :suspect:

The rules say this:

Do not make threads/posts asking why members are banned, you do not need to know.


This is more of an appeal I guess.

[Benjamin]

..yeah, I am aware that the decision rests with admin but an indefinite ban isn't a definite decision...whatever that may be..it's also something which had a personal effect and bearing on members so it's interesting and relevant..(I think..) to have member's opinions...

Tbh I don't agree with indefinite bans for this very reason.

Either somebody is banned or not, none of this maybe you might be allowed to come back crap as it just leaves everyone unsure and nobody can really work out if they actually will be allowed back. It's seems like a cowardly ban option.

[Ammi]

..it's not even an appeal to say, please can Scott come back...more that there's nothing to be achieved now from extending/delaying a decision about it and to find out how members would feel if he was allowed back, which so far has been positive in that most people feel 'moving on' from things that have happened offsite this year would be best for everyone....

[Ammi]

Tbh I don't agree with indefinite bans for this very reason.

Either somebody is banned or not, none of this maybe you might be allowed to come back crap as it just leaves everyone unsure and nobody can really work out if they actually will be allowed back. It's seems like a cowardly ban option.

..I don't think necessarily 'cowardly'...just something that needed more thought as what was felt was fair and justified...there have been a few 'firsts' this year and thinking about it more isn't a bad thing but 3 months is probably long enough to have made a decision...

[Benjamin]

The thing with Scott which a lot of people forget about is that he has already been permabanned from TiBB once and been allowed to return.

[Vanessa]

The thing with Scott which a lot of people forget about is that he has already been permabanned from TiBB once and been allowed to return.

i didn't know that. i guess that makes it harder for him to comeback. :(

[Ammi]

..it really has no bearing, Vanessa because this as about an indefinite ban and the length of a decision being made, which if it did have a bearing..?...it wouldn't change that decision, then, however long it goes on so it's best for everyone and Scott to know...

[Benjamin]

I does have a bearing though. And the use of indefinite does have no set time frame, but it is at admin discretion how long that is, they don't actually have to give a time just because we want one.

[T*]

I definately think his ban was unfair. With a load of users that have done a lot of things off site are still here to this day, why can't Scott be? He even said to me last night he regretted everything and he's sorry, so please, give him another chance? IMO he was one of the most liveliest, funny users here.

[Ammi]

..it doesn't have a bearing though in that a separate decision was already
made about that at the time, (and bearing in mind whatever factors had to be..)... which was that Scott was allowed to come back...

...this separate incident which has happened since his return has been given an indefinite ban, and again there are factors to consider which effect the forum/member's feelings... and I understand as does Scott that time was required to consider them but whether it now be decided as a permanent ban or a ban with a time frame, there isn't much going to change that by prolonging it any more than it has been already, which is one of the longest ban times...

[thesheriff443]

I does have a bearing though. And the use of indefinite does have no set time frame, but it is at admin discretion how long that is, they don't actually have to give a time just because we want one.

thank you very much ben, your first one to speak up.
this matter is between scott and admin.
what ever way people want to sugar coat it, scotts ban is not up for dscussion.
this thread and the stacy one should be locked.

[LemonJam]

I'm just gonna say there isn't any point in having permabans if we keep bringing people back.

[T*]

I'm just gonna say there isn't any point in having permabans if we keep bringing people back.

It was an indefinite ban.

[Benjamin]

..it doesn't have a bearing though in that a separate decision was already
made about that at the time, (and bearing in mind whatever factors had to be..)... which was that Scott was allowed to come back...

...this separate incident which has happened since his return has been given an indefinite ban, and again there are factors to consider which effect the forum/member's feelings... and I understand as does Scott that time was required to consider them but whether it now be decided as a permanent ban or a ban with a time frame, there isn't much going to change that by prolonging it any more than it has been already, which is one of the longest ban times...

I don't agree with indefinite bans (I have already said that) but if they are going to be used admin/mods are at no liberty to disclose to us how long each one will last. The reason somebody is banned is because they have done something wrong, and an indefinite ban (which is an alternative to a permaban) is used for the more serious/bigger offences so again if somebody is bothered by it they should have thought about it before they did it especially considering they have been permabanned before no matter how it is sugar coated.

[Z]

Well it looks like I'm about to go completely against the grain...

If this was (more or less) any other member who had created that website, it would have been their first ever serious misdemeanour related to TiBB, they'd have been given a 3 month ban and they'd never have done something so mind numbingly stupid ever again. I don't agree that it was an off-site matter because the blog was being linked on TiBB, encouraging TiBB members to post on it, about other TiBB members. It was very much an on-site matter. But this was not any other member. This was Scott, who has been banned so many times before (including a previous permanent ban when he was pisshead, and absolutely nobody realised he was a previously banned member until he'd become a regular member as simonsays and it was probably a bit too late to ban him again) - and do you know what? I think Scott's never really taken the forum and its moderators seriously ever since. Every single time he has pushed the limit just that little bit further, he's been banned for a few months at a time and then been allowed back.

Yes, he was not the only one to post on that blog. Yes, it is unfair that everyone else hid behind anonymity and nobody else confessed to posting on it. But do you know why I think it's totally fair that Scott was banned? Because there was absolutely no reason to create that blog. It didn't start out as a blog for pictures of Simon Le Bon smiling at small children. It didn't start out as a blog dedicated solely to what the red peppers team in Ready Steady Cook had made since the show began. It was created to write offensive comments about people that use this forum. Why would we ever allow someone back who thinks so little of this place and the people on it that he wanted people to post hateful comments on it?

Scott is never going to change. He has never changed. It's not because he's an inherently horrible person, it's because his personal circumstances are complicated and while we all can understand that and feel bad for him, and we can laugh at his sense of humour when he's being funny, what nobody is willing to openly say, it seems, is that he's completely unpredictable and cannot be trusted to post on here normally because at any given moment he'll do something completely over the top and be banned for another three months. Why do we keep perpetuating the cycle? He doesn't take it seriously so why are we acting like another mid-range ban is going to sort him out?

[Black Dagger]

Well it looks like I'm about to go completely against the grain...

If this was (more or less) any other member who had created that website, it would have been their first ever serious misdemeanour related to TiBB, they'd have been given a 3 month ban and they'd never have done something so mind numbingly stupid ever again. I don't agree that it was an off-site matter because the blog was being linked on TiBB, encouraging TiBB members to post on it, about other TiBB members. It was very much an on-site matter. But this was not any other member. This was Scott, who has been banned so many times before (including a previous permanent ban when he was pisshead, and absolutely nobody realised he was a previously banned member until he'd become a regular member as simonsays and it was probably a bit too late to ban him again) - and do you know what? I think Scott's never really taken the forum and its moderators seriously ever since. Every single time he has pushed the limit just that little bit further, he's been banned for a few months at a time and then been allowed back.

Yes, he was not the only one to post on that blog. Yes, it is unfair that everyone else hid behind anonymity and nobody else confessed to posting on it. But do you know why I think it's totally fair that Scott was banned? Because there was absolutely no reason to create that blog. It didn't start out as a blog for pictures of Simon Le Bon smiling at small children. It didn't start out as a blog dedicated solely to what the red peppers team in Ready Steady Cook had made since the show began. It was created to write offensive comments about people that use this forum. Why would we ever allow someone back who thinks so little of this place and the people on it that he wanted people to post hateful comments on it?

Scott is never going to change. He has never changed. It's not because he's an inherently horrible person, it's because his personal circumstances are complicated and while we all can understand that and feel bad for him, and we can laugh at his sense of humour when he's being funny, what nobody is willing to openly say, it seems, is that he's completely unpredictable and cannot be trusted to post on here normally because at any given moment he'll do something completely over the top and be banned for another three months. Why do we keep perpetuating the cycle? He doesn't take it seriously so why are we acting like another mid-range ban is going to sort him out?

I'm curious now. I might do my research and make a blog dedicated to that (I hope nobody else has had that idea)

[Benjamin]

Well it looks like I'm about to go completely against the grain...

If this was (more or less) any other member who had created that website, it would have been their first ever serious misdemeanour related to TiBB, they'd have been given a 3 month ban and they'd never have done something so mind numbingly stupid ever again. I don't agree that it was an off-site matter because the blog was being linked on TiBB, encouraging TiBB members to post on it, about other TiBB members. It was very much an on-site matter. But this was not any other member. This was Scott, who has been banned so many times before (including a previous permanent ban when he was pisshead, and absolutely nobody realised he was a previously banned member until he'd become a regular member as simonsays and it was probably a bit too late to ban him again) - and do you know what? I think Scott's never really taken the forum and its moderators seriously ever since. Every single time he has pushed the limit just that little bit further, he's been banned for a few months at a time and then been allowed back.

Yes, he was not the only one to post on that blog. Yes, it is unfair that everyone else hid behind anonymity and nobody else confessed to posting on it. But do you know why I think it's totally fair that Scott was banned? Because there was absolutely no reason to create that blog. It didn't start out as a blog for pictures of Simon Le Bon smiling at small children. It didn't start out as a blog dedicated solely to what the red peppers team in Ready Steady Cook had made since the show began. It was created to write offensive comments about people that use this forum. Why would we ever allow someone back who thinks so little of this place and the people on it that he wanted people to post hateful comments on it?

Scott is never going to change. He has never changed. It's not because he's an inherently horrible person, it's because his personal circumstances are complicated and while we all can understand that and feel bad for him, and we can laugh at his sense of humour when he's being funny, what nobody is willing to openly say, it seems, is that he's completely unpredictable and cannot be trusted to post on here normally because at any given moment he'll do something completely over the top and be banned for another three months. Why do we keep perpetuating the cycle? He doesn't take it seriously so why are we acting like another mid-range ban is going to sort him out?

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Z]

I'm curious now. I might do my research and make a blog dedicated to that (I hope nobody else has had that idea)

I'll follow you :love:

[Kizzy]

This is an open discussion about everybodies opinion on the matter and I don't think it's significantly impacting the forum. People don't have to come in or post in here; if you're not happy with it then fine. Like I've said, it's ultimately James' decision

Yet another ' impact assessment'?
As you mentioned the razzies I'll throw this in, why can nobody accept admins decision once made, if it's discussed at length and a decision made why the constant debate on the forum?
It is impacting on the forum marc as it obviously will, those who were involved in this and know about other unrelated issues will feel conflicted.
I totally agree with sheriff, this was a devisive move following the good feeling created by most loved.
It's unfair, unwarranted and unacceptable to keep using this to maintain bad feeling.
If or when the ban is lifted will be admins decision and not due to forum pressure.

[Jessica.]

I definitely think Scott should be unbanned, it was just a stupid mistake that he made when he was bored, it's unfortunate that it got so out of hand but honestly, he was basically just copying something that happened in a comedy film aimed at teenage girls. I bet he didn't expect the comments to be so hurtful, but I do agree that he shouldn't have allowed them to be posted. I didn't see what was posted there though, so I can't speak about that.

This forum has seriously declined in activity and conversation since Scott was banned, it's truly unfortunate and it would be so lovely to have him back. He's lovely and funny, sometimes he has bad moments like the rest of us and maybe he shouldn't bring them onto the forum but it's a part of him and I don't think he should be slandered for some things that he is not proud of. I think lots of us miss Scott and if he were to return the forum would be buzzing.

Free Scott.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Yes, it's just a big brother forum in the end of the day

[Z]

I definitely think Scott should be unbanned, it was just a stupid mistake that he made when he was bored, it's unfortunate that it got so out of hand but honestly, he was basically just copying something that happened in a comedy film aimed at teenage girls. I bet he didn't expect the comments to be so hurtful, but I do agree that he shouldn't have allowed them to be posted. I didn't see what was posted there though, so I can't speak about that.

This forum has seriously declined in activity and conversation since Scott was banned, it's truly unfortunate and it would be so lovely to have him back. He's lovely and funny, sometimes he has bad moments like the rest of us and maybe he shouldn't bring them onto the forum but it's a part of him and I don't think he should be slandered for some things that he is not proud of. I think lots of us miss Scott and if he were to return the forum would be buzzing.

Free Scott.

He also completely missed the point of that comedy film aimed at teenage girls - that the burn book is bad, upset everyone and got everyone who was involved in it into a lot of trouble. So, you know, life imitating art there - someone with no thought for others doing something mean spirited and being punished accordingly.

How many times has Scott been banned for a stupid mistake he made when he's been bored? Too many to count. I'm sick of it. I liked Scott but I'm just a bit sick of him pulling the same stunts every time he's bored and looking for a cheap thrill. I don't think Scott returning to the forum would make it suddenly a more active place - he's one person. Maybe we could, just, you know, post more as a forum. Create more threads. This place is what we make of it.

[Stu]

Indefinite Bans are definitely a confusing creature and it's failure on our part that they weren't clearly defined when we first put Scott on one. We're working on it though and we've got a pretty decent idea of what an 'IB' entails, we just need James' input.

As for permabanned members I go back and forth on it all the time, there's some permabans that I would undo if given the chance but I definitely think others should remain banned. When we were discussing indefinite bans a few months back we toyed with the idea of putting permabanned members on one but we were ultimately divided on it. I'd be up for giving someone like Stephanie a chance but Setanta? I'm not sure that would be a good idea at all.
I'm still a bit confused on the whole Setanta thing. He was a bit ... involved ... with this whole using the internet business but at the same time it felt like a group of young kids kicking a dog to death then screaming "YOU ALL SAW HIM. HE BIT ME".

He became incredibly popular to bait by the same group of ****ing boring thugs for weeks on end. Even if he killed the pope and gave the queen a wedgie in the meantime it's important to note that, I think. Total mob justice.

[smeagol]

I dont know them and dont know anything but no one should get life bans unless they post about joining a 20 something group lol
i think at the end of the year they should go through the ban list and unban everybody as a amnesty with the notion that if they do anything really major then thats it.
its just a forum after all. can easily ban again if naughty hobbitses lol

though i never see the point in banning anyway. its actually impossible to ban someone for good if they know how to get by it.

[Jessica.]

I'm still a bit confused on the whole Setanta thing. He was a bit ... involved ... with this whole using the internet business but at the same time it felt like a group of young kids kicking a dog to death then screaming "YOU ALL SAW HIM. HE BIT ME".

He became incredibly popular to bait by the same group of ****ing boring thugs for weeks on end. Even if he killed the pope and gave the queen a wedgie in the meantime it's important to note that, I think. Total mob justice.

He once made a post addressing every member he dislikes with the deepest and most personal insults he could think of, it was beyond forgiveness imo.

[Z]

I'm still a bit confused on the whole Setanta thing. He was a bit ... involved ... with this whole using the internet business but at the same time it felt like a group of young kids kicking a dog to death then screaming "YOU ALL SAW HIM. HE BIT ME".

He became incredibly popular to bait by the same group of ****ing boring thugs for weeks on end. Even if he killed the pope and gave the queen a wedgie in the meantime it's important to note that, I think. Total mob justice.

I thought it was because he was being completely sexually inappropriate towards underaged female members

[Stu]

He once made a post addressing every member he dislikes with the deepest and most personal insults he could think of, it was beyond forgiveness imo.
To be fair I have never seen it.

It sounds brilliant, though.

[Stu]

I thought it was because he was being completely sexually inappropriate towards underaged female members
To be fair I have never seen it.

It sounds weird, though.

[T*]

I definitely think Scott should be unbanned, it was just a stupid mistake that he made when he was bored, it's unfortunate that it got so out of hand but honestly, he was basically just copying something that happened in a comedy film aimed at teenage girls. I bet he didn't expect the comments to be so hurtful, but I do agree that he shouldn't have allowed them to be posted. I didn't see what was posted there though, so I can't speak about that.

This forum has seriously declined in activity and conversation since Scott was banned, it's truly unfortunate and it would be so lovely to have him back. He's lovely and funny, sometimes he has bad moments like the rest of us and maybe he shouldn't bring them onto the forum but it's a part of him and I don't think he should be slandered for some things that he is not proud of. I think lots of us miss Scott and if he were to return the forum would be buzzing.

Free Scott.
This

[reece(:]

I've never really understood banning people forever (especially when the person is in their teens or barely out of them) , I don't know what went on, but we all make mistakes and as long as we learn from them I don't really see the harm in letting him back on the premise that it would never happen again.

I totally agree Cherie, people in life make mistakes... serve their time and learn their lessons and as Scott said in plug last night, he has apologised profusely and regrets his actions. He definitely deserves another chance.

[Lee.]

He once made a post addressing every member he dislikes with the deepest and most personal insults he could think of, it was beyond forgiveness imo.

You weren't so sweet and innocent yourself during Setantagate (nor was I)

[Jessica.]

You weren't so sweet and innocent yourself during Setantagate (nor was I)

Setantagate? :joker:

I know I made a lot of bad decisions in the past, I was having a tough time irl back then, but I wont make excuses for myself, I regret how I treated people and I wish I could apologise personally to everyone who I offended but there's just too many to list. I hope that I learned from that, I try not to hold grudges. It's unfair to make this about me when there are so many different factors involved.

[Lee.]

Setantagate? :joker:

I know I made a lot of bad decisions in the past, I was having a tough time irl back then, but I wont make excuses for myself, I regret how I treated people and I wish I could apologise personally to everyone who I offended but there's just too many to list. I hope that I learned from that, I try not to hold grudges. It's unfair to make this about me when there are so many different factors involved.

That's fair enough.. I'm not one to hold grudges either, so I like to think we're cool now :)

[Jessica.]

That's fair enough.. I'm not one to hold grudges either, so I like to think we're cool now :)

Of course. :hugesmile:

[MeMyselfAndI]

I liked seneta (or however you spell his name) he should be unbanned, Wombai too, she was lovely.

[Kazanne]

The thing with Scott which a lot of people forget about is that he has already been permabanned from TiBB once and been allowed to return.

I didn't know that,he really should have learnt a lesson then.

[Kazanne]

I liked seneta (or however you spell his name) he should be unbanned, Wombai too, she was lovely.

I liked Wombia too,wondered what had happened to her

[Tom4784]

I liked seneta (or however you spell his name) he should be unbanned, Wombai too, she was lovely.

No.

[T*]

I liked seneta (or however you spell his name) he should be unbanned, Wombai too, she was lovely.

Are you having a laugh

[Glenn.]

Scott's ban needs to be reconsidered

[Z]

I think Scott's ban should only be reconsidered if other people are willing to come forward and face consequences of that burn blog. Seems like a fair trade to me. It's the reason he was put on an indefinite ban because nobody else could be held accountable for it.

[Lee.]

I can state that by the time I tried to post something it had been taken down!
Mines was just a rant about how disgusting I found some of the comments :)

[Drew.]

I think Scott's ban should only be reconsidered if other people are willing to come forward and face consequences of that burn blog. Seems like a fair trade to me. It's the reason he was put on an indefinite ban because nobody else could be held accountable for it.

Some of the people who made comments about certain members on that blog probably act friendly towards them on here, nobody's going to own up to that.

[AnnieK]

I think Scott's ban should only be reconsidered if other people are willing to come forward and face consequences of that burn blog. Seems like a fair trade to me. It's the reason he was put on an indefinite ban because nobody else could be held accountable for it.

I don't quite agree with that....people now are not going to come forward but Scott has already paid for their cowardice during this ban.

[Z]

Some of the people who made comments about certain members on that blog probably act friendly towards them on here, nobody's going to own up to that.

Of course they won't, but I think it's crap to try and wipe what Scott's blog did clean when he got made into a scape goat for its entire contents and I'd imagine a few of the people being vocal about him returning were involved in some of the bile posted on there. Glenn's freely admitted to posting stuff and Lucas did too, we've since spoken about it and we're cool, but I would imagine there are a lot of people who posted on there that have never admitted to it.

[Z]

I don't quite agree with that....people now are not going to come forward but Scott has already paid for their cowardice during this ban.

Well then he should remain banned. If people who were involved are happy for him to be the only one punished, then he should remain the only one punished. We've no way of finding out or proving who was involved unless people admit to it.

[Jordan.]

I think anyone admitting to anything they posted is just asking for arguments to happen, it's best for people to not know who said what about them.

[Z]

I think anyone admitting to anything they posted is just asking for arguments to happen, it's best for people to not know who said what about them.

They don't have to admit to what they said, they just have to say "I was responsible for some of the content on that blog." The moderating team can decide what to do after that.

[Headie]

I have no idea who this Scott person is... but from my understanding he was banned for writing a vicious blog about people on here?

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow this thread and it's a bit confusing.

[Me. I Am Salman]

I didn't write anything vile I'm not nasty

[Stu]

I have no idea who this Scott person is... but from my understanding he was banned for writing a vicious blog about people on here?

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow this thread and it's a bit confusing.
Most glorified spam poster in TiBB's history, essentially.

[Jordan.]

They don't have to admit to what they said, they just have to say "I was responsible for some of the content on that blog." The moderating team can decide what to do after that.

even then that's still gonna cause drama as people will know who to aim their animosity at over the whole thing.

[AnnieK]

They don't have to admit to what they said, they just have to say "I was responsible for some of the content on that blog." The moderating team can decide what to do after that.

Well as you have said, some have admitted to playing a part and nothing happened (that we are aware of)...so nothing should happen to others...therefore meaning scott still takes the blame? I am in no way condoning the blog, I read it and it was awful but there is some injustice in all of this...

[Glenn.]

There's members involved that I know for a fact that won't own up.

[T*]

I just wanted you let you all know that I never posted anything on that blog and only read it.

[Z]

even then that's still gonna cause drama as people will know who to aim their animosity at over the whole thing.

It'd be done privately and I guess the mods could just give people bans at a later date after they'd come forward so that people don't assume anything. I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.

Essentially I think TiBB doesn't need the return of someone who thinks it's funny to create a hate blog, send pictures of his genitals via private messages to half the forum or stalk people around the internet writing abuse on things they do that have nothing to do with TiBB. He doesn't take this place at all seriously or the people on it - and every high and mighty person likes to say "it's just the internet, don't take it so seriously" but do you know what? That's not true at all. We're all human beings with emotions and feelings and sometimes they can be hurt, especially on the internet where some people don't seem to think the things they say and do have any impact once they've hit the submit reply button. That's why those people end up being excluded from our community and are left begging to return - and I don't think Scott has ever or will ever learn his lesson. He's been given enough second chances. Enough is enough in my opinion.

[arista]

Most glorified spam poster in TiBB's history, essentially.


Yes a Sex Side to it all


I got one sent to me inbox color photo (so did others)
I said mine is Bigger

[T*]

Wurkit Arista Wurkit :joker:

[Black Dagger]

-I only wrote the one comment about Zee trying to be funny and it wasn't and we have had words and I think he's a great guy and I wasn't trying to be malicious- <3. I do think the burn blog never intended to go that far, but heated things were said and it did get brutual, but yeah Scott isn't only to blame in all of this.

[Black Dagger]

Yes a Sex Side to it all


I got one sent to me inbox color photo (so did others)
I said mine is Bigger

:joker:

[Jessica.]

I was there when it was created and Scott spoke of it in the chat thread but I went offline before he even turned asks on and missed everything.

[MTVN]

I think people are simplifying the ban too much by reducing it down to this one blog, pass it off as some silly mistake, and therefore make out it was all a big overreaction by Admin/the Mods. I can't add that much to Zee's post earlier in the thread but Scott himself I'm sure would admit that he's always pushed the boundaries the whole time he was on here, it's why he was originally permabanned as pisshead, it's why he got a 3 month ban as simonsays, and why he had numerous other bans and infractions. The blog alone was not what got him a ban, though I also think that now that it's been a few months since it happened people in hindsight are trying to minimise how bad it was. The stuff on there couldn't really have been any worse and is the sort of stuff that would really make you question people, (and as Zee also said) I don't buy that because it's just the internet, or because it was 'just a joke' that that makes it any less worse

It is an indefinite ban not a permaban and it will be considered (pretty much every ban does get considered in the admin section at some point) and possibly lifted at some point, Admin will decide if and when that is with the help of Mods. Not sure what else there is to add to that.

[Ramsay]

i'm ragin' i missed it

[Kazanne]

It'd be done privately and I guess the mods could just give people bans at a later date after they'd come forward so that people don't assume anything. I dunno, just throwing ideas out there.

Essentially I think TiBB doesn't need the return of someone who thinks it's funny to create a hate blog, send pictures of his genitals via private messages to half the forum or stalk people around the internet writing abuse on things they do that have nothing to do with TiBB. He doesn't take this place at all seriously or the people on it - and every high and mighty person likes to say "it's just the internet, don't take it so seriously" but do you know what? That's not true at all. We're all human beings with emotions and feelings and sometimes they can be hurt, especially on the internet where some people don't seem to think the things they say and do have any impact once they've hit the submit reply button. That's why those people end up being excluded from our community and are left begging to return - and I don't think Scott has ever or will ever learn his lesson. He's been given enough second chances. Enough is enough in my opinion.


Well said Zee.

[Vicky.]

I think Scott's ban should only be reconsidered if other people are willing to come forward and face consequences of that burn blog. Seems like a fair trade to me. It's the reason he was put on an indefinite ban because nobody else could be held accountable for it.

Now theres an interesting thought..I would bet that the majority of the comments were made by scotts 'friends' and those who are currently campaigning for him to come back too.

As for the ban itself, I dont agree that there should be a definite time frame tbh. Otherwise we would have just put a 3/6 month or whatever ban on. I will be honest and say I dont really know what an indefinite ban is, but its a lot better than the other option, which would have been a permaban.

This

Well it looks like I'm about to go completely against the grain...

If this was (more or less) any other member who had created that website, it would have been their first ever serious misdemeanour related to TiBB, they'd have been given a 3 month ban and they'd never have done something so mind numbingly stupid ever again. I don't agree that it was an off-site matter because the blog was being linked on TiBB, encouraging TiBB members to post on it, about other TiBB members. It was very much an on-site matter. But this was not any other member. This was Scott, who has been banned so many times before (including a previous permanent ban when he was pisshead, and absolutely nobody realised he was a previously banned member until he'd become a regular member as simonsays and it was probably a bit too late to ban him again) - and do you know what? I think Scott's never really taken the forum and its moderators seriously ever since. Every single time he has pushed the limit just that little bit further, he's been banned for a few months at a time and then been allowed back.

Yes, he was not the only one to post on that blog. Yes, it is unfair that everyone else hid behind anonymity and nobody else confessed to posting on it. But do you know why I think it's totally fair that Scott was banned? Because there was absolutely no reason to create that blog. It didn't start out as a blog for pictures of Simon Le Bon smiling at small children. It didn't start out as a blog dedicated solely to what the red peppers team in Ready Steady Cook had made since the show began. It was created to write offensive comments about people that use this forum. Why would we ever allow someone back who thinks so little of this place and the people on it that he wanted people to post hateful comments on it?

Scott is never going to change. He has never changed. It's not because he's an inherently horrible person, it's because his personal circumstances are complicated and while we all can understand that and feel bad for him, and we can laugh at his sense of humour when he's being funny, what nobody is willing to openly say, it seems, is that he's completely unpredictable and cannot be trusted to post on here normally because at any given moment he'll do something completely over the top and be banned for another three months. Why do we keep perpetuating the cycle? He doesn't take it seriously so why are we acting like another mid-range ban is going to sort him out?

says it all tbh. Scott has been banned so many times, had a 3 month, a 6 month AND a permaban before and stuff like this still happens. Also there was more to scotts ban than just the burn blog..as he knows himself too.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to him coming back, I quite like scott. But its just ridiculous that so many members have so little respect for the rules, and then have people willing to stand their corner when they **** up again. Its so annoying. No matter what some people do, its not them in the wrong for some reason.

[GypsyGoth]

I would bet that the majority of the comments were made by scotts 'friends' and those who are currently campaigning for him to come back too.

I consider Scott a friend of mine here and I guess you could say I've campaigned for him to be allowed back, I did make this rather amazing pic http://i.imgur.com/dhZ7WRW.jpg

However I did not post in this blog, I didn't even see the thing, not to say I'm an angel, I'm not sure what I would have done had I seen the thing. But yea I didn't even get to read it like the majority of people here, if I had I'd have a better understanding of who and how many were affected by it.

Also I think turning this thread into a witch hunt is wrong.

[madame_lalaurie]

first i just want to say i only made this multi because i wanted to have my say and i have no intention of making anymore but this is the only way i can get my point across and once i have posted this i will have nothing more to say

first of all kate i just want to say that i know there is bad blood between us but i really really admire you for the stuff you have said in this thread so thank you

and some of the stuff posted in this thread is completely wrong, i have been on a 3 month ban before (that is the longest i have ever had) but i have never ever been on a 6 month ban

and idk how my first perma from 2007 is relevant because the slate was supposedly wiped clean when i came clean about it and changed my name to scott (and lets get some prospective here it was almost 6 years ago and i was a teenage boy who had only had broadband installed 2 weeks earlier, plus i was permabanned because i got a 24 hour ban and made a multi, so the 3 strike rule that applied in 2007 never really happened for me but whatever)

anyway i dont even know how i feel about the current ban myself, part of me feels as though a permaban would be completely justified because i have crossed the line so many times but anything i have ever done or said on the forum and offsite was never meant to hurt anybody. idk i just have a really ****ed up sense of humor and i guess i just dont consider other peoples feelings enough but whenever i have done or said something i never set out to purposely upset people (and you can all make your own mind up about whether i am telling the truth with that but at the end of the day only 1 person actually knows and that is me)

and yes i do regret everything that has happened not just because it got me banned but because i actually feel bad about it. like just now when i was reading this thread i saw kates post and i actually felt like crying because i just felt like **** for all the bad things i have ever said/done to her and she is still willing to forgive

and i really do agree with everybody that is opposed to me coming back (i agree with their reasons anyway) because everything that has been said (by zee in particular) is completely true apart from him saying that i will never change because this is actually the first time i have felt as though my future on the forum is uncertain and its been a big wake up call (i have never been given a ban longer than 3 months up until now)

and like he says i have never really taken the forum seriously or considered peoples feelings and i feel bad about that and if i do come back i will try my hardest to change

but yeah the point of making this multi was not to appeal for my ban to be lifted i just wanted to have my say (which is totally fair imo) and to apologize to people because i might not have the chance to do that again but dont think this is just some suck up attempt to get me back on the site because right now i just want people to know that i am sorry for everything that was done and said and i just know some people will read this and think oh this is just a false apology to make himself look good

so yeah to summarize i fully agree with the punishment i have been given (the only aspect i disagree with is the uncertainty of it all like if its a perma just tell me coz i think its cruel to just keep me hanging)

AND YOU DON'T NEED TO CLOSE THE THREAD thinking it has encouraged me to make a multi to cause trouble, once this has been posted i am gonna log out and that is that

[Jessica.]

Scott! :hug: I agree that it's fair enough for you to have your say, I hope they will give you some kind of final answer about whether it's permanent or not.

[Lee.]

Hi Scott :)
Fair and genuine sounding post tbh :)

[Kazanne]

If that is you Scott,kudos for having your say

[Shaun]

Looking back, I think the permaban was an overreaction to a lot of sensitive issues brought up and mocked by other members than Scott.

Keeping him gone (even though he won't ever really be gone because people are going to talk about him on here and keep in touch with him elsewhere) is a little like cutting off the nose to spite your face. There're far more malicious, shallow and revolting little piss-stains roaming free inbetween 3 month and 6 month bans (over the course of 3 years? TAKE THE HINT, JAMES) but because they don't have the initiative to set up a site they get away with it? That's frankly stupid.

[Jake.]

Fair play Scott

[Marcus.]

well scott to get your point

[Me. I Am Salman]

madame laulaurie

[Black Dagger]

Wasn't Laulaurie a serial killer?

[GypsyGoth]

Wasn't Laulaurie a serial killer?

She's a character from American Horror Story, and yep based on a real serial killer.

[Niamh.]

Well it looks like I'm about to go completely against the grain...

If this was (more or less) any other member who had created that website, it would have been their first ever serious misdemeanour related to TiBB, they'd have been given a 3 month ban and they'd never have done something so mind numbingly stupid ever again. I don't agree that it was an off-site matter because the blog was being linked on TiBB, encouraging TiBB members to post on it, about other TiBB members. It was very much an on-site matter. But this was not any other member. This was Scott, who has been banned so many times before (including a previous permanent ban when he was pisshead, and absolutely nobody realised he was a previously banned member until he'd become a regular member as simonsays and it was probably a bit too late to ban him again) - and do you know what? I think Scott's never really taken the forum and its moderators seriously ever since. Every single time he has pushed the limit just that little bit further, he's been banned for a few months at a time and then been allowed back.

Yes, he was not the only one to post on that blog. Yes, it is unfair that everyone else hid behind anonymity and nobody else confessed to posting on it. But do you know why I think it's totally fair that Scott was banned? Because there was absolutely no reason to create that blog. It didn't start out as a blog for pictures of Simon Le Bon smiling at small children. It didn't start out as a blog dedicated solely to what the red peppers team in Ready Steady Cook had made since the show began. It was created to write offensive comments about people that use this forum. Why would we ever allow someone back who thinks so little of this place and the people on it that he wanted people to post hateful comments on it?

Scott is never going to change. He has never changed. It's not because he's an inherently horrible person, it's because his personal circumstances are complicated and while we all can understand that and feel bad for him, and we can laugh at his sense of humour when he's being funny, what nobody is willing to openly say, it seems, is that he's completely unpredictable and cannot be trusted to post on here normally because at any given moment he'll do something completely over the top and be banned for another three months. Why do we keep perpetuating the cycle? He doesn't take it seriously so why are we acting like another mid-range ban is going to sort him out?


I agree with this.

[Shaun]

That said, I don't particularly care about the whole subject :laugh:

[Kizzy]

Then I guess all admin can do in all fairness is give him a date, or explain he can't return?

[Vicky.]

OMG sorry scott..I was getting you confused with claymores over the 3 and 6 month bans D:

[Jessica.]

OMG sorry scott..I was getting you confused with claymores over the 3 and 6 month bans D:

:joker:

[Glenn.]

Then I guess all admin can do in all fairness is give him a date, or explain he can't return?

[2].

[Vanessa]

Awww, Scott. Now you're going to make me cry. :(

[arista]

Awww, Scott. Now you're going to make me cry. :(


Typical

[arista]

Thats Risky Scott


I hope James has the time to read your words

[Vanessa]

Typical

:suspect:

[AnnieK]

Scott :love:

[Glenn.]

It does seem a bit unfair to keep him hanging so to speak.

[Vanessa]

It does seem a bit unfair to keep him hanging so to speak.

Yeah, that part was upsetting me a bit.

[Benjamin]

Yes, just as unfair as making a spiteful blog about innocent members...

[James]

The idea behind indefinite bans is we are actually quite lenient and want to give people more opportunities change and to contribute positively to the forum. On other forums I think one wrong thing and people are gone for good.

With regards to Scott, he has been banned many times, and we keep giving him more chances. But he keeps coming back from bans and doing weird and not nice things on the forum, not just the blog episode which was bad enough.

You know how many infractions he has had? 179. Yeah, we are that lenient.

[Marcus.]

179 wowers

[Vanessa]

The idea behind indefinite bans is we are actually quite lenient and want to give people more opportunities change and to contribute positively to the forum. On other forums I think one wrong thing and people are gone for good.

With regards to Scott, he has been banned many times, and we keep giving him more chances. But he keeps coming back from bans and doing weird and not nice things on the forum, not just the blog episode which was bad enough.

You know how many infractions he has had? 179. Yeah, we are that lenient.

This is true. other forums are way more strict. One strike and you're out.

[Jordan.]

So funny the people in here who are ready to forgive and forget but are the complete opposite in the Stacey thread

[Benjamin]

Wow, I knew he had a lot, didn't realise it had totaled that amount though.

[Vicky.]

So funny the people in here who are ready to forgive and forget but are the complete opposite in the Stacey thread

Again, the situations are quite different

However I do find it quite amusing that certain people are all for scott coming back after what he did, when if it had been anyone else doing it they would be asking why the ban wasnt permanent, and fighting against it being lifted, or at the very least agreeing that the ban is justified.

Basically most people dont give a crap what the ban was actually for, or how justified it was, or how many people the incident affected... the only important thing is if they like the banned member or not. Or thats how it seems.

[Benjamin]

It makes me laugh when people say the forum is dead without him. Ridiculous, there are plenty of active people on here to talk to and have a laugh with ranging right across the board in different areas of the forum; be it the sports section with Novo and co, the music section with reece and co or Chat and Games with Ammi and co.

[Ramsay]

This is true. other forums are way more strict. One strike and you're out.

Probably forums that have a huge number of users so it's not like it would make a difference
But if that was here, there would be no one left lol

[Vicky.]

It makes me laugh when people say the forum is dead without him. Ridiculous, there are plenty of active people on here to talk to and have a laugh with ranging right across the board in different areas of the forum; be it the sports section with Novo and co, the musc section with reece and co or Chat and Games with Ammi and co.

Yeah, especially given that he barely posted outside the chat thread, and when he did it tended to be some irrelevant gif, or a graphic story about some guy he just met/****ed in the bushes outside tescos :S

[Glenn.]

It's not a case of being friends with him. I don't like the way he's being solely blamed for it and being punished accordingly. People letting him take the blame for it is pissing me off.

Yeah ok, he made the blog and yes he posted the ****, but he only posted what other members were sending. The whole thing was stupid but to blame one person is unjustified IMO.

[Vanessa]

Probably forums that have a huge number of users so it's not like it would make a difference
But if that was here, there would be no one left lol

:joker:

[Vicky.]

It's not a case of being friends with him. I don't like the way he's being solely blamed for it and being punished accordingly. People letting him take the blame for it is pissing me off.

Yeah ok, he made the blog and yes he posted the ****, but he only posted what other members were sending. The whole thing was stupid but to blame one person is unjustified IMO.

We are well are that others were involved, however as he was the only one we could 'identify' so to speak, he took the brunt of it. The rest just hid behind him and I would bet to this day they wouldnt shoulder some of the blame.

But again, it wasnt only the burn blog that led to the ban.

[Niamh.]

It's not a case of being friends with him. I don't like the way he's being solely blamed for it and being punished accordingly. People letting him take the blame for it is pissing me off.

Yeah ok, he made the blog and yes he posted the ****, but he only posted what other members were sending. The whole thing was stupid but to blame one person is unjustified IMO.

We don't know who the other people are to punish though and also none of those really nasty things people said would have been published if Scott didn't choose to approve them

[fingers]

Again, the situations are quite different

However I do find it quite amusing that certain people are all for scott coming back after what he did, when if it had been anyone else doing it they would be asking why the ban wasnt permanent, and fighting against it being lifted, or at the very least agreeing that the ban is justified.

Basically most people dont give a crap what the ban was actually for, or how justified it was, or how many people the incident affected... the only important thing is if they like the banned member or not. Or thats how it seems.

I don't know anything about this , but having read this thread from the start I tend to agree with the bolded bit.
BTW didn't the two mentioned members not join the first off site Razzies site before it was closed a week or so ago?

[Kazanne]

Yeah, especially given that he barely posted outside the chat thread, and when he did it tended to be some irrelevant gif, or a graphic story about some guy he just met/****ed in the bushes outside tescos :S

:joker: sorry Vicky that made me laugh,I was thinking in pictures:hugesmile:

[Lee.]

I think this could go on forever.. Either way, I think the mods/admin need to put Scott out his misery, define an indefinite ban and make a decision on his future on the forum.

I do think it's a bit rotten that he's being left not knowing. Permaban him or let him back and all move on

[Amy Jade]

I don't know what was said but let bygones be bygones. It's just a website.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Omg! 179 Infractions!

[Kate!]

But when what was said was deeply disturbing, offensive and sick it's not that easy.

Just to clarify, especially since Scott himself has posted in here to the effect he himself accepts it's justified he was banned, that while I'd like to move on from it all and firmly stated IF (with emphasis) he came back I'd give him a clean slate, I still don't think he SHOULD come back and at the risk of setting you all off again I think he wouldn't be capable of this type of thing not happening again.

I'm tired of seeing pleas for his return and misguided resentment against those of us who it hurt and upset just because their friend is banned. When you think about it that's really unfair. Plus it just brings the whole thing back up again and potentially gives Scott false hope.

I don't think pushing for clarification on his ban is a good idea either, as it stands he isn't actually permabanned - that's been stated many times, in my opinion that's very decent considering.

There are some excellent posts in here, by Zee, Vicky and Ben, that say everything I feel and haven't put into words myself.

Scott, I do feel for you and acknowledge you have issues and don't enjoy the fact you've gone BUT you cannot do things like this, and shame on those who both joined in and encouraged you. Are they really true friends?

[bwoty]

I'm sorry I know this is all past history and nothing to do with me, but this whole thing looks staged to me.

The OP and banned member clearly planned this thread together, both sound like trouble makers.

[Lee.]

I'm sorry I know this is all past history and nothing to do with me, but this whole thing looks staged to me.

The OP and banned member clearly planned this thread together, both sound like trouble makers.

Yeah, ammi's notorious for being the biggest **** stirrer on this forum..

[Glenn.]

I'm sorry I know this is all past history and nothing to do with me, but this whole thing looks staged to me.

The OP and banned member clearly planned this thread together, both sound like trouble makers.

Just no

[Ammi]

..the only thing I want to add to the thread and especially to Scott’s post is that he and I never discussed this, he wasn’t aware that I was making this thread...I didn’t want to ‘get his hopes up’, so it’s not a ‘Scott plan’ to try to have a ban lifted although I do know that he would rather know if his ban is likely to be permanent, rather than this uncertainty....I will also say that people who have considered themselves to be Scott’s friends were equally targeted and hurt by the blog as much as other people he may not get along with...that’s the problem and nature of something like that, once started, it becomes difficult to control, which is why it really isn’t a good idea for anyone to associate themselves with in the first place..there is no..’we’re ok, it didn’t effect/hurt us and we like him’...and I personally don’t feel atm, it’s ‘decent’ at all....it’s much easier to face something when you know what it is that you’re facing, the worst things in life are uncertainties because uncertainties/not knowing gives you nothing to begin to face/deal with....no starting point..



...and thank you to everyone for discussing this reasonably/contributing and giving your views which although differ, were really all quite ‘thread closed free..’.....

[Kazanne]

To be fair Bwoty is a relatively new member who doesn't know ammi or Scott well,so is judging by this thread, and she is entitalled to have her say as much as we are

[AnnieK]

I'm sorry I know this is all past history and nothing to do with me, but this whole thing looks staged to me.

The OP and banned member clearly planned this thread together, both sound like trouble makers.

You have just come back and apologised but then post this??

[Jake.]

To be fair Bwoty is a relatively new member who doesn't know ammi or Scott well,so is judging by this thread, and she is entitalled to have her say as much as we are

On stuff she doesn't know?

[Vicky.]

On stuff she doesn't know?

Tbf quite a lot of people have been having their say in this thread and the other about stuff they don know much about :laugh:

[Jake.]

Tbf quite a lot of people have been having their say in this thread and the other about stuff they don know much about :laugh:

True, but seems like another attempt at being controversial for the sake of it after a ban tbh :laugh:

[Ammi]

To be fair Bwoty is a relatively new member who doesn't know ammi or Scott well,so is judging by this thread, and she is entitalled to have her say as much as we are

...yeah, I completely accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion but like any other thread topic... without knowing anything about the topic/situation you are posting that opinion on, the chances are that it's going to be completely wrong...

[Benjamin]

Tbf quite a lot of people have been having their say in this thread and the other about stuff they don know much about :laugh:

Exactly, got to laugh. :laugh:

[Kazanne]

On stuff she doesn't know?

LOL,obviously she is just going by this thread,we all have to start somewhere ,I don't think she insulted anyone did she? she'll get to know people as time goes on.It is something that could cross peoples minds if they didn't know anyone here well.

[Jake.]

LOL,obviously she is just going by this thread,we all have to start somewhere ,I don't think she insulted anyone did she? she'll get to know people as time goes on.It is something that could cross peoples minds if they didn't know anyone here well.

True, bit of a wild accusation to make though don't you think? Lol

[bwoty]

You have just come back and apologised but then post this??

I think you are mad at the situation rather than me.


On stuff she doesn't know?

I've just read 8 pages on this and as I don't know Scott I think I'm able to give an unbiased opinion. From what I've seen he create a hate blog (which he admits was wrong) was banned numerous times before and has received an massive amount of infractions. Yes I think he sounds like a trouble maker.

And the fact that he happens to open an account and make a post on the same day the thread was started makes me think it was pre planned.

I'm sorry but this has all been issued on a public forum so you can't attack me for voicing an opinion!

[James]

Okay, I'm going to lock this thread now. It has been discussed enough.