[Marsh.]

I just don't understand the point of their original account being permabanned if there is no such thing as a permaban.

Let them back if you want but allowing them back under a new username is just plain odd.

Especially as the rule on multis is still there.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I just don't understand the point of their original account being permabanned if there is no such thing as a permaban.

Let them back if you want but allowing them back under a new username is just plain odd.

Especially as the rule on multis is still there.

I disagree, I think taking their old username out of peoples consciousness is a healthy idea.. if the Truth came back, for example, I don't think it should be under that username. He should come back, be upfront about being the Truth, claim hes changed and grown up etc, and then post under his new username with a hopefully more pleasant posting style.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Withano

I disagree, I think taking their old username out of peoples consciousness is a healthy idea.. if the Truth came back, for example, I don't think it should be under that username. He should come back, be upfront about being the Truth, claim hes changed and grown up etc, and then post under his new username with a hopefully more pleasant posting style.

agreed, he could change it to say Womanhata123 or Bitchkiller?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

agreed, he could change it to say Womanhata123 or Bitchkiller?

🤣

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I disagree, I think taking their old username out of peoples consciousness is a healthy idea.. if the Truth came back, for example, I don't think it should be under that username. He should come back, be upfront about being the Truth, claim hes changed and grown up etc, and then post under his new username with a hopefully more pleasant posting style.

I don't agree with allowing them back full stop tbh. They were obviously perma'd for a reason.

The only time I think ok is in the case of it being several years and that person was a kid and has grown up since. Like Stacey. Banned for essentially being so childish and came back years later as an adult.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't agree with allowing them back full stop tbh. They were obviously perma'd for a reason.

The only time I think ok is in the case of it being several years and that person was a kid and has grown up since. Like Stacey. Banned for essentially being so childish and came back years later as an adult.

I won't campaign for you when you get a perma

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I won't campaign for you when you get a perma

I've never done anything serious enough to warrant one.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I've never done anything serious enough to warrant one.

What do you think is serious enough then. Sounds like you don’t have a clue if you think permanent-banned members have necessarily done something really bad. But of course you aren’t privy to that information are you so you can only assume.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

What do you think is serious enough then. Sounds like you don’t have a clue if you think permanent-banned members have necessarily done something really bad. But of course you aren’t privy to that information are you so you can only assume.

Serious enough that they feel you can't remain on the forum. Obviously.

I don't need to explain myself to you.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't agree with allowing them back full stop tbh. They were obviously perma'd for a reason.

The only time I think ok is in the case of it being several years and that person was a kid and has grown up since. Like Stacey. Banned for essentially being so childish and came back years later as an adult.

Remind me how many times you have been banned - those in glass houses and all that. Skating on pretty thin ice yourself. Are you a kid then?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Remind me how many times you have been banned - those in glass houses and all that. Skating on pretty thin ice yourself. Are you a kid then?

Build up of infractions. I'm entitled to my views without needing them policed by you.

You have been permabanned so pop down off that pedestal.

I've never been perma'd so your kid comment is nothing but needless baiting.

This thread is not about you

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Build up of infractions. I'm entitled to my views without needing them policed by you.

You have been permabanned so pop down off that pedestal.

I've never been perma'd so your kid comment is nothing but needless baiting.

This thread is not about you

You don’t know why do you so get off your pedastal. Of course it isn’t about me but some insist on trying to make it so.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You don’t know why do you so get off your pedastal. Of course it isn’t about me but some insist on trying to make it so.

No I don't know. I didn't pretend to know. I don't even care to know.

This thread is not about you.

I responded to the insinuation that as a member whose been banned I wasn't allowed to provide my opinion in the thread. Coming from a former permabanned member it's quite the needless hypocrisy.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I just don't understand the point of their original account being permabanned if there is no such thing as a permaban.

Let them back if you want but allowing them back under a new username is just plain odd.

Especially as the rule on multis is still there.

I agree with this.

Letting people back under new names just causes people to presume new members are multis and they get treated pretty badly by some members, DouglasS/MeMyselfandI is a prime example of someone coming back to simply cause trouble but being allowed back all the same.

He was allowed back and almost straight away he got caught cheating in the pub quiz and make it seem like it was Luke. How long until he acts out again?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I agree with this.

Letting people back under new names just causes people to presume new members are multis and they get treated pretty badly by some members, DouglasS/MeMyselfandI is a prime example of someone coming back to simply cause trouble but being allowed back all the same.

He was allowed back and almost straight away he got caught cheating in the pub quiz and make it seem like it was Luke. How long until he acts out again?

That's a perfect example of someone coming back and despite the name change being exactly the same.

So in regards to the argument in favour of a multi return (a fresh start new username etc) it clearly hasn't happened here and is therefore another inconsistency.

TiBB is a strange animal.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I agree with this.

Letting people back under new names just causes people to presume new members are multis and they get treated pretty badly by some members, DouglasS/MeMyselfandI is a prime example of someone coming back to simply cause trouble but being allowed back all the same.

He was allowed back and almost straight away he got caught cheating in the pub quiz and make it seem like it was Luke. How long until he acts out again?

Yeah I was going to mention this. I was quite shocked about that.

[JerseyWins]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I agree with this.

Letting people back under new names just causes people to presume new members are multis and they get treated pretty badly by some members, DouglasS/MeMyselfandI is a prime example of someone coming back to simply cause trouble but being allowed back all the same.

He was allowed back and almost straight away he got caught cheating in the pub quiz and make it seem like it was Luke. How long until he acts out again?

Tbf I don't know what he's done before this if he's a returning permabanned member, but Douglas seems fine?

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by JerseyWins

Tbf I don't know what he's done before this if he's a returning permabanned member, but Douglas seems fine?

Won't go into the MMI scenario but as DouglasS he tried to cheat in the pub quiz by making accounts on DigitalSpy asking for answers and tried to get LukeB blamed.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Won't go into the MMI scenario but as DouglasS he tried to cheat in the pub quiz by making accounts on DigitalSpy asking for answers and tried to get LukeB blamed.

He... he did WHAT?? Oh JESUS CHRIST the humanity!?!? I thought things were bad in SD's

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He... he did WHAT?? Oh JESUS CHRIST the humanity!?!? I thought things were bad in SD's

It sounds petty the quiz side of it but the way he went about it was deliberately to provoke and target another member with some nasty stuff so it's worth bringing up tbh.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He... he did WHAT?? Oh JESUS CHRIST the humanity!?!? I thought things were bad in SD's

You can be sarcastic if it suits but I think what he did was genuinely nasty. Creating an account offsite with the soul purpose of disruption and having an innocent person blamed is pathetic and cruel.

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

You can be sarcastic if it suits but I think what he did was genuinely nasty. Creating an account offsite with the soul purpose of disruption and having an innocent person blamed is pathetic and cruel.

As his best pal () I can say that it definitely wasn't something I agreed with or thought was ~okay, but I do also think that there was much of an overreaction because it was him who did it. But then that's nothing new anyway, always different rules for everyone even BB contestants in some people's eyes.