About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Jordan. · 15-12-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeMyselfAndLeona

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".

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

15-12-2013, 11:28 AM

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:30 AM

What did he do?

joeysteele · 15-12-2013, 11:31 AM

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:34 AM

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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. · 15-12-2013, 11:36 AM

what did stacy do?

Ammi · 15-12-2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petemitch123

what did stacy do?

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

Benjamin · 15-12-2013, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petemitch123

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:44 AM

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:46 AM

..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 · 15-12-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

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

The rules say this:

Quote:

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 15-12-2013, 11:53 AM

..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 · 15-12-2013, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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 · 15-12-2013, 12:13 PM

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 · 15-12-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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 · 15-12-2013, 12:30 PM

..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 · 15-12-2013, 12:36 PM

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* · 15-12-2013, 12:44 PM

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 · 15-12-2013, 12:48 PM

..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 · 15-12-2013, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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.