I would say that he rarely does what he did last night in terms of shitting on Spurs. He literally said that every single player that was involved in our goal were "lumps." That was after he had praised some of those same players. He was just trying to be an asshole and troll.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I would say that he rarely does what he did last night in terms of shitting on Spurs. He literally said that every single player that was involved in our goal were "lumps." That was after he had praised some of those same players. He was just trying to be an asshole and troll.
True, maybe it's just a natural evolution of the board as a result of the system that I've just chosen not to change with. I see that I was here for over a year before Gibbs arrived and personally enjoyed this board thoroughly, we didn't have these problems at all, and now they exist. It certainly doesn't help I'm his prime target in my disfavor of it, but hey natural selection n all that someone's always the loser.
But yes, I certainly acknowledge it could simply be a redirection of the board, and people who don't tolerate such behavior such as myself should simply be free to go if they don't like it.
I think you two just need to ignore each other. I know that it doesn't really solve anything, but if he starts with another person the way he goes after you he'll have inadvertently proven your point.
Right, hence the "similar." Tbf, he almost never shits on the team collectively. But these daily arguments are very much the product of a pushed agenda rather than a disagreement of views on the team. If it was as simple as that, it would never have gotten to what it's become. You and I both have discussions on here daily with people we disagree with, a few posts are written up on both sides, and everyone shakes hands and moves on. With Gibbs, that is very rarely the case, and if so it only ends with the other person walking away. This is my issue with it.
Fair enough, I think that is entirely reasonable.
aulinholol:
If Gibbs is the problem, and Gibbs is in the bin, why are people in here talking about him, and not enjoying the forum?
Odd.
Odd.
I don't think
Admin
is surprised or will be surprised or anything of the sort.In short, no one currently posting on TFC is in danger of getting banned. The end. No amount of trying to change the rules around or pleading special cases is going to change that.
It matters not that Gibbs has been banned from every other forum; this place is notably not every other forum.
Your continued bringing up his banning history is, then, a non sequitur that suggests you've not yet understood that what he did on other boards is immaterial to what goes on at TFC.
"Thread cancer", "forum cancer", whatever. He's not getting banned. So instead of suggesting some kind of supplemental measures taken against him specifically beyond what is already in place (a banning), I suggest making use of what is already in place (the ignore feature, binning, the ignore feature, and the ignore feature).
I don't think
In short, no one currently posting on TFC is in danger of getting banned. The end. No amount of trying to change the rules around or pleading special cases is going to change that.
It matters not that Gibbs has been banned from every other forum; this place is notably not every other forum.
Your continued bringing up his banning history is, then, a non sequitur that suggests you've not yet understood that what he did on other boards is immaterial to what goes on at TFC.
"Thread cancer", "forum cancer", whatever. He's not getting banned. So instead of suggesting some kind of supplemental measures taken against him specifically beyond what is already in place (a banning), I suggest making use of what is already in place (the ignore feature, binning, the ignore feature, and the ignore feature).
The point is not trying to plead a specific ban as you'll note I wasn't the first to bring up specifics, it is trying to plead a slightly altered format in a thread asking for proposals as to how the forum is run, including in my proposal a slightly more rigid stance on posters who are directly detrimental to the integrity of the forum. I have never once said, "you should ban Gibbs," and in fact I've pointed out multiple times in this very discussion that the problem does not end with him or anyone currently on this board.
The "continued bringing up of his banning history" is therefore not to simply imply "everyone else banned him, why don't we?", it is to point an indication of a behavior that others have deemed detrimental to a board. If it were a board or two, then yes my reference to it would hold absolutely no ground. But when you have a poster who has been banned from four boards that we know of, and binned here at least five times, any individual of academia will concede there is a possible trend there. It is that trend, a trend of behavior, that I am pointing to; not that we should take any particular action against him specifically because a few others did.
I hope that clears some things up.
Cause we're all fucking giant cunts and have nothing better to do on a Wednesday.
It clears up that you still don't understand. This forum/the mods is/are not interested in what the trends on other forums are.
Four restaurants that we know of refuse to serve a patron because he is black. This restaurant chooses not to follow the trend and serves him.
That is an unfair analogy.
A more accurate analogy would be those four restaurants refusing to serve a patron because he comes to eat and constantly cunts off the other patrons and workers at the restaurant, and this restaurant then allows him to eat in it anyway and asks everyone in it to just ignore him should they choose to do so.
That's all well and good and has a good motive, but what's happening now is you have another patron who preferred to sit in a location for over a year who is sat directly next to his choice (note the analogy here is frequenting of similar threads), never bothered anyone and likes to believe he only contributed to positive conversation at the restaurant until this arrival, and is now being called out and ridiculed for declaring himself unhappy with this new situation.
Does that really seem fair to you?
Jesus wept
Restaurant is a bad analogy in general. I would say that TFC is that super dicey dive bar that everyone goes to after they've been kicked out of everywhere else. You post in here you know what you're getting into. However, that's an appealing place for some (myself included).
Maybe, but the point is that Gibbs is to be judged on what he does here, not on his crimes committed elsewhere. And pointing out how he was dealt with elsewhere is not going to change how he is dealt with here. Stick to mentioning that he's been binned here n times, etc.
Honestly, several months ago, I thought maybe you had a case that Gibbs seemed to hunt down your posts and pick you out specifically for abuse, with you nothing more than a purely innocent bystander. But I've personally grown less sympathetic over time because of the reasons already rehearsed on this thread (and in other threads) by many other posters.
I guess I wish I had a TFC enemy, so I could see what it felt like. I'm going to start neg-repping T.
It is an internet forum you spastics.
Chill out, write what you want, ignore what you don't like...
Chill out, write what you want, ignore what you don't like...
Restaurants not serving black people?
Attacked nations?
.....Whats happening here....?
Im not sure, but did Cahspur compare himself to Palestine earlier....or is he Israel?
Attacked nations?
.....Whats happening here....?
Im not sure, but did Cahspur compare himself to Palestine earlier....or is he Israel?
