I don’t actually agree with the decision to ban him
Good to see he still makes stuff up.
He was banned because he was openly unwilling to discuss CCFC and only wanted to talk about Wasps. I did him a favour as he is now in the right place for that.
There has been some pretty offensive stuff posted on here disguised as opinion - to ban him seems a bit extreme, as all he was doing was offering a view on how he sees the club working with Wasps (my opinion on this is that Italia was a bit naive in this view), and stood his ground.
One of the reasons I didn't post on here for a few months was that I was appalled that a moderator thought it would be fun to try and promote a sick joke thread just a after the Manchester bombing (using other sick joke fora as examples of how much fun it can be), . When I pointed out on the thread that this is not the forum for any of that (if you like that sort of thing, then join specific for this stuff) ,, he quickly edited his post and ridiculed me. I didn't bother to complain as Nick had already joined in the thread and it was started by a moderator in the first place.
Have look yourself - I haven't made it up (hint - it was just after the Manchester bombing, and ask your mate RIch why he chose to start it, and ask yourself why you joined in as soon as it was started, rather than didn't delete it)Which was that?
Have look yourself - I haven't made it up (hint - it was just after the Manchester bombing, and ask your mate RIch why he chose to start it, and ask yourself why you joined in as soon as it was started, rather than didn't delete it)
You run this site. If you openly disagreed with it (which in my view you didn't), then you should have deleted it.I didn't say you had made it up, I was just asking for more information.
If it's the one I remember you tried to make out it was done to generate traffic and I was in on it because I openly disagreed with it after Rich posted something? As if it was all arranged before hand to get traffic?
You run this site. If you openly disagreed with it (which in my view you didn't), then you should have deleted it.
I don't agree when people have nothing else about them other than to try and come out with shite like "It was done to generate traffic" when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about either.
The site is very loosely moderated and always has been, Italia would have been banned months ago on most forums that are more strict.
If you want to flounce because of it and because people you speak to have a dim view of the site then that's up to you. If you want to think it's all a massive ploy to get traffic then again that's up to you. You didn't get the point of the thread that somebody else made and what they were trying to say (maybe it could have been worded better to make it clearer).
You could have easily sent a PM or asked for it to be removed (plenty of people do and things get sorted) and it would have been sorted, you made something up though instead and had a rant about trying to generate traffic and had a flounce about reputation and what your friends had told you.
Your reply is typical and not unexpected.
The sort of language Trump would use - "Rant" and "Flounce" - making an observation and having a point of view. Not everyone likes to argue Nick, but it seems to be what makes SBT tick a majority of the time, which is unfortunate. I signed up to find out more about CCFC - and sometimes it does this (in my humble opinion).
I could have PM'd at the time (and as you may know, have done on a few occasions), but if I recall I'd had enough of the bickering (and some of the usual suspects), with the thread in question and attitude of the moderators making me think it really wasn't worth getting involved anymore - I simply logged out and got on with my day, or "flounced" as you would have it.
I
The bickering has probably gone down ten fold in the last couple of months too.
You banned him? That's very petty nick
That applies to a fair few posters on here, mind...Did you ever try and engage with Italia in a reasoned and intelligent way? I did and it went absolutely nowhere and just became a tired old charade of him posting the same old clichés.
As soon as you stop one view being heard, where do you stop?
But he has over the years posted a fair amount of CCFC. It's not like he just popped on to post Wasps.But there is posting one view eg) on Wasps amongst posts of other views eg) CCFC, as opposed to posting the same tired old one eyed diatribe over and over again.
If you aren't prepared to post any other views on any other posts, particularly CCFC ones which is really why we are all here, then your habitual rinse and repeat of the same lines becomes nothing more than a complete joke.
But he has over the years posted a fair amount of CCFC. It's not like he just popped on to post Wasps.
And if he's got nothing to say about CCFC atm, why should he have to just to justify his existence? He's not alone around here in posting on the predominantly non-CCFC threads. To name names would be disengenuous, but there are some who would prob ably deserve a ban if that was consistent...
(If it was down to me, I'd ban the bloody lot of you, mind!)
There are huge amounts of drivel on here, and 100% of it is stuff I disagree with. The stuff I do agree with is posted by highly intelligent posters who see things the right way.... co-incidence??
I don't get to may games now, so rarely post on anything to do with tactics, players etc, but will chip in on other things.
The point is, if you don't like what he posts, then block him.
For me, he's a CCFC fan, so should be welcome on here, whatever his point of view may be. There are far more important lines, that if crossed, should lead to a ban.
I imagine this is how Batman feels without The Joker.
Can we do what the ancient Athenians did and have a weekly vote with the 'winner' being banned for that week?