Author Topic: Split from Re: Carlton thread  (Read 1733 times)

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9214
Split from Re: Carlton thread
« on: March 03, 2013, 06:15:43 PM »
Snip  :banghead :banghead

You all know the rules but seem unwilling to follow them  :banghead :banghead

Debate the issue without the insults - baiting equals a strike

Also remember that any poster telling us directly on the forum who should be given strikes will be issued with strikes as well:

Refer

Also be aware that posting directly on the forum to demand another poster be 'striked' or suspended on the forum will also not be tolerated and posters who try to employ this will face a strike themselves. The 'report to moderator' function or a PM/email to the mods is there and there alone for reporting things to us.

See:
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=17325.0

Suggest EVERYONE have another read as there are no exceptions

Just a question, how would you define if someone is baiting or its actually their opinion?

Ox

  • Guest
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2013, 08:02:53 PM »
there will never exist, internet forum debating without insults, WP.

Online WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 30493
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2013, 08:47:40 PM »

Just a question, how would you define if someone is baiting or its actually their opinion?

Would argue there is a massive difference

I would say stick to giving your opinion without throwing in the direct insult towards individual posters then you cannot get accused or be deemed of baiting

there will never exist, internet forum debating without insults, WP.


Perhaps Ox, but insults for the sake of it with no contribution to the  actual debate isn't necessary is it?
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

TigerTimeII

  • Guest
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2013, 09:20:05 PM »
why cant u all be nice like me  :rollin

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9214
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2013, 11:17:15 PM »

Just a question, how would you define if someone is baiting or its actually their opinion?

Would argue there is a massive difference

I would say stick to giving your opinion without throwing in the direct insult towards individual posters then you cannot get accused or be deemed of baiting

there will never exist, internet forum debating without insults, WP.


Perhaps Ox, but insults for the sake of it with no contribution to the  actual debate isn't necessary is it?

Oh see I was thinking of baiting being discrete, throwing an insult in isn't very good baiting haha

Offline Coach

  • Hardly A Prude
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8768
  • Depend on Schulzy
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2013, 01:52:52 AM »
there will never exist, internet forum debating without insults, WP.


Very true. And now everyone only gets 3 insults/bait sessions and then they're gawnski. Well, maybe not everyone.....

Deliberately making things up and taking things out of context just to bait other posters should bring about a warning from the mods. Id be keeping an eye on your pms for this, WAT.

Al, go read your post again mate, you said it pal, don't be a weak.......and try to get me banned for telling the truth!
..and i havn't argued on many occasions that smaller player who can use agility and pace to get around their opponents have a place in the game despite the fact that on occasions they will get out muscled?

I think i may have have even posed the question how many times must a lighter built player sidestep an opponent to make up for being pushed aside in a contest once?

I know i asked you if you dont find it frustrating when players like betts run around our more solid players, just before i asked if you would swap betts for jackson

any one would know that i was being sarcastic/taking the pee out those that continually moan about players being pushed too easily off the ball when i made the comment you are bringing up.

So you either didn't get the sarcasm or are deliberately making things up/taking out of context just to bait?

Which is it?

stuffen A

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 60711
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2013, 04:31:42 AM »
Well, maybe not everyone.....
The rules apply to everyone. If there's an issue then the mods usually contact a poster directly via PM about it.  Just because those not involved (effectively everyone else aside from the poster) are unaware of such contact and of what is said doesn't mean nothing is being done. Most of what the mods do to keep the site up and running is done behind the scenes.

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9214
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2013, 03:59:54 PM »
One-eyed actually gave me a fair explanation of what he'd consider baiting

Online Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4749
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2015, 10:13:08 PM »
One-eyed actually gave me a fair explanation of what he'd consider baiting

And yet here we are, still debating this very topic 2 years later :lol
"why not us, why not now?"
Sep 2017

Offline Yeahright

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9214
Re: Split from Re: Carlton thread
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2015, 12:30:09 AM »
One-eyed actually gave me a fair explanation of what he'd consider baiting

And yet here we are, still debating this very topic 2 years later :lol

Are you trying to bait me  ;)