[NSC] Remove my account and all my posts thanks

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yep, let's take this golden opportunity to sack him off and wait for his new account when he realises how little else he has.

That's a nasty post. You're better than that.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Begging the question:-

'why keep poking the bear?'

The poster in question has nothing new to say, yet is poked and prodded with exactly the same shite, which he finds completely impossible to leave alone.
He (like many of us) is a fool too himself here, but blimey his dance card is always full up with his biggest critics.

This

 

[Originunknown]

That's a nasty post. You're better than that.

Yes but also entirely sick of the subject in question.

 

[Guinness Boy]

To be fair, you could call that: thinking on one's feet.

Or swinging like a windcock.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Tbh, @Bozza and the Mods are caught between a rock and a hard place, as far as opinions go, re: the Swede. Much as I think he's well dodgy and annoying, he also knows his stuff, football-wise, although for me that's not enough to counter the bullshit and constant sniping, post-Potter.
Thing is, any forum which has a pretty constant disruptive influence (even if half don't agree), causes ongoing problems, unless the perp is persuaded to rein it in a little.
Sadly, @Swansman has been asked, begged, cajoled to do just that, on numerous occasions, bur seems unable to do so.
Those that want him to stay - what would you have the Board do, exactly? Give him carte blanche to continue or yet more warnings?
It still remains (as far as I can tell) solely in his hands, but there comes a point where enough is enough...no?

There are plenty of posters who write stuff that's much more obviously wrong or objectionable than Swansman.

 

[Justice]

Yes....but....he's not neurotypical is he?

I hope he comes back soon.

Yes....but....he's not neurotypical is he?

I hope he comes back soon.

Depends how you are defining neurotypical, if it’s some one who thinks their point of view is the only view then yes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yes but also entirely sick of the subject in question.

Well, if I'm right, being annoying is not something he chooses to be.

If we can't tell the difference between what you might call an oddball (I have some better words), and someone with a malicious agenda, I'm disappointed.

 

[Originunknown]

Well, if I'm right, being annoying is not something he chooses to be.

If we can't tell the difference between what you might call an oddball (I have some better words), and someone with a malicious agenda, I'm disappointed.

He wants to flounce, let him flounce. No, help him to flounce.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

What on earth is this "Discourage" feature?

We haven't had a proper public flounce in ages.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Or swinging like a windcock.

Perhaps.

Have you considered whether he has an agenda, or that there may be other reasons why he annoys people?

 

[birthofanorange]

There are plenty of posters who write stuff that's much more obviously wrong or objectionable than Swansman.

I agree, but not with the monotonous frequency, on so many threads, which end up all about him and his detractors.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Depends how you are defining neurotypical, if it’s some one who thinks their point of view is the only view then yes.

He isn't like that at all. I have had many 'debates' with him. I rarely agree with him on science/tec/politics, but he has always played fair with me. Fair and clever.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

You and I are more alike than you and I might care to imagine.

In the 30 years you have to catch up with me, here is the thing.

Your capacity to fail to read the room will not change.

But the time taken to realize you've dropped another bollock, and offer an apology, will slowly diminish. I can apologize in less than half an hour now. And a sincere one, too. It's probably a gift.

All the best - see you back soon

(Oh and try to not antagonize our dear leader. He's one of the finest fellows I've met, and doesn't deserve any shit)

An apology?

Good one, H.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Perhaps.

Have you considered whether he has an agenda, or that there may be other reasons why he annoys people?

Yes, and I could give you at least two examples of really creepy behaviour.

 

[Beach Hut]

To be fair, half of your three million posts were you whining like a little girl that you didn't get a ticket for West Ham away in the cup.

That was a lovely episode. Would be great to see that happen again.

Naturally I was right as the system was changed but people like you have narrow vision

 

[Whitechapel]

Yes - the problem is that a handful of posters are unable to use the ignore function and can't resist the urge to reply to a post they don't agree with. Both this thread, and if I remember correctly, the previous stay/go thread, appear to be a majority of opinions that he should stay.

I hesitate to say this as I usually like you as a poster and I'm sure you do a fantastic job overall as a mod. But I do find it somewhat distasteful that, as a mod, you often goad Swansman yourself (both of you giving as good as you get), and you are now one of those complaining about how discussions involving him take over threads.

I'll also add that there are plenty of other posters who I'm pretty sure irritate a number of other users. Do we really want to go down that route and start pushing other posters away from this forum when a chunk of users don't like what (or how often) they post?

It's not that easy though, is it?

I've never put anybody on my ignore list on NSC but on another forum I had to. The forum is a football forum for all teams, and the person I had to block was an Albion fan (and a NSC poster). They would come in to our match threads and post these massive rambling posts that made no sense. They'd come to the conclusion we'd win 3-0 because Stephens had better passing than the Barnsley LB. This would go on for paragraphs though. Absolute word soup with no real meaning. I'd quiz him on it but every reply just added another 500 essay on why Murray wouldn't score because it snowed in 1987 and we lost 3-0 that week. So I blocked/ignore listed them.

The problem was that the Barnsley fans wouldn't know this was the norm, so they see the batshit mental bloke spouting bollocks and start grilling him, which meant he replied more, which meant more people would quiz him on it, which would lead to more messages. Suddenly 30 of the last 40 posts are either "THIS MESSAGE IS FROM SOMEBODY ON YOUR IGNORE LIST" or a reply to a post you can't see which makes it clear it's a reply to the person on your ignore list. This ends up defeating the point of ignoring their posts in the first place!

I don't have a problem with Swansman, he's a know-it all tedious bellend sometimes, but if we banned everyone who was occasionally tedious or a bellend there would be about 7 posters left on here and I wouldn't be one of them. The problem is his presence on this forum can be suffocating. He's on over 20k posts in less than 4 years. That's 15 posts every day without fail. That's a lot for anybody, but when you consider he's never in the music threads, or the cricket threads, or the the local recommendations threads then that number becomes even bigger. Then you consider the fact that this place is much quieter durring the summer and you realise why some people feel he needs slowing down. He says stuff to prod people, people say stuff to prod him. Both are annoying and both lead to the Ignore option being pointless. However it's totally understandable why so many people are at the end of their tether with him. So many threads become the Swansman show, and he seems to revel in that.

 

[Seagull27]

Isn’t that in @GB’s personal capacity as just a poster with genuine opinions? He was repeatedly targeted on nsc during Potter’s eternal non-winning runs, for being pissed off after fruitless trips to the Amex on repeat and being candid about it. He’s able to fight his corner.

NSC wouldn’t be the same without @GB and @HKFC’s ‘direct’ opinions.

Of course - no problem at all with mods giving their opinions on general matters and getting into debates. It's just when giving opinions on an individual as a poster and their value to the forum, it makes me a bit uncomfortable. Particularly when said individual is given a restriction on his account despite seemingly not breaking any forum rules (and hence not banned).

I may have missed something here and I'm genuinely not trying to cause problems - just worried about the precedent it sets.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Yes but (see posts above).

I though we had moved on from crushing original minds, just because they seem peculiar.

Crushed? Bit dramatic ……he had a restriction put on his posts a while back (i think)….had a period off came back and from what i understand then went back to old ways and had his account restricted again….shrug …hes decided to start a thread on here because he doesnt feel his pm would be answered …asking for account to be deleted and all posts removed….wtf? Sounds a bit needy? He’s now done what seems the sensible option and said he will take a month off …fine…seems sensible and not acting like a teenager in a strop…that tbh should be the end of it….i for one am not going to waste anymore time on it….as a poster said earlier we’ve just had a momentous victory and I’m watching the rerun after a fantastic afternoon at the Amex

i wish you well Harry

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Perhaps.

Have you considered whether he has an agenda, or that there may be other reasons why he annoys people?

Duuno.

I never took any notice.

 

[Originunknown]

Either assist him in the flounce and purge or make a Swansflounce sub forum where he is limited solely to posting in. He can takeover every thread, create as many as he wants too.