S T / B C F C P R

[RedTop]

So you agree with me. His comments didn't suddenly become "libellous". What happened was that someone suddenly decided to use the threat of financial ruin on a hosting company in order to stop someone else from expressing something that he'd been banging on about for months.

Murder is a crime. Having someone say that they might consider seeking legal action about comments that you have made on a football forum is not.

Another outrageous exaggeration in order to make your point. If these "libel" scares are causing such a commotion on the web you would have thought that this hosting company would have bothered to mention something about it in the rules. They didn't before, during or shortly after the "ban" debacle. If you take the trouble to sign up for the ST forum you will see, ironically, that the rules there are very clear, that they cover "libel" issues and that they haven't needed to cite the rest of UK law, as you put it.

They didn't until a couple of weeks ago, well into richieb's made-to-measure "ban". Too late, I'm afraid. I could illustrate the point with an outrageously exaggerated story about people killing each other but I'm sure most people can understand this point without resorting to such extremes.

You could resolve the mystery by reading through my previous exchange with Milo. richieb has been gagged, deprived of his freedom of speech because someone threatened financial ruin on the company which hosts this website. It's as simple as that.

You can argue however you want, RZ, but you cannot ignore the fact that RichieB was repeatedly warned about his actions by moderators. He is not stupid. He chose to ignore these repeated warnings and continue to post potentially defamatory details that risked getting the hosting company into financial trouble, despite knowing that he had been told not to. As a result he suffered a penalty which surely cannot have come as a surprise to him. What did he expect? In my mind his position is indefensible. For him to play the poor wronged innocent poster now, or for others to try to paint him as such, just won't wash. How anyone can expect Clik to have acted any differently is beyond me.

I think the moderators have acted completely correctly and should be commended for doing a difficult job and then taking abuse on threads like this from a minority that is completely undeserved and unjustifiable. I think RichieB deserves his ban and should simply serve it out and then decide whether to return to the forum or not. In the meantime, I intend to waste no more time posting on this subject and will return instead to posting on topics of interest to most of us City fans about the team and club I love, and I wish everyone else would too.

[zookeeper]

Obviously numerous people on here with a far more detailed knowledge of the law than I. However for that very reason , when I occasionally in the past have found myself unsure of my legal standing I've fairly quickly approached my lawyers for an opinion. Appears to me that assuming OTIB/Clik have done the same, wouldn't it benefit all to provide details of the outcome, which would essentially put the argument to rest?

I think that one of the mods (Maeksnoll) posted a link to the legal precendent for this area on this thread.

[RedZepperin]

[Mr Mosquito]

The subcider message board hosted, for about a week, allegations about an incident in the town centre involving players who were named. There were apparently scores of witnesses to this incident. When one of these players threatened to sue the threads were taken down. When it comes to responding to threats of legal action the subcider site behaves as any well run site should run and acts to ensure that libellous comments are not posted on the site.

Fair comment Milo, at least the BCFC player drink, fighting and clubbing culture has, at last, come under real scrutiny from Gary Johnson - partly due to the exposure of the problem on many BCFC Internet message boards. Many know the names of the players involved in the incident you mention and one of them chose to hide behind his lawyer for protection. There should never be a hiding place for players that choose to defraud us and this club by drinking and fighting when they should really be concentrating on keeping themselves in peak physical condition.

[Milo]

I believe that even Milo is disappointed too with the way some things were handled

For the record, I am disappointed that richieb is banned because I miss his posts but I am very happy about how the mods have acted.

[PhatWill]

I am not going to continue this debate any further as I don't thik it helps anyone to be constantly going over old ground. Personally I'm looking forward to next season with Gary Johnson as manager. He will have my full support.

Righto.

If only richie had shown such restraint

[redrocks]

At the moment, it would seem that the vocal minority are bent on spending their time questioning & accusing BCST &/or Clik about their moderating abilities rather than enjoying the forum for what it is. It's also apparent that many of the objectors are those that don't seem to get too heavily involved with discussions regarding their team & club.

You are right that some people, such as myself, do not post a lot on the team and club I follow. Why? Because I live halfway around the world and do not get to watch the games as often as I would like. In my view, listening to radio commentary and reading the news does not qualify me to make what I feel to be valid observations on the team and the club I love. I don't want to waste people's time basically.

That is where this forum comes in. This is where I come to read such opinion from people closer to what is going on. That is why I value a wide range of opinions. If I want to listen to on-message pre-approved propaganda, I will watch Fox News. If I want to have a read of a wider range of opinions I will try CNN or MSNBC.

You guys back home have the ability to get all the gossip and banter off-the-record in the pub around the games. Others, such as myself, rely on this forum for that. You yourself, Jay, state that, before you became a mod, you never posted much but read a lot. So I take it you understand where I am coming from.

My point when kicking off this thread was not to talk about the richieb issue specifically (although I have no problem with it being picked up on as I feel it is symptomatic of a deeper malaise I feel has settled into this forum), but to point to the fact that any time you start locking topics you feel uncomfortable about, banning people you can't be arsed to deal with, and interacting with forum members in rude and patronising ways through PM something is severely wrong.

Now there might be less topics closed than there were before, and I, for one, am thrilled that I can say nob and tits again. But, for the sake of a more open forum with more varied viewpoints being pinged around, I would like to appeal for a bit of reason and a cooler head from those in the control room.

Thanks.

[Guest Orj]

My point when kicking off this thread was not to talk about the richieb issue specifically (although I have no problem with it being picked up on as I feel it is symptomatic of a deeper malaise I feel has settled into this forum)

Any chance you could offer examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, redrocks, as I'm not sure I can think of anything beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about.

[redrocks]

Any chance you could offer examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, redrocks, as I'm not sure I can think of anything beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about.

I would be more than pleased to help you Orj.

If you would like to take the time to take a look at my third post on the first page of this thread you will see the specific points I am referring to.

[Guest Orj]

I would be more than pleased to help you Orj.

If you would like to take the time to take a look at my third post on the first page of this thread you will see the specific points I am referring to.

Do you happen to know for sure why either of those 2 threads you referred to on your third post on the front page were closed?

Since you seem to be objecting to their closure, I'll assume you do. Could you explain, therefore, on what grounds you think the moderators were wrong to close either of those threads?

[redrocks]

Do you happen to know for sure why either of those 2 threads you referred to on your third post on the front page were closed?

Since you seem to be objecting to their closure, I'll assume you do. Could you explain, therefore, on what grounds you think the moderators were wrong to close either of those threads?

I am not sure how you are arriving at your assumptions Orj. I don't know why they were closed. Hence this thread which seems to have struck a chord with a few people.

A lot of the stuff that goes on on here is open to question. Ron's ban is a prime example. I have no idea why this member of the ST was banned. However, when people close the threads pertaining to discussion of such a topic, it is difficult to deduce the rationale behind such a hush-up.

In the same way, when someone closes a thread taking a mild pop at our esteemed chairman for flying the flag of our biggest rivals (when mention of the fact he 'used to support them' is made), questions could and should be raised and tolerated, even if they are in jest.

Perhaps you know something I don't. Otherwise, I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps you could return me the favour of ellaborating?

[Guest Orj]

I am not sure how you are coming to your conclusions Orj. I don't know why they were closed. Hence this thread which seems to have struck a chord with a few people.

A lot of the stuff that goes on on here is open to question. Ron's ban is a prime example. I have no idea why this member of the ST was banned. However, when people close the threads pertaining to discussion of such a topic, it is difficult to deduce the rationale behind such a hush-up.

In the same way, when someone closes a thread taking a mild pop at our esteemed chairman for flying the flag of our biggest rivals (when mention of the fact he 'used' to support them is made), questions could and should be raised and tolerated, even if they are in jest.

Perhaps you know something I don't. Otherwise, I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps you could return me the favour of ellaborating?

That I am aware of, I know nothing that you don't know. However, we have now established that you don't know why either of those 2 threads were closed so, in light of that, I'll ask you my original, slightly rephrased, question again.

Can you offer examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

[redrocks]

That I am aware of, I know nothing that you don't know. However, we have now established that you don't know why either of those 2 threads were closed so, in light of that, I'll ask you my original, slightly rephrased, question again.

Can you offer examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about.

First of all, it's great to see you back. Patagonia's loss is truly OTIB's gain.

This thread was started in response to the SL/Gas thread being locked. This, on top of the threads pertaining to the richieb and Ron bans being locked made me feel like the mods were being a little heavy-handed and inconsistent in their approach. Nothing more. Personally, I see any kind of gagging of people with opinions on a forum as a malaise. Maybe, you don't. That's your right. In my view though, a forum should cater to all views and opinions.

In light of the fact you don't know the answer to the question you are posing me, perhaps you could join me in asking the people that do know, i.e., the moderators. That's what this post was originally about.

These were the issues I was looking to talk about and these alone.... along with the PM communication I received directly from the moderation staff, which I found both offensive and inappropriate of people who claim to represent me and a forum of fans. Being told my posts are "not welcome" is not really what I have in mind when I think of a forum, which is, per se, a place to air one's opinion. Again, this is laid out in what I have already said. Apparently, I am not the only one to receive this type of personalised treatment.

The malaise I see consists solely of exclusionary behaviour being made with no apparent reason from those in charge of this site; behaviour that was not evident before the ST took over. Maybe that has changed since this topic was raised. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

Again, it's good to have you back.

[Nibor]

This thread was started in response to the SL/Gas thread being locked. This, on top of the threads pertaining to the richieb and Ron bans being locked made me feel like the mods were being a little heavy-handed and inconsistent in their approach.

Richieb ban thing's been done to death so no more on that.

Ron's account status is between him, the mods, and whoever he chooses to tell. That would be my guess as to why discussion of his account in public was prevented, seems pretty obvious.

I believe the SL/Gas photo thread was locked because a couple of posters started to put references to Ron's banning on it. I wonder who they were?

You're just a wind up merchant.

[redrocks]

Richieb ban thing's been done to death so no more on that.

Ron's account status is between him, the mods, and whoever he chooses to tell. That would be my guess as to why discussion of his account in public was prevented, seems pretty obvious.

I believe the SL/Gas photo thread was locked because a couple of posters started to put references to Ron's banning on it. I wonder who they were?

You're just a wind up merchant.

You brought up the richie issue, not me. I agree it has been done to death, but apparently you think some things are worth the attention.

I understand how you feel the rest of the Ron stuff was obvious. To others, including me, it would seem that embarrassing issues were being hushed up. Transparency is key for a body moderating this forum. Maybe you disagree?

Two posts were made on the Ron issue. Was that reason enough to close it? Would it have been closed before the ST took over? I think not. Again, you are welcome to disagree with me.

The above points are issues that are important to me as someone that likes to read this forum. You can put as many smileys in here as you like, but freedom of speech is an important issue. I read this forum for opinion, not filtered and pre-approved propaganda. Especially as this is now supposed to be an 'independent' site.

[Guest Orj]

First of all, it's great to see you back. Patagonia's loss is truly OTIB's gain.

Thanks.

This thread was started in response to the SL/Gas thread being locked. This, on top of the threads pertaining to the richieb and Ron bans being locked made me feel like the mods were being a little heavy-handed and inconsistent in their approach. Nothing more. Personally, I see any kind of gagging of people with opinions on a forum as a malaise. Maybe, you don't. That's your right. In my view though, a forum should cater to all views and opinions.

In light of the fact you don't know the answer to the question you are posing me, perhaps you could join me in asking the people that do know, i.e., the moderators. That's what this post was originally about.

These were the issues I was looking to talk about and these alone.... along with the PM communication I received directly from the moderation staff, which I found both offensive and inappropriate of people who claim to represent me and a forum of fans. Being told my posts are "not welcome" is not really what I have in mind when I think of a forum, which is, per se, a place to air one's opinion. Again, this is laid out in what I have already said. Apparently, I am not the only one to receive this type of personalised treatment.

The malaise I see consists solely of exclusionary behaviour being made with no apparent reason from those in charge of this site; behaviour that was not evident before the ST took over. Maybe that has changed since this topic was raised. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

You make some interesting point. Points to which I want to reply later as I do have some issues with them. For now, however, it is my wish not to get sidetracked and to get a straight answer to my initial question.

We have established that neither of us know why either of the threads you mentioned in your third post were closed so, at the risk of sounding repetitive... Can you offer substantive examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

Again, it's good to have you back.

Thanks again.

[redrocks]

You make some interesting points. Points to which I want to reply later as I do have some issues with them. For now, however, it is my wish not to get sidetracked and to get a straight answer to my initial question.

We have established that neither of us know why either of the threads you mentioned in your third post were closed so, at the risk of sounding repetitive... Can you offer substantive examples, or somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

Thanks again.

Please feel free to get back to me on those issues whenever you find the argument you are looking for.

On your second point, the fact that it is even an issue an intelligent chap like yourself cannot answer is indicative of the "deeper malaise" to which I am referring.

[Nibor]

You brought up the richie issue, not me. I agree it has been done to death, but apparently you think some things are worth the attention.

Not really now that it's obvious that he was dealt with entirely correctly. I think you'll find that although I mentioned it in passing, it was RedZepperin who decided to focus on it.

I understand how you feel the rest of the Ron stuff was obvious. To others, including me, it would seem that embarrassing issues were being hushed up. Transparency is key for a body moderating this forum. Maybe you disagree?

Yep, I disagree. I don't think transparency about how an individual account is handled is in the least bit important, and I don't really give a shit about Ron's account or anyone else's. I prefer to leave it to mods to deal with that without it cluttering up the forum. Far from the mods or ST covering up something embarrassing it seems to me that they were giving the usual privacy regarding account information that they've always given. But then, I'm not looking for an excuse to snipe at them, and I will assume their motives are pure until I have reason to think otherwise. I can't for the life of me think of what reason they've given you to take the opposite approach?

I think it's somewhat important that the rules and policies in general and how they're being applied are clear and if they are it's a complete non issue. I made a couple of suggestions on those lines but they are no big gaping holes unless you deliberately try to pretend there are.

Two posts were made on the Ron issue. Was that reason enough to close it? Would it have been closed before the ST took over? I think not. Again, you are welcome to disagree with me.

Yes because it was clear that you and your buddy were going to turn the thread totally offtopic to discuss one individual's account for a reason I and I'm sure many other people can't fathom. Thread hijacking irritates me. If you genuinely felt what happened to Ron's account was your business or in some way important then why not make your own thread in an area where the rest of us can ignore it or better yet use a PM?

The above points are issues that are important to me as someone that likes to read this forum. You can put as many smileys in here as you like, but freedom of speech is an important issue. I read this forum for opinion, not filtered and pre-approved propaganda. Especially as this is now supposed to be an 'independent' site.

The above points are a poorly disguised wind up. You're totally unable to answer Orj's question with any examples other than Richieb and a thread you got shut down deliberately aren't you? So much for this forum malaise, heavy handed moderation and filtered pre-approved propaganda!!

By the way, what relevance do smileys have to anything? They're just a means of making tone clear in written form.

[Guest Orj]

Please feel free to get back to me on those issues whenever you find the argument you are looking for.

I will, once I have an answer to my initial question.

On your second point, the fact that it is even an issue an intelligent chap like yourself cannot answer is indicative of the "deeper malaise" to which I am referring.

You have conceded that you don't know why either of those threads were closed so, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you again as you still haven't answered my question.

Do you have any substantive examples, or can you somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

[redrocks]

Not really now that it's obvious that he was dealt with entirely correctly. I think you'll find that although I mentioned it in passing, it was RedZepperin who decided to focus on it.

Yep, I disagree. I don't think transparency about how an individual account is handled is in the least bit important, and I don't really give a shit about Ron's account or anyone else's. I prefer to leave it to mods to deal with that without it cluttering up the forum. Far from the mods or ST covering up something embarrassing it seems to me that they were giving the usual privacy regarding account information that they've always given. But then, I'm not looking for an excuse to snipe at them, and I will assume their motives are pure until I have reason to think otherwise. I can't for the life of me think of what reason they've given you to take the opposite approach?

I think it's somewhat important that the rules and policies in general and how they're being applied are clear and if they are it's a complete non issue. I made a couple of suggestions on those lines but they are no big gaping holes unless you deliberately try to pretend there are.

Yes because it was clear that you and your buddy were going to turn the thread totally offtopic to discuss one individual's account for a reason I and I'm sure many other people can't fathom. Thread hijacking irritates me. If you genuinely felt what happened to Ron's account was your business or in some way important then why not make your own thread in an area where the rest of us can ignore it or better yet use a PM?

The above points are a poorly disguised wind up. You're totally unable to answer Orj's question with any examples other than Richieb and a thread you got shut down deliberately aren't you? So much for this forum malaise, heavy handed moderation and filtered pre-approved propaganda!!

By the way, what relevance do smileys have to anything? They're just a means of making tone clear in written form.

A - You need to calm down.

B - You were the first to focus on the richieb issue however you wish to regress and tart it up.

C - If you don't think transparency on how an account is handled is important, that is fine. I disagree. There is no point in getting a head-fit on it. Just go and read someone else's thread.

D - I have not made any references to any 'gaping holes' in the rules that you have underlined. Perhaps you just need to relax a bit.

E - You cannot have any grey-area in rules and conditions. Either they are rules or they are not rules and , ipso facto, a waste of time.

F - No-one wants to turn anything "off-topic". The raison d'etre of a forum is to debate issues. Or am I in the wrong meeting here?

G - If you want to dismiss my points as a poorly disguised wind-up, I would suggest you treat them as such. No reply or rebuttal is necessary.

H - The fact you use smileys to convey your emotions shows that you are either incapable or too lazy of expressing them verbally. You can do better than that, surely?

I will, once I have an answer to my initial question.

You have conceded that you don't know why either of those threads were closed so, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you again as you still haven't answered my question.

Do you have any substantive examples, or can you somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

When you get back to me on my first question I might well consider returning the favour. Otherwise, this conversation is destined to go nowhere.

[Guest Orj]

When you get back to me on my first question I might well consider returning the favour. Otherwise, this conversation is destined to go nowhere,

Please remind me what your first question is as it isn't obvious to me, reading back through your replies to me, which question you want a reply to. Sorry.

While I still don't intend getting sidetracked on this, I would like to ask why you feel that I now need to answer your subsequent question before you'll answer my original one?

[redrocks]

Please remind me what your first question is as it isn't obvious to me, reading back through your replies to me, which question you want a reply to. Sorry.

While I still don't intend getting sidetracked on this, I would like to ask why you feel that I now need to answer your subsequent question before you'll answer my original one?

Ditto.

[Guest Orj]

Please remind me what your first question is as it isn't obvious to me, reading back through your replies to me, which question you want a reply to. Sorry.

Given that you don't know why either of those threads were closed, do you have any substantive examples, or can you somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

While I still don't intend getting sidetracked on this, I would like to ask why you feel that I now need to answer your subsequent question before you'll answer my original one?

Sorry, this question doesn't really work in reverse since I asked the original question but it doesn't seem, to me, to make sense to ask me to answer your question but to then refuse to clarify for me what that question is so that I can do you the courtesy of giving you a reply.

[redrocks]

Given that you don't know why either of those threads were closed, do you have any substantive examples, or can you somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

Those were the examples I was talking about. The fact there is no rationale suggests to me there is a malaise that runs deeper.

Sorry, this question doesn't really work in reverse since I asked the original question but it doesn't seem, to me, to make sense to ask me to answer your question but to then refuse to clarify for me what that question is so that I can do you the courtesy of giving you a reply.

Please see above.

[Guest Orj]

Those were the examples I was talking about. The fact there is no rationale suggests to me there is a malaise that runs deeper.

Ok, that's fair enough. The fact that you don't know the rationale behind the closing of the threads suggests to you a malaise that runs deeper. That you believe this is nothing we don't already know and it still doesn't answer my question.

Given that you don't know why either of those threads were closed, do you have any substantive, non-speculative, examples, or can you somehow quantify what this 'deeper malaise' is, beyond the issue you weren't looking, specifically, to talk about?

Either you do, in which case, feel free to state them, or you don't, in which case the answer is no. Alternatively you can continue to evade the question.

Please see above.

I'm sorry. As I said above, you are going to have to spell it out for me more clearly than that as I am still unsure what your first question is.

[bransonmo]

Oh dear, do we really wish to worship the great Greek God Mediocracy, thats where this is going.

Orj, Redrocks, any visitors from another planet, upon reading this thread would know immediately they were in England.

Lawyers have been mentioned. Post #8 has a retired lawyers opinion.

Deeper Malaise, now that same term was used last year by an SAS officer in Iraq. It referred to the second rate troops and training being employed by the American and British military. Bad decisions, and embarrassing legal cases being the outcome. Deeper Malaise could refer to the Forum as it is, or the posters and topic in general.

Perhaps some of this topics posters would be better disposed using their undoubted talent and command of the English langauge towards other topics of benefit to BCFC and its fans.

Otherwise they contribute to the 'deeper malaise' of the forum standards we all hope to improve on in the season to come.

[Nibor]

A - You need to calm down.

B - You were the first to focus on the richieb issue however you wish to regress and tart it up.

C - If you don't think transparency on how an account is handled is important, that is fine. I disagree. There is no point in getting a head-fit on it. Just go and read someone else's thread.

D - I have not made any references to any 'gaping holes' in the rules that you have underlined. Perhaps you just need to relax a bit.

E - You cannot have any grey-area in rules and conditions. Either they are rules or they are not rules and , ipso facto, a waste of time.

F - No-one wants to turn anything "off-topic". The raison d'etre of a forum is to debate issues. Or am I in the wrong meeting here?

G - If you want to dismiss my points as a poorly disguised wind-up, I would suggest you treat them as such. No reply or rebuttal is necessary.

H - The fact you use smileys to convey your emotions shows that you are either incapable or too lazy of expressing them verbally. You can do better than that, surely?

When you get back to me on my first question I might well consider returning the favour. Otherwise, this conversation is destined to go nowhere.

A - Nope I was perfectly relaxed, still am.

B - Nope, read the posts.

C - Head fit? Haha.

D - Again, relaz?! I think you're the one who's going a little ott by starting this thread in the first place.

E - And? They're clear now aren't they?

F - You were deliberately turning a thread about SteveL and a gas flag into one about Ron's account, bit silly to cry when it gets locked.

G - Two things. 1) Bored waiting for a customer to let me leave 2) You're posting negative rubbish about people who are giving their time for free so it's only fair to contrast that with some common sense.

H - I don't use smileys when replying often, only with those who have shown they have trouble understanding English!

I must admit Orj's question is the most effective in showing just how baseless and puerile this thread was though, well done to him.

[semblar]

C - If you don't think transparency on how an account is handled is important, that is fine. I disagree. There is no point in getting a head-fit on it. Just go and read someone else's thread.

Speaking as one of those who reads more than posts on here, I don't think transparancy about how an individual account is handled is overly important...

Far more important is how the accounts as an overall whole are handled. This should be transparent and consistent, as I think and hope most would agree. Individual accounts should only be highlighted when the treatment of them is not in line with the rest, and only then when private appeals to the moderation team have been fruitless.

I'm not a mod on here, but I do moderate quite a few other (non-football) forums and email lists. Inevitably any moderation action leads to either thanks from the person concerned - rare but not unheard of - or a barrage of complaints from the person being moderated and his/her friends. These complaints can range from well-structured and thought out reasoning, which should always be welcomed in my eyes, all the way up to outright abuse (often "unprintable")

Dan

[zookeeper]

H - The fact you use smileys to convey your emotions shows that you are either incapable or too lazy of expressing them verbally. You can do better than that, surely?

With the huge proportion of communication being of a non verbal variety smileys (however gay and annoying) are an important part of getting your message accross. I believe that the words you say only make up 7 of the message you want to portray and unless nibor is the new shakespear then I would not fault him being incapable of expressing his emotions.

Also the very fact that you are telling anyone to calm down leaves the impression that your main intention is to wind them up.

It would be interesting to find out to what degree others agree with you. You have been accused of being the vocal minority which I believe to be unfair but the way you are coming across is not helping your cause. I think some effort should be made to rectify the annoyance that you have felt because of the PM from a mod. If it is as bad as you have made out then appologies should be in order. I think most people on here should be able to face up to the mistakes that they have made and appologise.

[Nibor]

With the huge proportion of communication being of a non verbal variety smileys (however gay and annoying) are an important part of getting your message accross. I believe that the words you say only make up 7 of the message you want to portray and unless nibor is the new shakespear then I would not fault him being incapable of expressing his emotions.

Also the very fact that you are telling anyone to calm down leaves the impression that your main intention is to wind them up.

I should point out that I don't use smilies to indicate my emotions - getting emotional on a messageboard would be a worry - I use them to indicate the tone in which a statement is meant.

For example if you're making a joke but you can see that someone might take it the wrong way and be offended, it is trivially easy to stick a smiley at the end of it and it's understood by most people.

Redrocks knows this, he's just trying to elicit a reaction. That's pretty much his entire purpose on here near as I can make out.