[Closed] WTF ??

what happened?

[b]DON'T QUESTION THE MODS![/b]

Ditto?

Is rudeboy gone forever, or is it a brief hiatus?

Warton:

I haven't got the info

CFH: pretty sure I didn't

he is no great loss! he duzzunt offer anything and wozzunt able to follow the rules. At least he can bask in the fact that he lives in "the greatest city on earth"

I think rudeboy got banned. For life! I await his return....should be easy enough to 'spot' him!

I'm betting he'll come back as Fred West, thats after he's finished roflhao and blaming thatcher.

got banned for what?

Well said G.

And spot on - I can't disagree with a single point you make .......... despite my best effort 😯

He [i]is not[/i] a real person - he's a chatbot.

He's [i]probbly[/i] being re-programmed right now because his responses were becoming tired and predictable and it was looking like he'd fail the Turing Test.

v4.0 should be along soon - industry speculation is that he'll be named "Todd Unctious"

Yeh, seems a bit weak to me too

Presumably people complain about Fred's posts? Seems to me that, although he's opinionated, argumentative, verbose and often "rong", he's rarely if ever actually offensive. The worst he ever does is mistype rude words, which virtually everyone here does (I mean, is "bogger" "****" etc any better than the obvious alternative?). TBH, I mostly just type my words correctly & wait for the filter to decide on suitability

or was he very bad this time ? 😳

I think he got banned for avoiding the swear filter too much. I agree it's a shame, but he's always come back from bannings a bit more chilled out (and then gradually ramps it up again). Like him or not, he certainly stirs up debate.

ernie_lynch - Member

Well said G.

And spot on - I can't disagree with a single point you make .......... despite my best effort

You heard it hear first peeps! 😯

G - think your right, but let it go......it's how he would have wanted it....

The REAL money is what will his next carnation be?

My guess as a forum name is

Shy_ted

I think it's a goer? No?

So, Ernie, it was you that got RB banned was it?
Well done, you're not the complete waste of bandwidth you usually appear to be.

Hmmmmm. I've not read all the thread (funny that!) but below follow's "the man's" ( ;0 ) rationale behind his departure and the link to the thread below:

Mark - Administrator

We get lots of complaints. many we don;t agree with and don;t act on. Those are often from people who have engaged in an argument with someone that frankly they are just as guilty for starting. sometimes it's people being perhaps a little too 'PC' and sensitive. But then there are many we actually agree with from either a personal or even a legal pov. One of the most recent about Rudeboy was his swear filter avoidance in his rants. We had a complaint from a parent who pointed out quite rightly that this is an open forum that is often read by minors and members children. Now whatever your own personal opinion on the use of 'bad' language in public is (yes! This IS a public place) OURS is the only one that counts and when we are made aware of a breach in the rules about language we will act. Rudeboy is frankly prolific in his inability to restrain himself when it comes to avoiding the swear filter and he gets himself banned for it. It's the same old story for all his previous guises. He just can't seem to grasp the standard of behaviour that we expect from users of this forum and his current guise is just going the same way as all his previous ones. He is not the messiah.. he's a very naughty boy.

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/get-ready-its-a-rudeboy-rant ]Will I be next?[/url]

I'm seeing a much more feminine thing to throw Mark off track personally, maybe an agony Aunt thing like Marj Proops or perhaps Marj Poops.

I do like Shy Ted Tanky, but it does lack a certain subtlety.

😉

WHAT DID HE DO.............Please

Oh...... Swear filter avoidance?

Fair one.

G - Member

Oh...... Swear filter avoidance?

Fair one.

you're next against the wall, G - fancy titleing a thread WT[b]F[/b] !

his responses were becoming tired and predictable

Actually the complete opposite is true imo ........ RudeBoy was totally unpredictable. Which was what made him an interesting character and added colour to this forum.

added colour to this forum.

racist.

🙂
It's what he would have wanted.
RIP

He will be missed, he spoke some crap but he talked about more than stem length/tyre choice.

Goddamit G - don't make me agree with you ! 🙂

I think it is an almighty shame rudeboy is banned. Search out the recent hitler thread for some debate as to why.

I think we should bump this thread daily. I don't think the Mods posted reasons stand up at all. He was warned off for avoiding the swear filter - 2 days later with no more swear filter avoidance he was banned. I think the mods have dealt with the symptom - a stroppy rudeboy not the problem - bigoted posts.

I for one will be reporting all posts I find offensive from now on - as folk moaning about rudeboy have got him banned

I think we should bump this thread daily.

G - Member

Oh...... Swear filter avoidance?

Fair one.

And it would also fair to point out that as cynic-al's link shows, that the 'offending post' is still there.
It has not been pulled, and it remains unmoderated.

Surely if it was a bannable offence, it would be fair to expect it to have been removed.
I mean, what if it is "read by minors and members children" ?

Jeez! G TJ - there's alotta love goin on here! 😆

Like I say I miss the little guy I really do. I never found him offensive just insecure.

Hope he's o.k?

his new login will be easy to spot with it's peculiar affectations, daily mail rants and short person's overinflated ego.
(not forgetting London is the greatest is not it)

Did RudeBoy sleep with the mod's daughter/sister/wife to deserve it? I can't remember Smee banned for stupidity (and being mouthy isn't as big a sin IMHO).
Good Night, Mr Mod. I hope you are a happier boy now.

Do folk really whine to the mods about posts?

I have never even considered it. I thought we were grown ups.

Al - thats why rudeboy got banned apparently. Too many complaints

I am fully intending to complain about the bigots posts and other distasteful stuff in future.

cynic

Never mailed a mod in my life - if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen I guess....

peeps need to except the forum for what it is, (very) idle banter.

Oi! Did you just spill my pint?!!!! 😛

Wow. tyger's "I'm not racist but what do you think about this..." should go!

I found his ranting a bit OT he was frequently (if not always) rude to anyone who disagreed with him (scum apparently for my football team I support)... usually calling them stupid or failing to say anything intelligent and NEVER let his ignorance of a subject prevent him from forming an opinion on something....i fall on the side that (character though he was)found him a bit annoying and very longwinded .
I for one support the [s]stazi[/s]mods on this issue
Long may they reign supreme in their infinite benevolence and wisdom
Clearly he will be back

I for one will be reporting all posts I find offensive from now on - as folk moaning about rudeboy have got him banned

Good idea. Let's see how popular this place is when equal treatment begins.

Do folk really whine to the mods about posts?

I suspect that it is only a very small number who are weak or/and inarticulate. It is interesting to note that even individuals who have had big disagreement with RudeBoy such as Labrat and Dr Do little, don't appear to support the ban on him.

I suspect those who are most pleased that RB has been banned, are also those who are most keen to dish it out. Like BigButSlimmerBloke for example.

I suspect that it is only a very small number who are weak or/and inarticulate

I will own up to grassing(perhaps 5 or 6 times) to the mods (never on Rudeboy iirc) when people put rascist /sexist stuff or go OTT ... once they replied telling me to MTFU (but more politely) a couple of times they said they agreed.

This is the kind of stuff he did, belittled those with a view different from his

ffs ........ no wonder the mods tell you to, quote : "MTFU"

I come on here everyday to ridicule and belittle others. And I find highly amusing when others attempt to belittle me.

Although I'm starting to find those who take an internet forum seriously, a tad tedious.

if you look at the post for which he got got [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/get-ready-its-a-rudeboy-rant ]banned for[/url], he *starred* all the rude words out (I think) so therefore if I child could read and understand it, I think it's the parent that should be questioning themselves, not the language used in RBs rant

I try and persuade them that their opinions are wrong by using things like facts and logic. Insulting people rarely helps them to be persuaded that your point of view is the correct one.
Whatever floats yer boat

I try and persuade them that their opinions are wrong ....

LOL !

I'll let you into a little secret Junkyard .........................you're wasting your time mate !

People aren't persuaded by 'facts and logic'. They are persuaded by what they already know to be right. And if they don't already have an opinion on something, then they wouldn't be arguing with you in the first place.

People very rarely change their opinions as a result of one conversation, and if they do, it's very unlikely to be anything fundamental - maybe just tweaking something which they already broadly agree with.

People base their opinions on their life experiences, you are hardly likely to change that with one or two 'well thought out posts' !

I am certainly under no illusions, and I tend to post on here (even on issues which I have very strong opinions on) for it's 'banter value'. I also find putting my thoughts down in words helps me to sort them out in my head and has a certain, 'therapeutic value'.

I certainly don't expect to change other peoples opinions ! How many people's opinion do [i]you[/i] think you have changed Junkyard ?

On the more contentious issues such as bigotry - racism, homophobia etc, I find that 'ridicule' works quite well. After all the comic value of ignorance and prejudice is well documented, as shown by the sheer number of comedy routines based on it. Plus ridiculing a racist ****wit amusing me hugely.

I would suggest that you stop taking the internet so seriously Junkyard, and don't attach too much importance to a chat forum 8)

I complained to the Mods over a post once, but it was one of my own 🙄

I enjoyed some of RB's posts though, some I didn't read.
Does anyone know the age groups of people reading this forum who might be offended by "foul" language?

is not, does not in any way, bovva.

safe

I couldn't give a monkey's either way.

There, got it of my chest.

People very rarely change their opinions as a result of one conversation, and if they do, it's very unlikely to be anything fundamental - maybe just tweaking something which they already broadly agree with.

Which totally nullifies anyones post who says "I think we should be able to debate this" (see mushrooms posting). No point debating anything if no-one will change their mind.

Personally I dont care. I'd gotten bored of RBs waffle long ago, as soon as I saw his replies I changed thread - it WAS getting predictable and boring.

I would suggest that you stop taking the internet so seriously Junkyard, and don't attach too much importance to a chat forum

Why not take your own advice, if this is all so unimportant, why does it matter who's banned or not from participating? It does appear that this all matters to you more than you profess. On balance though, I'm with lowey on this, I don't really care.

FWIW I found paddedfred frequently longwinded, often sanctimonious and sometimes irritating. I coped by seeing "rudeboy" at the top of a post and not bothering to read it.

WTF ? = Wheres That Fred....... whats wrong with that? 😯

Actually I found the swearing post very funny, and to some extent in the same circumstances I would have posted in a similar vein. Regarding kids on STW..... parents, I don't wish to worry you, but if they can navigate to here, then they can also probably navigate to "Anna takes it up the pooper while Garth stops her chatter"...... Rudeboy frankly is the least of your worries, and may I suggest you take your parental responsibilites more seriously in future!

Anyway, I didn't start this thread to criticise the decision or to undermine the mods. Its their forum and its up to themn how they run it.

No likey : So start your own froum...... Oh! someone already did and look where that led to...

Regarding kids on STW..... parents, I don't wish to worry you, but if they can navigate to here, then they can also probably navigate to ...

I don't quite understand why some people think it's so important that we should be allowed to post stuff on here which it would be inappropriate for a child to view.

But what is inappropriate for a child to view? - bowdlerised swearing is inappropriate but scantily clad girls are not?

a body prude are we TJ?

bet you're not a fan of breastfeeding in public too....

Stoner - not at all - I just see the Friday pervy threads as totally inappropriate on here. I feel very strongly about this.

I was on the beach yesterday with my 2 year old son. There were lots of men and women not wearing much. I can't say I heard "back doors being smashed in" or "hanging out of people" though. Why would that be?
Maybe because it's not acceptable in a family place?

Some people would probably see the Picolax story as inappropriate for children as well.

IMHO the pictures (those that actually stuck rigidly to the rules) would be fine without the commentary. Though in it's current form I do tend to agree with you TJ.

Some people would probably see the Picolax story as inappropriate for children as well.

We have to distinguish here between what a prude would think inappropriate, and what really is an issue. Again IMHO there isn't actually anything wrong with children reading about bodily functions.

Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?" That is a question only STW Towers can answer!!

[i]Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?"[/i]

Moreover, why are we even [i]here[/i]?

[has existential crisis]

noteeth - Member
Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?"

Moreover, why are we even here?

[has existential crisis]

Never mind that, what if the hokey cokey really IS what it's all about?

Well, indeed, but there is no accepted definition of what is really an issue.

Presumably, folk insert ear plugs in their children if they go into town with them, and cover their eyes at the beach/swimming pool?

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

Incidentally, since when was this a family orientated forum? Why would ANY impressionable child want to be looking at it anyway? I don't get that at all. Are we sure this isn't some self righteous twonk hiding behind the "it corrupts the kids excuse?"

I'm not a great lover of gratuitous bad language, but I'm no lover of self righteousness either. Get a grip, its a bunch of adults having a laugh and letting off a bit of steam. Anyway is substituting pictures, or a series of these !"£$$%^* actually swearing or is it merely finding an alternative way of expressing yourself? Is anyone planning on banning the use of the word gay to describe homo sexuals, or people from using "like" to punctuate their sentences?? Surely both of these are likewise finding an alternative route for expression also.

[i]This forum, is coming like a ghost forum
All the clubs have been closed down
This place, is coming like a ghost forum
Bands won't play no more
Too much fighting on the dance floor

Do you remember the good old days before the ghost forum
We danced and sang, and the music played inna de boomforum[/i]

In his defence, PaddedFred always ran an excellent (if occasional) virtual nightclub. Wheel and come again!

I will miss his underless drivel!

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

I think you miss the point. Are you suggesting it is ok for a three or four, five or six year old to read the examples I gave?

RB's "eviction" has a lot in common with Michael Jackson

Some will mourn his passing whilst others have always hated the stupid idiot.

There's also the issue of every frickin post mentioning him, why can't everyone get over it ffs ! He'll be back, on the TV, on the radio and on a forum near you

We CAN be certain though that he's looking down upon us all now...the flaming pedo !!!

PS: Just reread the rules in their entirety, and to be fair it says what it says. No issues as repeatedly stated above, except in so much that I do still feel the forum will be the lesser for the plonkers absence.

cover their eyes at the beach/swimming pool?

PPS:

roper - Member

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

I think you miss the point. Are you suggesting it is ok for a three or four, five or six year old to read the examples I gave?

No I think you miss mine, a) can they actually read?, b) do they surf the internet alone? c) Would they have the slightest interst in the forum if they did both a & b? d) would they even understand it in the extremely unlikely event that they did a, b & c and stumbled across something that could be defined as offensive.

My larger point is that one mans offensive is anothers acceptable.

To me living in luxury through the unbridled use of cheap fossil fuels, whilst looking on blandly at others who have nothing, or attending a church which has actively supported paedophilia is obsence and hugely offensive, but continuing in the ribald tradition of the English language, which dates back to Chaucer is simply not. Whether its expressed in the appreciation of form, or through the use of language. Its the motivation behind those acts which is significant, if the intent is to offend then no, but otherwise thats life surely?

a greater percentage of the forum will be readable while he is gone.

while most threads are known to be avoidable by the title (TJ, the AnA threads - pointless nsfw drivel posted by sexually frustrated ******'s) freds appearance always left an unsavoury taste.

I suspect that it is only a very small number who are weak or/and inarticulate.

so weak or inarticulate people are fair game are they? It's no wonder some people lurk (or even leave) rather than post, not everyone is as articulate as you....

I doubt very much that mrsflash and annabanana are "sexually frustrated ******'s". I certainly know that I'm not and would suspect that all those who join in are not, either.

Nice evasion of the swear filter there, by the way. Ironic, really.

No I think you miss mine, a) can they actually read?, b) do they surf the internet alone? c) Would they have the slightest interst in the forum if they did both a & b? d) would they even understand it in the extremely unlikely event that they did a, b & c and stumbled across something that could be defined as offensive.

ok if we have a five six year old.
In reply to a) yes b)maybe, a pc can be puton safe mode c) probably if they like bikes or see a parent on the forum.

d) the level of understanding is sort of irrelevant.
Would you use the same language with your mates in a pub as you would with a child? It has been stated that this forum is for family intent which would suggest children as well as adults.
Then again maybe what was meant was older parents with children over the age of 18.

[i]I doubt very much that mrsflash and annabanana are "sexually frustrated ******'s". I certainly know that I'm not and would suspect that all those who join in are not, either.

Nice evasion of the swear filter there, by the way. Ironic, really. [/i]

CFH - Show the forum a picture of your girlfriend\wife\boyfriend in their most 'exciting' sportswear\posh frock\underwear then?

girlfriend\wife\boyfriend does not mean your righthand.

It's actually surprisingly clear http://www.singletrackworld.com/forums/forum-rules/

It actually isn't - does the Picolax thread does not conceivably fall foul of any of those rules?

Would you use the same language with your mates in a pub as you would with a child? It has been stated that this forum is for family intent which would suggest children as well as adults.

Pretty much, yes I think I would, but I suspect that you are pre-supposing a number of things there. Do I write the same way as I speak? Nope.

I still don't see too many 6 year olds, let alone a 2 year old as per your original post and my reply to it willingly coming on here on their own. To say the forum is overwhelmed with that sort of user is, I think stretching imgagination somewhat.

Regardless, I'm neither disagreeing with the rules, or the ruling. What I do disagree with is the sanctimonious who will happily moan about the likes of Rude Boy, but conveniently overlook their own behaviour.

Its a bit like your post regarding your two year old, which was self evidently inappropriate to what was being said as I pointed out to you. I note the attempts to up the age to make more impact, but the original post is exactly the fatuous sort of thing I am talking about.

[i]It actually isn't - does the Picolax thread does not conceivably fall foul of any of those rules?[/i]

The Picolax thread had the advantage of being funny. Most of Rudeboy's posts were not funny and presumably took up far too much moderator time when the mods could have been doing other stuff - like researching, writing and photographing articles for the magazine. Yes, that thing that pays their wages...

I'm not going to carry on arguing with you. You are missing point for arguments sake and becoming the things you are arguing about.
I have better things to do.
Bye bye.

@crazy-legs: completely agree with everything you wrote. My point is just that the "rules" do not provide a perfect framework for the forum. And nor do they need to, IMHO. They provide a set of ideas that the mods can adapt to local conditions, getting rid of porn, and bores like RB while keeping funny but vulgar stuff like Picolax.

CFH - I object strongly to the objectification of scantily clad females - this is my right. This sort of practice is strongly linked to sexual violence from the attitudes it engenders. Whilst it may be that you can avoid this "won't someone think of the children" In the past I have simply ignored the threads but in this new STW era of complaining to the Mods about stuff that you think is inappropriate I shall be reporting it.

If you want a forum of scantily clad young women there are I believe many places on the net to meet your needs.

I find the slavering perving over these pics unacceptable on a family orientated forum

TJ, are you that much of a prig in real life as well?

Sexual violence, eh? Of course. So, by enjoying the banter and humour of the day, we're all secretly harbouring nefarious desires like that are we? Well thank you, Mr Freud, now how about you disappear up your own backside as a parting shot?

family orientated forum

Really? Is it? How many users here are under 16, even, let alone "children"?

why would under 18's look at this forum? it's full of very uncool daily mail readers who ride marins and go to bed after watching news at 10.

CFH - prig - lovely word. 🙂

Of course not - but the excuse for banning rudeboy is his avoidance of the swear filter as his posts might be seen by kids and according to many including the Mods this is a family orientated forum.

I just want the mods and others to see the hypocrisy. Bowdlerised swearing is unacceptable as children might see it but people perving over scantily clad young women is acceptable despite the FACT that this distorts relationships?

However the pervy threads do really annoy me - in the same way as page 3 of the sun does.

I object strongly to the objectification of scantily clad females - this is my right. This sort of practice is strongly linked to sexual violence from the attitudes it engenders.

Ah, so if you go to somewhere such as Saudi, you'd expect to find little or no sexual violence then?