It was because a couple of our mods fetishize Daniel Jones and get their panties in a bunch when someone mocks him. Other Giants players you can mock all you want. You just can’t with Daniel Jones.
I'm pretty sure it's not even "a couple" - it's one particular mod who has a history of banning (and threatening to ban) posters who post negatively about DJ.
Interestingly, that appears to be a far bigger crime than, say, intentionally misattributing a quote from a fellow poster to try to win an argument when a blustery shout-down failed. The poster who pulled that dishonorable move is not just allowed here, but is celebrated by the mod with the eager ban-hammer.
send me an e-mail asking to deactivate your account.
It sounds like a lot of posters here are no longer satisfied with the site.
So instead of complaining about, just shoot me an e-mail and I will delete your account.
Thanks.
Many of us like still really like the site, but I've never seen it as a "take it or leave it" type of thing. Hasn't user input always been welcome here?
I'm not sure why you're surprised that a lot of people are asking questions after someone who has been a contributor here for well over a decade suddenly got banned.
On April 1st, a fellow poster on this site started a thread reminding everyone of the decades-long standing policy on this site not to start April Fool threads. I pinned that thread. It remained up all day.
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
On April 1st, a fellow poster on this site started a thread reminding everyone of the decades-long standing policy on this site not to start April Fool threads. I pinned that thread. It remained up all day.
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
Eric, to be fair the inten of that rule (as echoed by yourself in that thread) was to avoid fake news about signings and trades. Brett’s thread was a joke about Daniel Jones poor QB play. Had he said SIKE! Instead of April Fools would he have still been banned for making a joke one April Fools?
Respectfully, wasn't the point of the April Fools rule to stop people from making up posts about FA signings, or player trades, or retirements, etc. under the guise of being an April Fools joke?
Maybe my memory is failing in middle age, but that's my recollection of the origin of that rule. I guess Brett did violate the letter of the law, but did he actually break the spirit of that rule? Was anyone expecting "DJ is a good QB" or whatever to be some sort of breaking news thread?
I never thought I'd see the day when cancel culture makes its way onto BBI. Were there a lot of aggrieved parties who were upset about being fooled into thinking Brett had a change of heart about DJ?
I personally would not have banned him. It was a stupid thread and I took it as that.
However, the moderators do their best to interpret rules. It's a subjective process.
Furthermore, we're talking about a poster who has been warned and banned for making political posts in the past. I looked at his account and there is one moderator note after another.
If you were in such a position, why would you start such a thread?
Most of the well-established posters on this site are in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even older. But sometimes you guys act like kids. The moderators do their best to keep the peace, and again, there aren't a lot of rules around here.
So I open this thread and it's filled with people bitching about BBI and how the site is moderated. It gets old. As my wife constantly says, "if they are so unhappy, why are they still here?"
Giants.com even had to shut down their bulletin board, but we kept ours up and running. We've had to change with the times. We don't ask a lot however.
and appreciate all the work that you've done keeping this site going throughout all the years.
Only other thought I'd add is that maybe a deleted thread might've been a proportionate response since it was a sarcastic post, rather than a fake news post which was the genesis of the rule. But, I didn't realize he'd had problems with the mods previously, so I can understand the frustration on your end also.
Most of the well-established posters on this site are in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even older. But sometimes you guys act like kids. The moderators do their best to keep the peace, and again, there aren't a lot of rules around here.
So I open this thread and it's filled with people bitching about BBI and how the site is moderated. It gets old. As my wife constantly says, "if they are so unhappy, why are they still here?"
Giants.com even had to shut down their bulletin board, but we kept ours up and running. We've had to change with the times. We don't ask a lot however.
Is this really that problematic?
You just said you wouldn't have made the same judgment. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there was/is some blowback from the community.
I said earlier that this is your customer base. You've even started threads asking the base about input for improvements. Is feedback only recommended when you ask?
On April 1st, a fellow poster on this site started a thread reminding everyone of the decades-long standing policy on this site not to start April Fool threads. I pinned that thread. It remained up all day.
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
Two points of order.
1. That thread was an NFT and not seen if you filter for Football threads only, which his was.
2. The post warned against "fake news", which his post was not.
you have an inside group. you have a contingent who harass newcomers and outsiders. the mods look for reasons to ban people who are unpopular with their friends. and people are banned for silly transgressions while verbal abuse is tolerated.
How would you know this being you just registered this month?
you have an inside group. you have a contingent who harass newcomers and outsiders. the mods look for reasons to ban people who are unpopular with their friends. and people are banned for silly transgressions while verbal abuse is tolerated.
How would you know this being you just registered this month?
That SOB.
I'm particularly itchy about the elite comment.
You think you know a guy ...
I'm pretty sure it's not even "a couple" - it's one particular mod who has a history of banning (and threatening to ban) posters who post negatively about DJ.
Interestingly, that appears to be a far bigger crime than, say, intentionally misattributing a quote from a fellow poster to try to win an argument when a blustery shout-down failed. The poster who pulled that dishonorable move is not just allowed here, but is celebrated by the mod with the eager ban-hammer.
It sounds like a lot of posters here are no longer satisfied with the site.
So instead of complaining about, just shoot me an e-mail and I will delete your account.
Thanks.
If this was a feature based upon donation/contribution amount, just how high are you willing to go?
It sounds like a lot of posters here are no longer satisfied with the site.
So instead of complaining about, just shoot me an e-mail and I will delete your account.
Thanks.
Many of us like still really like the site, but I've never seen it as a "take it or leave it" type of thing. Hasn't user input always been welcome here?
I'm not sure why you're surprised that a lot of people are asking questions after someone who has been a contributor here for well over a decade suddenly got banned.
Quote:
I come here to defend the guy and now find out he was a recent member of the DJFC?!?!
That SOB.
I'm particularly itchy about the elite comment.
You think you know a guy ...
Now that Brett has been hauled off to Melekhovo, I hope he is allowed to receive emails with video attachments.
I'd like to send him the Minnesota playoff game.
Quote:
In comment 16453938 bw in dc said:
Quote:
I come here to defend the guy and now find out he was a recent member of the DJFC?!?!
That SOB.
I'm particularly itchy about the elite comment.
You think you know a guy ...
Now that Brett has been hauled off to Melekhovo, I hope he is allowed to receive emails with video attachments.
I'd like to send him the Minnesota playoff game.
I can get it to him. I’ve been banned before and made some connections.
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
Eric, to be fair the inten of that rule (as echoed by yourself in that thread) was to avoid fake news about signings and trades. Brett’s thread was a joke about Daniel Jones poor QB play. Had he said SIKE! Instead of April Fools would he have still been banned for making a joke one April Fools?
Maybe my memory is failing in middle age, but that's my recollection of the origin of that rule. I guess Brett did violate the letter of the law, but did he actually break the spirit of that rule? Was anyone expecting "DJ is a good QB" or whatever to be some sort of breaking news thread?
I never thought I'd see the day when cancel culture makes its way onto BBI. Were there a lot of aggrieved parties who were upset about being fooled into thinking Brett had a change of heart about DJ?
However, the moderators do their best to interpret rules. It's a subjective process.
Furthermore, we're talking about a poster who has been warned and banned for making political posts in the past. I looked at his account and there is one moderator note after another.
If you were in such a position, why would you start such a thread?
What was the purpose of doing so?
Most of the well-established posters on this site are in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even older. But sometimes you guys act like kids. The moderators do their best to keep the peace, and again, there aren't a lot of rules around here.
So I open this thread and it's filled with people bitching about BBI and how the site is moderated. It gets old. As my wife constantly says, "if they are so unhappy, why are they still here?"
Giants.com even had to shut down their bulletin board, but we kept ours up and running. We've had to change with the times. We don't ask a lot however.
Only other thought I'd add is that maybe a deleted thread might've been a proportionate response since it was a sarcastic post, rather than a fake news post which was the genesis of the rule. But, I didn't realize he'd had problems with the mods previously, so I can understand the frustration on your end also.
Most of the well-established posters on this site are in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even older. But sometimes you guys act like kids. The moderators do their best to keep the peace, and again, there aren't a lot of rules around here.
So I open this thread and it's filled with people bitching about BBI and how the site is moderated. It gets old. As my wife constantly says, "if they are so unhappy, why are they still here?"
Giants.com even had to shut down their bulletin board, but we kept ours up and running. We've had to change with the times. We don't ask a lot however.
Is this really that problematic?
You just said you wouldn't have made the same judgment. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there was/is some blowback from the community.
I said earlier that this is your customer base. You've even started threads asking the base about input for improvements. Is feedback only recommended when you ask?
Brett started an April Fools thread and had his account suspended by one of the moderators. Why would Brett, a poster who has been previously banned on this site, start that thread? It reminds me of a child trying to test the will of his parents.
We don't have a lot of rules on this site. The few rules we do have were mostly put in place at the REQUEST of other posters. One of those rules was the April Fools rule.
Because we don't have a lot of rules. We don't need to ban many members. In fact, I would in the past couple of years, the #1 reason an account gets banned now is for being identified as a dupe and previously banned account.
So why did Brett get banned? He tested a rule that he knew already existed. That's not on us.
Two points of order.
1. That thread was an NFT and not seen if you filter for Football threads only, which his was.
2. The post warned against "fake news", which his post was not.
This is a great idea
How would you know this being you just registered this month?
Quote:
you have an inside group. you have a contingent who harass newcomers and outsiders. the mods look for reasons to ban people who are unpopular with their friends. and people are banned for silly transgressions while verbal abuse is tolerated.
How would you know this being you just registered this month?
Insert "It's the same picture" meme. Lol.