How Do I Block Admin PMs?

I'll join ya, lol.

 

I apologise for dragging this up, but I find this attitude frankly unbelievable.

The hypocrisy is eye stinging, you say you want to attract and keep new members, yet when anyone seems to post a legitimate comment that may be perceived as slightly negative towards the site, you threaten to delete their profile? How the hell does that welcome members to stick around and participate?

I take no interest in these awards, so I don't really bother reading the mass of PM's I seem to get alerting me to them. Granted, they don't bother me that much to the point I'd start a thread about them, but if he finds them annoying, it's a legitimate complaint.

It seems pointless having a section where people can make comments/criticisms about the site, if people are only going to ridiculed by the admins for simply stating honest views and opinions about what they like and dislkie about the place.

Our argument the other night was similar- I admit I was wrong to keep dissing Andy 82 - but I admitted that before you started ridiculing and dissecting my post history one by one. There was no real need to treat me that way for simply airing my views on the site. Surely it's beneficial to receive feedback on the site from members, whether positive or negative.

As you have suggested, I have tried to keep personal issues out of my posts and have focussed on football. I have enjoyed the site over the last couple of days with all the rumours, trades and signings going down. I find the news items great and the discussion has been good too with all the conjecture and opinion on the deals.

I don't even remember why I got onto this thread, but frankly I find it appalling that a senior member that is here to set an example to members is acting in a fairly juvenile way.

No doubt you will just ignore this or laugh it off with some more sarcastic comments, frankly I don't care. I will continue to participate in the NFL threads, but my God I'm disgusted with the attitude of so called senior people on this site.

 

Where did I threaten anything? He asked how and I told him exactly how:

Please don't put words in my mouth or try to pass off your biased opinion as fact.

 

I find the idea of wanting to block all admin PMs preposterous, there are times when admin and mods need to PM a member and that is why they can't be blocked. If they did, how could there be any semblance of order?

 

I wasn't disputing the idea, I was suggesting that the attitude shown for him at least expressing his view was overly harsh and hardly an attitude that would welcome or encourage members to participate.

Semantics. You may not have made an obvious threat, but the intent and tone was pretty clear.

 

The fact is that the only way to get rid of Admin PM's is by deleting his account here. There is no way to block them.

Semantics? Please....you are twisting my comments and also saying that anyone who is critical gets a reply which suggests we'll delete their account. That is a flat-out lie.

 

I am not disputing the blocking of PM's, obviously it wouldn't be prudent to block them. My concern was the attitude shown. You say it wasn't a threat, OK fine I'll believe you, but that was the perception I got when I read that post and it seemed as though that was the perception of the OP judging by his first reply (the one where he wonders why he is being painted the bad guy for simply asking the question).

Semantics, OK, maybe I got my wires crossed. But you could have simply stated what you just said to me, no? Why not just say, "sorry it's not possible" rather than going down the avenue of mentioning deleting accounts.

Surely this would have avoided confusion and conflict.

 

I could have taken that route, sure. This hasn't been the first time I have crossed paths with Cheezy and the reaction was a result of that history. Maybe if you knew that part of it you'd understand where my reaction came from.

I might suggest finding other instances where I have gone out of my way to help members out. Two instances (our argument and this thread) isn't the whole picture when it comes to how I run this site.

 

I'm not saying it is and I do actually appreciate the work you obviously put in to get the news items out so fast.

That said, just like you claimed you could only judge me on my few posts, I can only judge you on what I see.

And also, you told me that my squabbles with Andy were inappropriate for the main forum and should be kept to Fight Club and PM's. Does the same not apply to Cheezy and yourself's issues?

 

I told you that your issues with andy didn't belong in the NFL forums. I also have almost 40,000 posts while when I searched your posts you only had 33, and it took me less than 2 minutes to find the ones in the Latest NFL Forums.

Again, stop trying to twist my words to fit your biased opinions.

 

I'm not twisting anything, I'm simply saying that I have been told by you to keep personal matters away from the forums (other than Fight Club), yet you have admitted reacting to Cheezy based on previous issues. How is that different and how are my opinions biased?

 

I told you to keep them off the NFL forums, you are missing that fact for one.

Secondly, my comments were in context with the topic at hand and were not a personal attack as we define it here.

And lastly, your opinions are biased because it's obvious you have already formed a opinion about me and how this site is run. You are trying to twist comments I made, change them and add your own spin to them to fit your opinion.

 

No, no I am not. I have even complimented you and the site within these posts but you seem to disregard that.

The simple point I am making is that I have witnessed two incidents where appear to have gone overboard in response to members simply stating an opinion about the site.

You dissected my posts which was way over the top and that was not in context at all. My point was simply in response to somebody else who was questioning why posters view and don't post. I gave my reasons why I personally don't (or at that stage didn't) post as much as I could. It had nothing to do with any previous posts or my issue with Andy, so you bringing that into the equation was needless and I felt you were just digging for dirt just because you couldn't accept my PERSONAL and HONEST opinions about your site. It may interest you to learn that having taken your advice and tried to join in more with the threads, I have found debate far more interesting, although that's largely because there is more to talk about now with FA opening up with so many deals to discuss.

I also felt, as already stated, the reaction to Cheezy was needless. You say it wasn't a threat to delete his account, but there seemed to be a tone that hinted that way and that appears to be how he took it too. You have since admitted the reaction was caused by a previous incident or incidents.

My opinions are not biased and I am not twisting anything. I simply find it quite stunning that you openly talk about how you want new members for the site, yet you are seen to treat some of them a bit harsh. The fact there is a thread in the newbie section asking for opinions and impression of the site suggest you want feedback to work with, yet when it's given and it isn't what you want to hear, you react somewhat harshly.

 

So this is what this is all about...you still have a thorn in your side over me posting this in the (5 Members and 88 Guests) thread.....

An uncensored site isn't always for everyone. People who want to be part of a site like this are sadly mistaken when they think their hand will be held, their hair tussled and someone will be there to whisper in their ear "it's all going to be ok". If that is what you are looking for then please...go somewhere else. This is not this kind of site. The long time members of this site know that sarcasm abounds. It's called a camaraderie and maybe it's not your cup of tea but this site is what it is. Do we want new members? Sure. One thing we do want though is members who can hang with the rest of us and who aren't too thin-skinned. The members that don't? Usually don't last too long because they get exposed in time.

Now I posted what I posted because you went out of your way to claim you were something you were not. I refuted your claims and you didn't like how it was handled. You know what? Too bad. You make it sound like I spent all night up your posts and linking to them. That took all of two minutes tops with the overwhelming amount of posts you had to that point. The self-important Paul33 ended up with egg on his face because he was hung by his own words.

Now....feel free to neg rep me for this post like you did before. It seems to be your style, just like yisman. Don't believe me? Then go ask members like TJ, Bears 88, Marion Who? and Rogue. What's funny to me is that you seem to like to neg rep the very new members you seem to be so worried about. We wouldn't want new members to get a bad opinion on the site now, would we Paul?

Once again....crying about a splinter in someone else's eye when there is a rafter in yours.

 

For the record I neg repped Bears 88 because he "threatened to punch my face in". Yes I accept it was in the Fight Club, fair enough. But I don't even know who he is. I had never even come across him until then, so even though it's his prerogative to call me out in FC, I couldn't understand the venom as I don't even know what I'd done to piss him off.

Marion Who? is someone I know from elsewhere and again it was done in jest. Same with Roque. So maybe I was wrong to judge you without knowing about previous incidents with Cheezy, but you are equally wrong to assume my intentions with those two. I don't even know who TJ is, but he must have just said something dumb.

The point here is why have a neg rep feature and then have a pop at people for using it. If you don't like it's use, heck it off and get rid of it.

 

Oh, so now it's ok since this was all an assumption? Funny how that works....

As for the neg rep here....the culture on this site had dictated how neg repping is viewed. You joined this site, the site didn't join you. Now, you can learn the culture here or just keep bashing your head on the wall.

 

Well I obviously misunderstood the concept. I assumed you gave a good rep if you saw a post you liked and neg rep if you see one you don't like.

So answer my previous question, if neg repping is seen as a bad thing, why is there the facility to have it?

 

Because if someone feels it's warranted to give someone a neg rep then it's on them to do so or not. It's on them to deal with the reaction.

 

So if somebody says they want to punch your face in, even though you have no idea who they are or why they feel this way, is it not justifiable to give a neg rep?

This makes no sense, you called me out for neg repping, but then say it's up to the person if they feel it's warranted.

So by that logic it's up to Bears 88, TJ and the others to deal with the reaction, why are you calling me out on it. I only neg repped you because I felt, whether you feel rightly or wrongly, that your analysis of my posts was harsh, needless and unfair.