Johnny75

[Jinky]

As per request from Stu.

As someone who has been on the end of Johnny's temper on multiple occasions, I'd suggest the forum would be a poorer place without him and his input when it comes to Wolves.

No one is arguing the back & forth tedious arguments that go around in circles - most recently with EP - need to be binned.

My solution would be to enforce the use of the ignore function on both sides so they cannot interact with each other moving forward; but both are still able to post on the forum (assuming they want to). I know the mods have requested they do this on multiple occasions but for whatever reason it hasn't happened - so enforce it or they don't get to post. Something like that.

Having been on the mod team in the past, I know you won't have arrived at the decision quickly and without good reasoning - but I think there's a lot of people on the forum that will likely post/use it less without the likes of J75 around - so it'd be good if the "permanent" part of his ban was reconsidered! Also, I bet he'd have never thought I would be one of the first to defend him

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Isn't the point being missed here somewhat?

He said it'd be entertaining for another member to have their head stoved in.

If people are fine with that, then great bring him back. Lovely.

 

[Lupo]

He said it'd be entertaining for another member to have their head stoved in.

Whose head? Missed it all, was driving back from Yorkshire when it was all going on

 

[Tony Towner]

It's deleted, so without context it's impossible to form a view if you didn't see it. I didn't

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

.... but I think there's a lot of people on the forum that will likely post/use it less without the likes of J75 around...

Works the other way too.....

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

It's deleted, so without context it's impossible to form a view if you didn't see it. I didn't

In what context would that be OK?

 

[Jinky]

Isn't the point being missed here somewhat?

He said it'd be entertaining for another member to have their head stoved in.

If people are fine with that, then great bring him back. Lovely.

I didn’t see the conversation that resulted in the actual banning. I’m merely commenting from my own personal perspective & based on what I’ve seen.

 

[Tony Towner]

In what context would that be OK?

Well if...
It was clearly a joke

In response to something similar said to him

Was it a threat or an observation? The first deserving of a ban, the second just unpleasant. Many unpleasant comments have been made on here. The last one with a ban lasted 24hrs which he would have missed whilst sleeping off his hangover.

 

[darlowolf64]

Isn't the point being missed here somewhat?

He said it'd be entertaining for another member to have their head stoved in.

If people are fine with that, then great bring him back. Lovely.

He didn't threaten anyone though. A throwaway comment at an arse who decided to come onto the forum and tell us we're all idiots for not blindly supporting Wolves/O'Neil

Your personal animosity towards Johnny and apparent glee that you've "got rid of him" (my opinion OBVIOUSLY) is quite obvious and you could have just shown a little restraint and ignored him.

As they say, it takes 2 to tango and you have played your antagonistic part in all of this too.

Yes Johnny writes in a more combative style than the majority on here, and rises to some posters more than others but a permanent ban from a Forum that is actually funded by a large number of us is something that should really have a consensus

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I didn't "get rid" of Johnny, I didn't report it or have any involvement in it.

He "got rid" of himself after years of insulting, patronising, ridiculing, being aggressive and passive aggressive, not just publicly but in the private messages too, just because you're his mate doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I've had Johnny on ignore since Langers last told us to do that, he didn't do the same with me.

So that's another example of him not doing what he's been asked to do.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

He didn't threaten anyone though. A throwaway comment at an arse who decided to come onto the forum and tell us we're all idiots for not blindly supporting Wolves/O'Neil

Your personal animosity towards Johnny and apparent glee that you've "got rid of him" (my opinion OBVIOUSLY) is quite obvious and you could have just shown a little restraint and ignored him.

As they say, it takes 2 to tango and you have played your antagonistic part in all of this too.

Yes Johnny writes in a more combative style than the majority on here, and rises to some posters more than others but a permanent ban from a Forum that is actually funded by a large number of us is something that should really have a consensus

Interesting that you are "blaming" me for the actions of someone else.

 

[darlowolf64]

Not to get into a argument with you but, as I said, he writes in a different style to you.

You see it as patronising, I see it as "sometimes you write utter nonsense and he calls it out" in his unique way...

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Not to get into a argument with you but, as I said, he writes in a different style to you.

You see it as patronising, I see it as "sometimes you write utter nonsense and he calls it out" in his unique way...

I don't just see at as patronising, I see it as aggressive, dismissive, passive aggressive, arrogant and provocative too.

I'm not alone in that.

But as I've said previously, if you haven't been on the end of that (you haven't, obviously) then you have no idea.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

You see it as patronising, I see it as "sometimes you write utter nonsense and he calls it out" in his unique way...

Ah...

"It's your fault I hit you"

 

[darlowolf64]

Oh shit, I did an emoji... That'll be me in trouble

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Oh shit, I did an emoji... That'll be me in trouble

Depends, are you going do it for the next 5 years on 80% of my posts?

 

[darlowolf64]

Moving back to my point, there are more than you and a couple of other posters who should have a say.

Myself and others on here have had run ins with Johnny but have a thick enough skin to move on without making it an issue.

I have accepted his posting style and yes, sometimes it does come across as patronising, dismissive and arrogant but that is his writing style, not the person

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Ah, the "have thicker skin" comment again, it's my fault that I get offended....

Again, saying we should all just accept the way he behaves because that's "his writing style" is somewhat flawed on a forum that is 100% about writing.

A bit like when people used to defend Dave Whelan's awful views because he was old.

 

[Sniffer]

Referendums on permanent bans?

That would bring harmony to the forum…..

Rather than just debating the removal of one poster, moving forward it would be nice to hear members thoughts on how they think bans should be managed. How many strikes before you’re out, length of bans, information given out on such rulings, amount of moderators, length of moderator terms, type of offences leading to such bans. I’m sure that any sensible suggestions can be looked into.

 

[prawnking]

I've been on the receiving end of Johnny's ire multiple times (not for a couple of years now), and he does like a running battle. I don't mind being a cunt either, but I've learned over the years to modify it somewhat so as to avoid total forum alienation

After I found my exchanges with him to be a problem I took a break from the forum (one of many!), reflected on my own part in it and also didn't take it too seriously. You can take responsibility for your own actions! For example, I find the politics/general forum on here to be a highly toxic area (for me), so I just avoid it now.

Johnny's a strong character and almost comically direct sometimes, but I agree that the forum would be poorer without him, and I also genuinely enjoy the depth of football knowledge he has (same as with a lot of posters on here). Doesn't mean I have to agree with him on everything, and if I found my engagement with him, or anyone, to be that upsetting I'd just Ignore him.

I'm not fond of anyone getting permanent bans tbh, and although I find some posters on here disagreeable I wouldn't want them not to be able to contribute.

Let's face it, Johnny isn't subtle, and if we're labelling him problematic enough to get rid of then I think there are other less obviously confrontational posters and exchanges that are just as negative, and should be addressed

So, to summarise, I think Jinky's solution (enforced ignore after a proportionate ban) is a pretty good one as a starter for ten