your forum personal profile

[russycarps]

so I have just noticed I have 2 "warning points" relating to me calling that Mike99 fellow on the glastonbury page a tit on 2 occasions in May and June 2008.

I also seem to have a rating of 148 which apparently makes me "excellent".

So basically I am the the James Dean of the board (from Rebel Without a Cause).

How do your stats match up? and who do you compare to??

[LondonTom]

-181 = Bad ...No warnings...so I guess i am a bit like Nick Griffin, basically harmless but no one likes what I have to say? (I think the majority of those bad points come from tit rating down everyone's posts in the countdown to glasto thread last year.)

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Things have changed a little since the latest board format and people cant dislike a sort. I found it amusing when I once went from 8 down to -15 overnight. Around the same time I posted that Amy Winehouse should have known better or something like that. I suspect the 2 are connected.

[kaosmark2]

I've got 76 excellent and no warning points. I've w*nked myself off for everyone one of those likes.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Whole new dimension to a "sticky" post at the top of the boards.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I've got 63 and no warning points, which I think makes me one of the Wombles.

[russycarps]

hang on, so noone else has got warning points? How do I get rid of them? this was 4 years ago now!

and he WAS a tit

[The Nal]

I've a 284 "excellent" but also two stars from 5. What does that mean?

[eFestivals]

hang on, so noone else has got warning points? How do I get rid of them? this was 4 years ago now!

there's not that many people with 'warns'. It was a feature that was never used very much anyway, and I've not used it for several years at least now, as it's been surpassed by other management tools.

But mainly, as people have wised up to their use of the net, the need for them has become less. The number of keyboard warriors is decreasing as forum use and the like becomes just another part of normal life.

Having said that, I've just seen on the TV news that there's been quite a number of twitter twats in the last day or so.

[russycarps]

there's not that many people with 'warns'. It was a feature that was never used very much anyway, and I've not used it for several years at least now, as it's been surpassed by other management tools.

But mainly, as people have wised up to their use of the net, the need for them has become less. The number of keyboard warriors is decreasing as forum use and the like becomes just another part of normal life.

Having said that, I've just seen on the TV news that there's been quite a number of twitter twats in the last day or so.

[russycarps]

I've a 284 "excellent" but also two stars from 5. What does that mean?

[eFestivals]

Twitter "trolls" are a curious breed. Who in their right mind would dish out racist abuse under their own real name! And did you see that fellow who called that Guardian journalist horse face or something, then it turns out he worked for the PR company with whom she is a major client - the reason she found out was because he put his full name and name of employer in his profile!

Surely that was just some kind of a publicity stunt for all concerned, no one is that dumb are they?? Even barry Fish wouldnt do that!

I wasn't talking about racist abuse or the case I don't know that you mention.

The news today is that people have tweeted the name of the victim of Ched Evan's rape, and convo's off the back of that have had some of his teammates involved.

I don't know details of his case tho the brief stuff I know makes me slightly uncomfortable about his conviction (tho that might be totally misplaced if I did know the details). But I'm HUGELY uncomfortable about his mates going after the victim.

[kaosmark2]

I've only got 2 stars. Clearly I'm only a 2 star human being.

[kaosmark2]

But I'm HUGELY uncomfortable about his mates going after the victim.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

What I don't understand about that case is that one bloke who admitted to having sex with the woman (just as the convicted footballer did) was found not guilty. The case of rape was put forward because the woman was too drunk to consent. Surely a guilty verdict should mean that both blokes went down (so to speak).

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

It's gone to - 68 now already Barry.

[kaosmark2]

What I don't understand about that case is that one bloke who admitted to having sex with the woman (just as the convicted footballer did) was found not guilty. The case of rape was put forward because the woman was too drunk to consent. Surely a guilty verdict should mean that both blokes went down (so to speak).

[The Nal]

It's gone to - 68 now already Barry.

Edited April 23, 2012 by The Nal

[LondonTom]

But mainly, as people have wised up to their use of the net, the need for them has become less. The number of keyboard warriors is decreasing as forum use and the like becomes just another part of normal life.

Edited April 23, 2012 by LondonTom

[russycarps]

I wasn't talking about racist abuse or the case I don't know that you mention.

The news today is that people have tweeted the name of the victim of Ched Evan's rape, and convo's off the back of that have had some of his teammates involved.

I don't know details of his case tho the brief stuff I know makes me slightly uncomfortable about his conviction (tho that might be totally misplaced if I did know the details). But I'm HUGELY uncomfortable about his mates going after the victim.

[kaosmark2]

-63 which is surprisingly high I would of thought I would of been much lower

[eFestivals]

What I don't understand about that case is that one bloke who admitted to having sex with the woman (just as the convicted footballer did) was found not guilty. The case of rape was put forward because the woman was too drunk to consent. Surely a guilty verdict should mean that both blokes went down (so to speak).

yeah, that seemed very strange to me too. But I only know the briefest details, so perhaps there's a clearly logical reason why.

[kaosmark2]

The internet isn't quite as fun as the old days with mainly angry nerds kicking up fuss. I miss the days of forum drama (not here..but other places i used to visit, when i was about 14 everyone and their dog seemed to have their own forum, illegal copy of version of IPB and shit hosting.)

These twiiter "trolls" are a new breed, its not just harmless words to make someone type in caps lock. Its actually quite personal and nasty stuff going on. (Ofc all under their real names!)

[The Nal]

Do you view twitter as a threat to this place?

Edited April 23, 2012 by The Nal

[russycarps]

For some people it is yeah. Couple of regular posters don't seem to be on here as much/at all but are on Twitter. A lot.

Twitter serves a purpose, no doubt. But I dont see the point of posting to your 40 followers - half of whom are porn sites trying to get your attention - with "Just had pasta for dinner with @JoeSpudMuncher. Delish! TV and then bed. Night all".

Total fucking waste of time.