Why was I banned?

[DrJomster]

Surprisingly gripping thread this!    I have to say, I find Rebellion pretty tolerant to be fair.

Think I'll wait for the film and chat about the bike then. 

I AM optimistic about the film though. Very optimistic. Dare I say, SQUEEEEEEEE  or would that be giving away a bit how much I'm looking forward to it?

[ABCwarBOT]

Whether you get banned or not, if all your posts are relentlessly negative (and especially if you make sweeping judgements based on blurry, out of context photos) you're just going to end up on the majority of people's 'ignore' lists and no-one will be listening to you anyway.

Just looks like normal posting to me.  The type of thing that you see on most forums

I'm very glad that this place largely isn't like most other forum on the internet - trawling the forums on, say, AICN just makes me despair.

The way I see it is; criticism is fine, but remember that Rebellion staff, 2000ad writers and artists, and people who are working or have worked on the film all read this board even if they do not post - so keep this in mind.

Surely that's all part of the course?  If you're making a film of a well established character and some fans don't like what you're doing then you have to take it in your stride.  That photo wasn't exactly blurry was it.  Some forums just use the words "being negative" to censor opinions they don't like or because of outside pressure.  

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my posts and bunching them together like that  doesn't make them look any worse or over the top as they're just normal....and I didn't even swear.  

Again, I can understand someone being banned for slander, being abusive, spamming or leaking spoilers but being banned for saying you think something looks shit is the type of thing Dredd would be proud of.  

[vzzbux]

I don't think it was your negativity. Just the fact that the powers that be thought SC*J* had more than one account at the same time and yours happened to fit the bill laying along side his posts. Try not to take it personally. That prick tends to throw disarray wherever he goes you just got caught up in the middle.





V

[DrJomster]

I don't think it was your negativity. Just the fact that the powers that be thought SC*J* had more than one account at the same time and yours happened to fit the bill laying along side his posts.

Yup. That was my reading too.

[Jim_Campbell]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my posts and bunching them together like that  doesn't make them look any worse or over the top as they're just normal....and I didn't even swear.  

Again, I can understand someone being banned for slander, being abusive, spamming or leaking spoilers but being banned for saying you think something looks shit is the type of thing Dredd would be proud of.  

The thing is, you weren't banned, were you? Your account was suspended while the admins tried to work out whether you (and a slew of other new posters, which is, I suspect, why the process took longer than usual) were actually a long-standing troll who has a lifetime ban from this forum. And, to be clear, your posts looked a lot like Scott's.

Having established, by whatever means the admins have at their disposal, that you weren't Scott (aka Scojo), your account was reinstated. Note that your posts weren't deleted, so all this bleating about censorship doesn't really hold water, does it?

Cheers

Jim

[ABCwarBOT]

I don't think it was your negativity. Just the fact that the powers that be thought SC*J* had more than one account at the same time and yours happened to fit the bill laying along side his posts. Try not to take it personally. That prick tends to throw disarray wherever he goes you just got caught up in the middle.


V

I've never even seen this SC*J.  What type of thing was he saying?

[ABCwarBOT]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with my posts and bunching them together like that  doesn't make them look any worse or over the top as they're just normal....and I didn't even swear.  

Again, I can understand someone being banned for slander, being abusive, spamming or leaking spoilers but being banned for saying you think something looks shit is the type of thing Dredd would be proud of.  

The thing is, you weren't banned, were you? Your account was suspended while the admins tried to work out whether you (and a slew of other new posters, which is, I suspect, why the process took longer than usual) were actually a long-standing troll who has a lifetime ban from this forum. And, to be clear, your posts looked a lot like Scott's.

Having established, by whatever means the admins have at their disposal, that you weren't Scott (aka Scojo), your account was reinstated. Note that your posts weren't deleted, so all this bleating about censorship doesn't really hold water, does it?

Cheers

Jim

Well I can't argue with that.  If this Scott was a problem (and not just someone who said they didn't like certain things) then I can understand.

[TordelBack]

Plus we're 19 posts in at the time of writing, and have you said one positive thing?  That might be 'normal' somewhere, but within my field of vision it's classed as 'whiny'.  If you were a bloke I'd just met in the pub, I'd be wandering off to the other end of the bar.  Chin up lad, and get stuck in.

EDIT:  And there you go, even as I'm typing your very next post turns out to be a sensible one.  Welcome.

[Dog Deever]

You REALLY don't want to know- though if you stick around long enough, you'll no doubt find out. Like many of us when we started - you'll be thinking "what a bunch of knee jerk, reactionary wankers- the guy can't be THAT bad", but your opinion WILL change after a couple of SC*J* appearances.
They do say that if you say his name three times, then turn around (widdershins) and touch the ground, he'll appear with a slew of posts.
Then it's pitchforks and firebrands all round.

[Jim_Campbell]

I've never even seen this SC*J.  What type of thing was he saying?

Pretty much exactly what you were saying, pretty much exactly in the way that you were saying it. He hasn't been able to post under his own identity for years, but he periodically sneaks back in under an assumed name, although he is genuinely mentally unwell and pathologically capable of posting here for more than a few days without 'outing' himself.

You can get a flavour of what I'm talking about on alt.comics.2000ad.

So: you weren't banned, you weren't censored, so maybe it's time to let this drop?

Cheers

Jim

[Rio De Fideldo]

Slightly off topic but as a one time very semi regular poster its good to see Jim back as last time I looked he'd left. Makes me happy to see you've returned.

[ABCwarBOT]

I've never even seen this SC*J.  What type of thing was he saying?

Pretty much exactly what you were saying, pretty much exactly in the way that you were saying it. He hasn't been able to post under his own identity for years, but he periodically sneaks back in under an assumed name, although he is genuinely mentally unwell and pathologically capable of posting here for more than a few days without 'outing' himself.

You can get a flavour of what I'm talking about on alt.comics.2000ad.

So: you weren't banned, you weren't censored, so maybe it's time to let this drop?

Cheers

Jim

I must be missing something.   I can't really see what was bad about what he was saying, not at all (from that posting anyway).  I don't know a lot about Minty but from what I've seen.......he's right isn't he?  The Minty bike does look much better than the DNA one. 

[ABCwarBOT]

And so nobody thinks I've come on here just to be "negative"...here's a few positive things...

I like the casting of Karl Urban, and his helmet!

[Steve Green]

Or not, apparently.

Really, you only have to take a look at alt.comics.2000ad, stretching back years, he will post on, and on, and on about a topic, usually replying to his own posts.

The comic lawmaster wouldn't work in the style that the DNA film is going for. Whether it's better or not is subjective, but also the wrong type of look for this film.

All the other vehicles that we've seen have been modified contemporary ones, either through design choice, or budgetary considerations.

Personally, I don't particularly like the movie bike, even within the design choices of the film. But it's done. Live with it.

It's not going to change unless they decide on rebuilding the thing, and reshooting it.

So I don't really see the point in endlessly flogging a dead horse. Which is essentially what this guy does. It's not particularly healthy or productive.

[The Sherman Kid]

ABCwarbot -don't worry about it, I found some of your posts quite amusing.This is not entirely a proper forum with free speech , as Mark Taylor put it -the only free speech you have here is what we give you (sheeesh -he really must miss Stalin terribly).His atitude reminds me of Born on the 4th July "Love it or leave it Pal!Love it or leave it!"
As I've said before you should just say what you like ,have disagreements but don't try and stop other people having opinions -I'm looking at you Soapy I notice you often slap down newbies.Bear in mind ABC that some on here still believe Robocop was the high-water mark of 80's cinema  
Keeping posting ABC and above all have fun