Why was I banned?

[ABCwarBOT]

All I did was say I didn't like the lawmaster but I was banned for 3 days, whilst under "investigation".  Just wondering?

[JOE SOAP]

As the posts below -in sequence of posting- are a sample of yours before the suspension, and the fact that up to the time of this post you're only up to 15 posts, I'd say you were in danger of creating a bit of a fracas judging by the tone of you words. Plus the permanently banned Scojo began to post at the same time to antagonise, I'd say it was part of a group ban to stem the overly negative posting. We all have our confrontations now and again and let them go but to persist with relentless negativity rather than discussion is a bit pointless. My opinion anyway.

We're talking established things here.  People expect Dredd to look like Dredd and they expect the lawmaster to actually look like a lawmaster not some puny bland monstrosity.  That's an everyday bike with some bits stuck on it in a vain attempt to make it look futuristic.  It gets worse the more I look at it.  


And is it just me but look how dangerous it would be to ride that bike.  Those handlebars look like they're from a childs tricycle.  

The hands are so close together one false turn and that fat looking Dredd would be eating gravel.


The way this film is going it won't even be in 1D.  It'll either be straight to dvd or shown in about 2 arthouse cinema's.  



Definitely!  There's no getting around it from those 2 pics side by side.  2 Dredd productions and the expensive one is with the guy wearing the biking boots (which were bought in the local bike shop) riding a Lambretta.


It is amazing isn't it.  Minty gets most things spot on (from what we've seen anyway) and yet a bunch of film makers with 45 million churn that out.  Pathetic!  I don't think any amount of cgi backdrops will make that look any better.  Both Dredd and the bike look like they should be in an amateur production.


Let's not make excuses for it......it looks rubbish.  Looks like they've got a fairly ordinary looking bike and stuck a big piece of painted wood on the front plus a gun or two.  That Minty one looks a million times better.  Are these film makers smoking crack or something?


I can't believe anyone's sticking up for that.  It looks cheap.  It also looks like one of those bikes you'd see at a downmarket custom type show.  Dredd's bike should look expensive, BIG and he should look like he's sitting on a whacking great chopper with his hands further up in the air on higher handlebars.  He shouldn't look like he's riding a flippin scooter.  

First of all the uniform looks cheap and not much like the comics (apart from the helmet) and now this cheap looking bike.

I'm losing faith in this production fast.

[Dog Deever]

Well... it took us a couple of days to gather up the firebrands and pitchforks.

[ABCwarBOT]

I thought that was called free speech?  I was just giving my opinion and if I was slandering someone or being abusive then I could understand being banned but just saying you dislike something and pointing it out in a few different replies isn't really what I'd call a banning offence, nor is being "negative".  

[Dog Deever]

You were maybe under suspicion of being a Sc*j* sock-puppet. It's happened before.
This is a hayness crime- all suspects must be detained in the iso-cube until guilt can be proved.
If you're unbanned now, you're probably ok.

[Professor Bear]

part of a group ban to stem the overly negative posting.

Surely I can't be the only one that finds that possibility a little worrying?

[Dog Deever]

IF it were something along those lines then, yes- that would be shit.
But it's possible that it was something that was done to verify if any of the ban-ees was Sc*j*.

I mean- who's going to dish out a poxy 3-day ban as an e-punishment beating?
Pantywaist talk.
That's never going to stop anyone.

[JOE SOAP]

part of a group ban to stem the overly negative posting.

Surely I can't be the only one that finds that possibility a little worrying?

If anyone now is under the impression that this forum has ever approached anything compared to board fascism, they ain't been to John Byrne. The thread originally was over 100 pages long without much of a warning or ban from the mods and a lot of ridiculous/good/silly shit was posted.

[Jim_Campbell]

Surely I can't be the only one that finds that possibility a little worrying?

TBH, at one point it did look like Scott had registered under multiple IDs. I don't think it was a group ban in the sense you're taking it -- the mods are very diligent before re-banning Scott, but if you've got a whole bunch of people whose posting style looks like him, you haven't really got much choice but to suspend 'em all and then un-ban 'em as you can establish their bonafides.

I thought that was called free speech?

You absolutely have free speech. If you want to start your own discussion forum, or post to your own blog. Here, you, I, the Professor, and everyone else, operates at the sufferance of Rebellion who are entitled to make any judgement they choose about the best way to represent and protect their properties.

Note that I have disagreed with them vehemently on this very point in the past and am still here, so, generally speaking, they're pretty laid back.

Cheers

Jim

[JOE SOAP]

I thought that was called free speech?  I was just giving my opinion and if I was slandering someone or being abusive then I could understand being banned but just saying you dislike something and pointing it out in a few different replies isn't really what I'd call a banning offence, nor is being "negative".  

We can all make our point without the need to do it multiple times while not adding anything new each time. Free speech is earned but this is a laid back place in general.

[ABCwarBOT]

I thought that was called free speech?  I was just giving my opinion and if I was slandering someone or being abusive then I could understand being banned but just saying you dislike something and pointing it out in a few different replies isn't really what I'd call a banning offence, nor is being "negative".  

We can all make our point without the need to do it multiple times while not adding anything new each time. Free speech is earned but this is a laid back place in general.

Just looks like normal posting to me.  The type of thing that you see on most forums and it wasn't as if I was saying the same thing over and over. 

[Mark Taylor]

Freedom of speech is a right which is oft misunderstood. It allows you to publish your opinions uncensored with very few limitations - but it does not allow you to force others to publish your opinions for you. In other words, this site belongs to Rebellion, and they get to decide what (and if they so choose, who) does and does and doesn't get published on it. If they choose to ban you it isn't a violation of your rights - it's a legitimate exercise of their rights. Freedom of speech means you can go say it elsewhere if you like. Get your own site and you can say anything you want.

[JOE SOAP]

Just looks like normal posting to me.  The type of thing that you see on most forums and it wasn't as if I was saying the same thing over and over.  

Depends on how you boil it down, did you think the bike is shit? That's the only thing I read from the posts and by extension the film-makers don't know what they're doing. I don't mind it as a criticism but many posts saying the same thing doesn't make much sense.

[Dog Deever]

Well- if you have a problem, you should probably wait until one of the mods comes along and herds us feral kittens, I'm sure they'll be able to discuss things with you, rather than another board rammy kicking off. Fun as it is.
Another ding-dong here isn't really going to achieve anything. None of us can give you any of the details- we're all only trying to guess.

[M.I.K.]

just saying you dislike something and pointing it out in a few different replies isn't really what I'd call a banning offence, nor is being "negative".  

The mods obviously decided it wasn't either or you wouldn't be posting again.

Pretty sure they'd just be checking you weren't him.