RWO messageboard hacked
- Thread starter cruiser
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Posts
- 7,162
- Reaction score
- 11
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Banned
- #78
NMWBloods said:
Page 8 in the outer limits section. It was your comment on Saturday nights umpiring in this thread
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
grimlock
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2001
- Posts
- 34,356
- Reaction score
- 32,056
- Location
- Luke Parker's Bandwagon
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, NSW
Is he the 'feral Swan'?NMWBloods said:Ah ta !
ScottH
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 127
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Premiership Boulevard
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- RWO
If ROK did have an alias, why would he put details about it in his profile. Unless some unscrupulous Mod changed it for their own selfish gratification.JF_Bay_22_SCG said:In Canberra it seems these days.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/member.php?userid=11546
Lobster Chowder anyone?!
JF
Why was ROK banned, did anyone see a post where he broke the rules???
Or is this just another self gratification for the mods.
Johnny Park
Team Captain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Posts
- 316
- Reaction score
- 1
- Other Teams
- Sydney
ScottH said:
ROK of Gibraltar said:
That could have tipped them over the edge.
ScottH
Debutant
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Posts
- 127
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Premiership Boulevard
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- RWO
LMAOJohnny Park said:
- Staff
- #85
ScottH said:
You better ask him that because I certainly didn't change anything to do with his profile and nor did Charlie for that matter, so to therefore make this claim shows the "lies" that some of you are being fed are being believed without even questioning the person who is feeding you these "lies". You believe something as FACT, that is not even possible, nor true.
I will also point out that moderators of club boards don't have the power to change user profiles, this can only be done by the 5 members of this site's admin staff and as none of them have in anyway anything to do with RWO, nor even support the Swans, I doubt any of them could be bothered to do that. Same applies at RWO, Scott and as a mod there you should know that.
As Charlie said it is of no concern of anyone's except for site admin, this boards mods and ROK himself. Needless to say what has been said by ROK to certain people since his suspension is so far off the mark its not even funny. It will also be said that this decision was not made by one person, but a group of people who viewed posts that were deleted and what PM's that were sent and came to this decision. So despite popular belief this wasn't the over-reaction of one mod, but a decision made by a group of mods with access to all the evidence they had available to them.
Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean nothing happened and the mods over-reacted. Scott of all people should know that as a mod at RWO, that posts are edited, moved and deleted all the time and also matters are discussed at length by the group of mods. Same happens here and that happened last night.
Instead of posting crap like this which is based upon nothing that is in the realm of truth or reality, why not accept that something happened that forced the moderators of this board to act against ROK and move on with life.
Bit rich coming from you
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Posts
- 17,858
- Reaction score
- 103
- AFL Club
- Sydney
People question it for the same reason they did on RWO. They don't like seeing people banned or posts deleted without having some idea what is happening. It is as much their forum as it is the mods' and so they like to feel they are part of it, rather than feel they are controlled by some big brother. That's not so hard to understand is it?
- Staff
- #87
NMWBloods said:
Yes, I can understand that, but at the same time I can't go out and explain a banning unless I have permission from my bosses and that I don't have for this case. Also just because this board is being used as the temp home of RWO, doesn't mean the same rules and standards apply.
Really some of you need to learn that your not entitled to every single piece of information and when mods say something we mean it.
A few points, before I lock this thread.
- This is not RWO. It is Bigfooty. Bigfooty rules apply here, not RWO ones. If a poster breaks Bigfooty rules, they may be banned. This is what happened with ROK. The merits of a banning aren't going to be discussed, debated or negotiated with a banned poster's mates. Period.
- I'm aware that ROK has been in contact with various people. That's his right. You should be aware, however, that there are two sides to a story. In this case, one of those sides applied rules as they are intended to be applied by those who set them. The other was an aggrieved individual on the receiving end of having the rules applied, after they broke them. You might wish to consider those differing perspectives when you decide what and who you believe.
- We are subject to privacy rules. These prevent us from making public what happened. ROK may choose to make this public, however it appears that he has decided to provide his friends with a somewhat different slant on things. That, too, is his right... but it doesn't make it true.
- The suggestion that we've meddled with his user profile, is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Being called 'unscrupulous' is, by the way, rather offensive; I've spent a considerable amount of my day dealing with rather infantile complaints here in an effort to make Bigfooty a pleasant place for all of you to come. And I'm 'unscrupulous'. Nice, real nice.
- This is not RWO. It is Bigfooty. Bigfooty rules apply here, not RWO ones. If a poster breaks Bigfooty rules, they may be banned. This is what happened with ROK. The merits of a banning aren't going to be discussed, debated or negotiated with a banned poster's mates. Period.
- I'm aware that ROK has been in contact with various people. That's his right. You should be aware, however, that there are two sides to a story. In this case, one of those sides applied rules as they are intended to be applied by those who set them. The other was an aggrieved individual on the receiving end of having the rules applied, after they broke them. You might wish to consider those differing perspectives when you decide what and who you believe.
- We are subject to privacy rules. These prevent us from making public what happened. ROK may choose to make this public, however it appears that he has decided to provide his friends with a somewhat different slant on things. That, too, is his right... but it doesn't make it true.
- The suggestion that we've meddled with his user profile, is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Being called 'unscrupulous' is, by the way, rather offensive; I've spent a considerable amount of my day dealing with rather infantile complaints here in an effort to make Bigfooty a pleasant place for all of you to come. And I'm 'unscrupulous'. Nice, real nice.
- Staff
- #89
CharlieG said:
Good point and good post.
- Status