[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
sheds

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13515)
Message
File  []
close
SAUSAGE.jpg
135151351513515
>> ID: 7389f1 No. 13515 Anonymous
10th December 2015
Thursday 8:44 pm

ID: 7389f1
13515 Silly Sausage Thread
Ban appeals, supplication and fry-ups.
166 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13919 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 1:03 pm

ID: 165961
13919 spacer
>>13913
You seem to be going to a lot of effort to defend a false report for grammar.
>> ID: 8f2cb7 No. 13920 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 5:50 pm

ID: 8f2cb7
13920 spacer
>>13909
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
> Nope.

Not him, but if you've never heard of someone "showing willing" then you're either lying, foreign, or are a bit of a thicko.
>> ID: 508711 No. 13921 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 10:59 pm

ID: 508711
13921 spacer
>>13920
>, or

What is the official board position on the use of the Oxford comma?
>> ID: 165961 No. 13922 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:14 pm

ID: 165961
13922 spacer
>>13921
One would assume that if it's good enough for Oxford then it's good enough for here.
>> ID: 508711 No. 13923 Anonymous
28th July 2016
Thursday 11:46 pm

ID: 508711
13923 spacer
>>13922

But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.

Besides Oxford's a complete dump.
>> ID: 1b1696 No. 13924 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:08 am

ID: 1b1696
13924 spacer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW7bB8D_mAY
>> ID: 5b36c0 No. 13925 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:08 am

ID: 5b36c0
13925 spacer
>>13923

We should solve this like gentlemen - with a mass brawl in a Wetherspoons car park.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13926 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 12:13 am

ID: 165961
13926 spacer
>>13923
>But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.
When they've published a near-complete record of the English language then maybe they can have an opinion.
>> ID: dc6c1f No. 13927 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 2:06 pm

ID: dc6c1f
13927 spacer
I posted a perfectly grammatically correct post and somebody reported it because they thought 'show willing' should be 'show willingness' for some reason.

The mod didn't pick up on this and banned me for using the wrong pick from 'they're/their' even though that was correct. I raised that in this thread and he said he wasn't paying attention when in reality he just made a mistake but was too up his own arse to admit it.

Some lad then said that he reported me over the 'show willing' comment and the mod, backtracking, has started to pretend that was the reason and that regardless of a common phrase, that has also been a fixture of the English language for hundreds of years and is not in anyway archaic, that only his special interpretation of the English language is allowed and the dictionary is full of shit.


TL;DR - Mod banned somebody over grammar despite it being correct and is having a teary about it and pretending he's the grammar expert, not the people who literally write the dictionary and is probably not as smart as he likes to think he is.

Feel free to throw another teary and ban me again, I'm not gonna come back (in before the 'haha don't come back then lol!' comments).
>> ID: 818452 No. 13929 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 2:32 pm

ID: 818452
13929 spacer

Capture.png
139291392913929
>>13927
What are you on about? I unbanned you when you pointed out the ban was mistaken. It looks like you were given a very short ban for other reasons in the meantime, but that has expired or been removed. The only current bans are for the nepalese, spambots and something else.
>> ID: 171a1b No. 13930 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 3:10 pm

ID: 171a1b
13930 spacer
>>13929

Yeah, I banned him for being a shitehawk/using excessive verbiage and then having the bare-faced cheek to use whose instead of who's, which is simply not cricket.

It was not for very long. If you scroll up you'll see it, as I posted a screenshot of it for posterity and ritual humiliation.
>> ID: d80efc No. 13931 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 5:39 pm

ID: d80efc
13931 spacer
>>13929

What is up with that >>/nom/12025 ban reason? it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.
>> ID: 64b30b No. 13932 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 5:42 pm

ID: 64b30b
13932 spacer
>>13931
>word salad
Seems appropriate for /nom/.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13933 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 6:08 pm

ID: 818452
13933 spacer

Capture.png
139331393313933
>>13931
The post in question.
>> ID: c234c3 No. 13934 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 6:53 pm

ID: c234c3
13934 spacer
>>13933

I knew their was a reason for me going balded!
>> ID: 02bce9 No. 13935 Anonymous
29th July 2016
Friday 7:00 pm

ID: 02bce9
13935 spacer
>>13931
>it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.

If you want to take a gander at how shampoo is corrupting your brain have a read of >>/poof/3281.
>> ID: 4c0409 No. 13938 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 5:56 pm

ID: 4c0409
13938 spacer
Isn't a week-long ban for getting around a word filter a bit much?
>> ID: 818452 No. 13939 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:24 pm

ID: 818452
13939 spacer
>>13938
Maybe, but apparently you can get around it so it doesn't matter all that much. You should have known better.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13940 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:32 pm

ID: 165961
13940 spacer
>>13939
Not him, but IIRC "all boards" doesn't include /shed/ precisely so that offenders have somewhere to grovel.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13941 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 8:38 pm

ID: 818452
13941 spacer
>>13940
You recall incorrectly.
>> ID: 165961 No. 13942 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:17 pm

ID: 165961
13942 spacer
>>13941
That would rather raise the question of the point of a ban appeals thread in which the banned cannot post.
>> ID: 3568f1 No. 13943 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:35 pm

ID: 3568f1
13943 spacer
>>13942
Most people post from their phones, so you have the option of switching from mobile Internet to WiFi, or simply turning the WiFi off for a few minutes and turning it on again. No idea if you can do that with mobile internet, but I don't think the mods would want to blanket ban that for ban evasion because of the whole EE debacle.

Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.
>> ID: fe1614 No. 13944 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 9:36 pm

ID: fe1614
13944 spacer
>>13942

Now you're catching on.
>> ID: 818452 No. 13945 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 10:12 pm

ID: 818452
13945 spacer
>>13942
It was discussed as a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were.
It is possible to ban someone from all boards except /shed/ by ticking the box for each individual board instead of the "all boards" box but that's a pain in the arse and you have to remember not to tick the ones for the secret boards; purple told me off for failing to do that.

>>13943
>Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.
They do. If you're banned for a day for a post an hour after it was made, it means the ban was an hour and a day.
Seriously, what?
>> ID: f26d6b No. 13947 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 10:39 pm

ID: f26d6b
13947 spacer
>>13945
>a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were
A bit like this, ho ho? >>/b/404502
>> ID: 818452 No. 13948 Anonymous
18th August 2016
Thursday 11:00 pm

ID: 818452
13948 spacer
>>13947
... yes? I guess. What?
>> ID: eaabd4 No. 13949 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 12:57 am

ID: eaabd4
13949 spacer
>>13943
.gs is on my phone network's 'blacklist' for whatever reason and I don't fancy being put on May's special list of wrong 'uns just to shitpost on here.
>> ID: b69d17 No. 13950 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 2:43 am

ID: b69d17
13950 spacer
>>13949
When I had a PAYG phone with Orange it was hit or miss whether this site could be accessed, due to a sporadic block on content deemed unsuitable for under 18s, but I nerve had an issues once I went on a monthly contract with them.
>> ID: badd56 No. 13951 Anonymous
19th August 2016
Friday 4:36 pm

ID: badd56
13951 spacer
>>13950
Virgin media never flagged .gs as an adult site so I used to browse /x/ on my phone when out and about. Not because I wanted to look at porn, but because it felt like thumbing my nose at the filter.
>> ID: 2082fa No. 14167 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 5:52 pm

ID: 2082fa
14167 spacer
Afternoon, mods.

Any chance you can lift my ban on /emo/ for posting >>/emo/24841, please? I didn't think I'd get in trouble for referencing one of our previous posters.
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14168 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 7:40 pm

ID: ec74d0
14168 spacer
>>14167
You were banned for shitposting in /emo/.
>> ID: 2082fa No. 14169 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 7:58 pm

ID: 2082fa
14169 spacer
>>14168
I'm all for keeping /emo/ free of cunt-offs and cuntery, but I'd have thought that, when the discussion drifts towards mobile phones and rape, that's the opportune time to reference the lad from here who went on trial for rubbing his iPhone against his infant daughters fanny and couldn't see what he'd done wrong.
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14171 Anonymous
30th April 2017
Sunday 8:52 pm

ID: ec74d0
14171 spacer
>>14169
Perhaps you should have reported the posts drifting towards mobile phones and rape instead of joining in. Regardless, ban lifted.
>> ID: d80efc No. 14172 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:04 pm

ID: d80efc
14172 spacer
>>14171

Same deal, I was a silly shitposting sausage may I have my Emo priviliages back? post >>/emo/24859
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14173 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:26 pm

ID: ec74d0
14173 spacer
>>14172
Yes but only if you promise to learn to spell privileges.
>> ID: db1008 No. 14174 Anonymous
2nd May 2017
Tuesday 5:32 pm

ID: db1008
14174 spacer
>>14172
Privily Argh-Jess.
>> ID: 80b2bd No. 14175 Anonymous
3rd May 2017
Wednesday 12:14 am

ID: 80b2bd
14175 spacer
Since everyone's begging, can I have access to /emo/ too? I really need to help the stupid balding woman.
>> ID: ba9334 No. 14358 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 4:00 pm

ID: ba9334
14358 spacer
Modlad, why did I get banned for a post from 13th of September? I don't even remember making that post, but in any case, isn't it a bit heavy-handed to give me a 2 week ban for basically nothing? Do you hate Christmas?
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14359 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 4:25 pm

ID: ec74d0
14359 spacer
>>14358
You seem to be getting around it just fine. Which makes it tricky to tell which ban was you, should someone deign to remove it.
>> ID: 07bf4a No. 14360 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 4:40 pm

ID: 07bf4a
14360 spacer
>>14359
I'm surprised foreign IPs are not ban. I thought we had a great wall and all.

Anyway Scrooge, why is it difficult to tell which one I am? Have you gone a banning spree again? Where's your Christmas spirit?

>You have been banned from posting on all boards for the following reason:

>Naw lad >>/b/412762

>Your ban was placed on December 1, 2017, 3:28 pm, and will expire on December 15, 2017, 3:28 pm.
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14361 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 4:58 pm

ID: ec74d0
14361 spacer

why.png
143611436114361
>>14360
>why is it difficult to tell which one I am?
Are you blind?
>> ID: d2f0f2 No. 14362 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 5:39 pm

ID: d2f0f2
14362 spacer
>>14358

Paedos are attracted to any talk of legitimising their criminal disorder whether it's a joke or not, we've had a couple of persistant ones in the past. Like nonce moths to a child.
>> ID: 620217 No. 14363 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 7:39 pm

ID: 620217
14363 spacer
>>14362
Not either of them, but I'm curious as to what you think handing out two-week bans for obviously-jokey posts almost three months after the fact is supposed to achieve. I'm all for shutting down anything that's going to attract the crabs as and when it happens, but this seemed a bit like trying to lock the stable door after the farm has long since fallen into the sea.
>> ID: 18220f No. 14364 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 7:46 pm

ID: 18220f
14364 spacer
>>14362

>nonce moths to a child

Alright, Chris!

>>14363

Alright, nonce!
>> ID: da4720 No. 14365 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 8:00 pm

ID: da4720
14365 spacer
>>14362
So... No chance of lifting the ban then?
>> ID: 01d591 No. 14366 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 8:07 pm

ID: 01d591
14366 spacer
>>14362

Mods will be first up against the wall when the peado revolution comes!
>> ID: 01d591 No. 14367 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 8:07 pm

ID: 01d591
14367 spacer
>>14362

Mods will be first up against the wall when the peado revolution comes!
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14368 Anonymous
1st December 2017
Friday 9:14 pm

ID: ec74d0
14368 spacer
>>14365
I didn't notice the post date when I placed the bans, so I'll take them off. >>14363 makes a fair point.
>> ID: c041d0 No. 14369 Anonymous
2nd December 2017
Saturday 5:49 pm

ID: c041d0
14369 spacer
>>14368

Are you implying there's another mod here?
>> ID: ec74d0 No. 14370 Anonymous
2nd December 2017
Saturday 6:26 pm

ID: ec74d0
14370 spacer
>>14369

What?

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password