[Mr Mordon]

Just thought it would be worth posting this chaps final shot accross the bows:

Yep now I've been chucked off the Mailwatch for the serious crime of thinking the police aren't exactly a positive force in society and calling someone who supports them a crypto-fascist (note that despite the intemperate accusations from a fellow Bradfordian the Bairy-twat is the only person on that site I've accused of being a Daily Mail reader).

To be honest some Mailreaders seem open-minded compared with some contributors on that site who get their knickers in a real twist when challenged about their conceit that they are important.

It might also be the fact I suggested the welsh are basically commies.

I'm assuming he is refering to myself reguarding the 'intemperate accusations from a fellow Bradfordian'. All i argued about was his offensive comments ragarding Benazir Bhuttos trajic death. Sure, maybe you don't agree with her politics but i don't think that warrants calling her a Cunt

However, we pride ourselves on the freedom of debate on this site and a just wonder if the Mods were a bit rash to ban him. I think he deserves a second chance. If he starts up with the generalised bollocks again then fair enough, ban him. But it should be three strikes and your out in my opinion

[Daul Pacre]

No. He's a trolling cunt, but then if he wants to be like that we're free to ignore him, and if he makes stupid/contentious remarks then we should be countering them with logic, not just banning him.

The "multiple accounts" thing is for Chris/Merk to decide.

[Killer Whale]

Trolling can be frustrating and annoying, but he was in no way getting to the point where I thought his actions were making the forum unusable.

I enjoy debate and discussion, and I think that, once he'd got the trolling out of his system he would have felt he needed to back his opinions up with a little more substance.

And if he wants to allege that the Welsh only elect whoever is wearing a red rosette, in full contradiction of the results of last May's elections (the north and west are Plaid, the middle is LibDem and even parts of the south are voting fro 'beyond Labour' independents), then let him. It's only really an admission of his own ignorance.

[merk]

I've been away for a few days, so I wasn't aware that he had been banned, however i've had more than one complaint about him and he was warned a couple of times.

let me find out what's going on. from what I can understand he's just been sent to Coventry for a couple of days!

[Esqui]

It was starting to seem like the forum was getting into an everyone vs. Baht At situation far too many times, espcially since he was making some comments designed to stir up argument. This is fair enough, but as Merk says, I got a few complaints. I'd already warned him, so next time he got a 1 week ban. However, as he flouted that making a new account, he has now been permanently banned (until he uses a proxy and gets a new account, which will also be banned.) As you were, then, people

[bairy]

According to him I'm apparently a "mail reader" and a "crypto fascist" and a twat. Brill.

That aside I have no real objection to him being anti police, anti whatever the hell he likes, that's great. In fact I'd personally encourage people like that for a good debate (anyone remember Majestic? - wonder where he went).

My problem is that most of the time he couldn't construct a decent argument. If he wasn't mindlessly insulting entire groups of people like the disabled, he was just spouting out insults seemingly at random. Every so often something approaching intelligent would come along, but it was so rare that I stopped reading his posts about a month ago.

Even in his writeup he lumps in the entire welsh race to one description.

If I'd have been in charge I'd likely have banned him weeks ago, so IMO he should be happy he was able to carry on for so long.

[Adrian]

He was getting on my tits. I don't think he really had any intention to cease trolling so I'm not bothered by the fact that he was banned.

[Esqui]

As long as he doesn't keep trolling my email, we'll be fine.

Fact is, we have rules like any other forum. We don't mind people who disagree with us. In fact, I don't know about you guys, but I like it when we get into arguments of two people with opposing views. But Baht At is a very controversial character to say the least, and was causing disputes in almost every topic he posted in. And that's why he was eventually banned. Had he not reregistered under a different name, he would have been back and able to post during next week. But, no, he didn't manage to stay off. The whole point of the temporary ban (and you will be warned about your conduct first) is to allow you to cool down and think about your actions. So, people, while I hope you don't do anything to get yourself banned, remember that the first time is not a permanent thing.

[Jeremy]

I don't think it would be fair for me to vote, as I'm virtually just a lurker (I have posted once ), but I thought you might like to know how this seems to one outsider who drops in now and then.

A large forum with far more traffic than this can put up with a pain in the arse or two: they don't have that much effect on the community in general. But it seemed to me that Baht At was just hijacking the whole place for his own trollsome ends ... just seemed rude to me.

... and I detest trolls. Might have been better if none of you had fed him, but I know the temptation can be hard to resist.

... oh, and he dissed Bristol University, which is where I work ... so sod him!

[Sealink]

I found Baht At to be intensely irritating. Some forum members post opinions that challenge your own beliefs, and generate debate, but Baht At to my mind was being controversial just to be controversial.

I was going to stop posting here, I think you've made the right decision, and have been wary of him ever since he attacked another member (can't remember the exact thread, but it was hospitals and the pressure doctors/nurses are under).

[PC Monster]

Now as someone who fucked off for a year and doesn't add much to this place i probably shouldn't comment. But he was the first thing i noticed coming back, and not for good reasons.

Debate is good, people challenging others perceptions is good- but only if they are prepared to do it properly. IMO he didn't do that and posted stuff for the sake of stirring the brown stuff and nothing else- which i find really irksome. Apparently he was given a warning (or two?) and still carried on trolling (which is what it was). I don't think he can have any complaints.

[Beaver]

Again, I'm not really a regular poster, but he was getting on my tits. I was a bit annoyed when he first turned up and the place became Navigor Watch, and ever since he's been getting on my nerves with his trolling. I never thought I'd say this, but I can understand why Aldert got so sick of him.
And yeah, while debate is good and I'd welcome a bigger range of opinions on here, he wasn't making any constructive points. So I'd say he had to go.

[Paul]

I generally ignore people people like that.

[Adam]

I'm glad someone brought this up. Personally, I found him smug, self-righteous and nowhere near as knowledgeable or witty as his Oxbridge education and superiority complex lead him to think he is.

I'm just not sure that's a banning offence.

I can't say I'll miss him personally, and it's the first I've seen of anyone being banned from this forum (despite what Aldert alleges), but I think banning is something that should be done for concrete breaking of the rules, rather that being a bit of a tit.

I respect the decisions of the mods, though I do think any bannings need to be discussed and explained.

EDIT: I was a bit unfair on Baht, I think. We agreed on quite a bit, and I was impressed at how tenacious he was with the Hurwood takedown. He was, I think, a bit overconcerned with being provocative and shaking up the tone of the board. Which I suppose is trolling of a sort.

[Esqui]

To be frank, many people had complained to me about him and I'd already warned him not to needlessly insult people. He didn't stop.