Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Newport County natter & football chatter.
User avatar
User

lowandhard

Posts

7990

Location

Peoples Republic of Malpas

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby lowandhard » August 2nd, 2018, 12:35 pm

excessbee wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


I'm not really aware what the terms of a ban entail. Can the banned person access the forum but not post any messages, or is there a total block? I suppose it's largely irrelevant as a banned member could just rejoin under a different identity, we know that's been done :lol: Who knows, maybe Stan is doing so at present. :?: :wink:


I’m pretty sure he’s not masquerading as SJG99 :grin:
User avatar
User

SJG99

Posts

1592

Location

The End of the Hedge

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby SJG99 » August 2nd, 2018, 7:58 pm

lowandhard wrote:
SJG99 wrote:


All I got from that was the knowledge that someone has learned how to embed YouTube clips of something I have no intention of ever wasting my time watching. Oh, and put a face to a name, which I *really* didn't want to do because I don't particularly want real life to leak into my postings on here either.

I've saved everyone the trouble of having to see it again, anyway.


Well you’ve hardly done that have you? The link is still in my first post. Of course you don’t have to watch it. As for the first bit, posting a link is hardly rocket science is it? I’ve always taken the attitude that I’ll listen to a point of view rather than not but that’s up to you.


It's not in my post though, which is the bit I can do something about. (Mods Pending :lol:)
User avatar
User

SJG99

Posts

1592

Location

The End of the Hedge

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby SJG99 » August 2nd, 2018, 7:59 pm

lowandhard wrote:
excessbee wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


I'm not really aware what the terms of a ban entail. Can the banned person access the forum but not post any messages, or is there a total block? I suppose it's largely irrelevant as a banned member could just rejoin under a different identity, we know that's been done :lol: Who knows, maybe Stan is doing so at present. :?: :wink:


I’m pretty sure he’s not masquerading as SJG99 :grin:


I can vouch for that! 8)
User avatar
User

SJG99

Posts

1592

Location

The End of the Hedge

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby SJG99 » August 2nd, 2018, 8:13 pm

excessbee wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


I'm not really aware what the terms of a ban entail. Can the banned person access the forum but not post any messages, or is there a total block? I suppose it's largely irrelevant as a banned member could just rejoin under a different identity, we know that's been done :lol: Who knows, maybe Stan is doing so at present. :?: :wink:


Having never managed to get banned from a Forum in 15 years of not trying :oops:, I am speculating here, but...

1) you can see posts without logging in - so there's no "total block" on viewing the site unless it's at IP address level, which is a risky game given proxy servers and the chance of accidentally blocking access for an entire large office site (eg ONS/IPO).
2) It wouldn't be a ban if people could post when banned, so I'm guessing posting privileges on that user account are restricted. The phpBB template allows user privileges to be blocked and also potentially has far more complex functionality than just a mod clicking an "unblock" box.
3) Yes, anyone could rejoin but firstly there's the (admittedly brief) hassle of setting up another email to get around the registration process and then the IP address issue which in Stan's case without a proxy server will probably be a dead giveaway. The poster's style is the thing that always gives them away though. Mods would know in a day or two...
no avatar
User

Spiderman

Posts

153

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Spiderman » August 2nd, 2018, 8:42 pm

lowandhard wrote:
George Street-Bridge wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


Surely not? :shock:

It's a bit below the belt to mention this while he is serving yet another ban, but I could never get my head round the contrast between his attitude to confidentiality around club business and the fact he worked in a field where the same approach would have been professional suicide.


Far be it from me to make apologies for Stan but surely there’s work and there’s play and I suspect for him , this is play. He enjoys winding people up while maintaining the skin of a rhinoceros.

Edit. I should have added though that what he is dead serious about I’m sure is the safe future of our club. If he isn’t then I have seriously misjudged his utterings and intentions.



So winding people up that support the club by abusing and criticising directors is acceptable behaviour in your eyes ?

Blight , GReenhaf , Boddy , now its Foxall and Johnson , yet he doesn't offer any alternatives ,

I watched the video and dare I say that if foxall or Johnson succumbed to the relentless pressure I'm pretty sure the two Money men would quickly follow suit

Great plan
no avatar
User

Percy plunkett

Posts

2014

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Percy plunkett » August 2nd, 2018, 8:53 pm

lowandhard wrote:
George Street-Bridge wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


Surely not? :shock:

It's a bit below the belt to mention this while he is serving yet another ban, but I could never get my head round the contrast between his attitude to confidentiality around club business and the fact he worked in a field where the same approach would have been professional suicide.


Far be it from me to make apologies for Stan but surely there’s work and there’s play and I suspect for him , this is play. He enjoys winding people up while maintaining the skin of a rhinoceros.

Edit. I should have added though that what he is dead serious about I’m sure is the safe future of our club. If he isn’t then I have seriously misjudged his utterings and intentions.

He does enjoy a wind up I agree,but no rhino skin.In fact he gets hot under the collar quite quickly.
User avatar
User

Jack - Admin

Rank

Administrator

Posts

1228

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Jack - Admin » August 2nd, 2018, 8:58 pm

SJG99 wrote:
excessbee wrote:
Willthiswork wrote:It's all, "me, me, me" on those YouTube videos from Stan!


I'm not really aware what the terms of a ban entail. Can the banned person access the forum but not post any messages, or is there a total block? I suppose it's largely irrelevant as a banned member could just rejoin under a different identity, we know that's been done :lol: Who knows, maybe Stan is doing so at present. :?: :wink:


Having never managed to get banned from a Forum in 15 years of not trying :oops:, I am speculating here, but...

1) you can see posts without logging in - so there's no "total block" on viewing the site unless it's at IP address level, which is a risky game given proxy servers and the chance of accidentally blocking access for an entire large office site (eg ONS/IPO).
2) It wouldn't be a ban if people could post when banned, so I'm guessing posting privileges on that user account are restricted. The phpBB template allows user privileges to be blocked and also potentially has far more complex functionality than just a mod clicking an "unblock" box.
3) Yes, anyone could rejoin but firstly there's the (admittedly brief) hassle of setting up another email to get around the registration process and then the IP address issue which in Stan's case without a proxy server will probably be a dead giveaway. The poster's style is the thing that always gives them away though. Mods would know in a day or two...


Pretty much correct.
User avatar
User

Jack - Admin

Rank

Administrator

Posts

1228

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Jack - Admin » August 2nd, 2018, 9:22 pm

I scanned through that video and so the toxic rumours amount to a scant transfer possibility and a run-in with the WRU over rent negotiations is the claim?

Just to play devil's advocate here; could it be that the board are just getting on with it and that this ticket office / shop / fixture uncertainty is simply the fallout from tough negotiating and refusing to give away any intentions by publicly commenting?

Don't burn me at the stake for that one though, merely seeing both sides.

As for the NDA, is there any proof that there are any in play at board level? Just curious as I may have missed news of that.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm immensely discontented by the sheer lack of communication between fan, trust and directors from day one of this enterprise and believe that the odd flippant meeting simply doesn't cut it. The fans bailed out this club to a high tune and deserve better than the continual silence.

"Come on then, step up and have a go then, they're only volunteers" you cry. Go and ask Rob Santwris how that worked out for him. Hardly an advertisement for fan inclusivity, engagement and transparency.

I don't wish to elect replacement directors tit-for tat in light of recent resignations, I wish for an entire re-election process across the board once this WRU saga has been settled. Justify your position, show us your body of work, tell us your vision and show us the respect we deserve.

You cannot simply run a fan-owned club and keep us in the dark.
no avatar
User

Spiderman

Posts

153

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Spiderman » August 2nd, 2018, 9:27 pm

Devonian Exile wrote:I'm old enough to remember going bust and the effect that bad administration had on that. I am not worried. I am looking forward to the season, very much. Those that are getting worked up by this kinda stuff, can you please just chill out a bit now......


I'm pretty sure the 2 wealthy co-opted board members ( that most wanted, if I recall correctly ) would have something to say publicly if the club was as badly administrated as some say..
User avatar
User

lowandhard

Posts

7990

Location

Peoples Republic of Malpas

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby lowandhard » August 2nd, 2018, 9:32 pm

Jackorias wrote:I scanned through that video and so the toxic rumours amount to a scant transfer possibility and a run-in with the WRU over rent negotiations is the claim?

Just to play devil's advocate here; could it be that the board are just getting on with it and that this ticket office / shop / fixture uncertainty is simply the fallout from tough negotiating and refusing to give away any intentions by publicly commenting?

Don't burn me at the stake for that one though, merely seeing both sides.

As for the NDA, is there any proof that there are any in play at board level? Just curious as I may have missed news of that.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm immensely discontented by the sheer lack of communication between fan, trust and directors from day one of this enterprise and believe that the odd flippant meeting simply doesn't cut it. The fans bailed out this club to a high tune and deserve better than the continual silence.

"Come on then, step up and have a go then, they're only volunteers" you cry. Go and ask Rob Santwris how that worked out for him. Hardly an advertisement for fan inclusivity, engagement and transparency.

I don't wish to elect replacement directors tit-for tat in light of recent resignations, I wish for an entire re-election process across the board once this WRU saga has been settled. Justify your position, show us your body of work, tell us your vision and show us the respect we deserve.

You cannot simply run a fan-owned club and keep us in the dark.


What a bloody excellent intervention, that sums up my views perfectly - and I suspect a hell of a lot of other people’s views too. Thank you for that.
no avatar
User

OLDCROMWELLIAN

Posts

553

Location

TrefGruffydd

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby OLDCROMWELLIAN » August 2nd, 2018, 10:36 pm

Here Here
no avatar
User

George Street-Bridge

Posts

5974

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby George Street-Bridge » August 3rd, 2018, 7:31 am

Has anyone noticed how much more constructive, less toxic and more football-focused this place has been the last few weeks, despite the season not having started?
no avatar
User

OLDCROMWELLIAN

Posts

553

Location

TrefGruffydd

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby OLDCROMWELLIAN » August 3rd, 2018, 8:01 am

George Street-Bridge wrote:Has anyone noticed how much more constructive, less toxic and more football-focused this place has been the last few weeks, despite the season not having started?


Agreed. A combination i suspect of a certain posters ban, but also positive news/communication from the board regarding ticketing. merchandising and sponsership which has reduced but not totally alleyed everyones fears.
no avatar
User

Trigger

Posts

463

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Trigger » August 3rd, 2018, 8:03 am

Jackorias wrote:I scanned through that video and so the toxic rumours amount to a scant transfer possibility and a run-in with the WRU over rent negotiations is the claim?

Just to play devil's advocate here; could it be that the board are just getting on with it and that this ticket office / shop / fixture uncertainty is simply the fallout from tough negotiating and refusing to give away any intentions by publicly commenting?

Don't burn me at the stake for that one though, merely seeing both sides.

As for the NDA, is there any proof that there are any in play at board level? Just curious as I may have missed news of that.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm immensely discontented by the sheer lack of communication between fan, trust and directors from day one of this enterprise and believe that the odd flippant meeting simply doesn't cut it. The fans bailed out this club to a high tune and deserve better than the continual silence.

"Come on then, step up and have a go then, they're only volunteers" you cry. Go and ask Rob Santwris how that worked out for him. Hardly an advertisement for fan inclusivity, engagement and transparency.

I don't wish to elect replacement directors tit-for tat in light of recent resignations, I wish for an entire re-election process across the board once this WRU saga has been settled. Justify your position, show us your body of work, tell us your vision and show us the respect we deserve.

You cannot simply run a fan-owned club and keep us in the dark.

Great post Jack, my thoughts exactly
User avatar
User

Mr Figo

Posts

707

Re: Toxic rumours? Penman & Stan

Postby Mr Figo » August 3rd, 2018, 8:31 am

I doubt there will be a re-election process after the WRU matter is resolved as this would have to be instigated by the BOD - that's like the Prime Minister calling a General Election when they are unsure about whether they have a majority.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abf9, ComeOnCounty, newportharrier, OLDCROMWELLIAN, terry norman, Welshtree and 53 guests

Powered by phpBB ®