I and I banned.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 09:06 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 09:03 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  Well,kc is a christian and he has the highest rep so t wouldnt say you did good.

Wait, Kc? As in Kingschosen (I assume thats who you are talking about since he has a HUGE' rep') the admin?

He is a christian?

Running an atheist forum?

No he's not a Christian. He's a Calvinist.
We have WAY too many teenagers here.
They're ALL douche bags.
I don't think you will like any of them, AT ALL.
Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-11-2013, 11:07 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 09:06 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  Wait, Kc? As in Kingschosen (I assume thats who you are talking about since he has a HUGE' rep') the admin?

He is a christian?

Running an atheist forum?

No he's not a Christian. He's a Calvinist.
We have WAY too many teenagers here.
They're ALL douche bags.
I don't think you will like any of them, AT ALL.
Tongue

Well, I'll take your word for it. I haven't met any teenagers on here yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 11:15 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 10:56 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 10:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be a perceptive young man. Drinking Beverage

Sarcasm? Consider

Noooooooo. No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-11-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 10:58 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 10:56 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  Sarcasm? Consider

Chas is never sarcastic.

And welcome.

Wait. Was that sarcasm? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-11-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: I and I banned.
He's gone! He's done! We won! Happy dance time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BrokenQuill92's post
19-11-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: I and I banned.
Yeah, he got banned, it calls for celebration if you ask me. He was one of the most intellectually dishonest cuntheads I've ever known and suffered from a severe persecution complex to boot.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
19-11-2013, 11:34 PM
RE: I and I banned.
*chuckles*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 08:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 08:27 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  I understand what you are trying to say. You think maybe the mods were too harsh by banning him, because you don't personally think he did anything ban worthy. I've had the same feeling about similar situations, both online and in real life. So I get it.

I don't know if the mods were too harsh or not by banning him because I don't know why they banned him. All I know is mods claimed he violated rule 5 on multiple occasions.....and who knows what that means.

When they warned him, do you think they warned him for specific behavior or did they just send him a message saying, "Your violating rule 5". How do you defend yourself against such nebulous claims?

It should be, "You violated rule 5 by.....and go on to provide some specific details of the crime". Then I and I could defend himself. Its not like the mods don't know how to quote and cut and past. What I am asking is trivially easy for them to do.

Rule 5 says:
Quote:5) Maliciously Disrupting the Forum is Prohibited
Anyone who comes here with the sole intent of causing chaos and conflict is not welcome. Being intentionally overly disruptive is also not acceptable. In the event that it is felt by the forum Administration that a person is causing excessive issues then they will be officially warned. Failure to heed the warning may lead to temporary bans leading up to a permanent ban if the offending behaviour is not ceased. This is considered a last resort and only for the most serious situations. Anyone who is felt to be trying to manipulate this rule to get another member banned by causing controversy about them risks falling foul of this rule themself.

I$I had a long-standing habit of derailment; almost any thread he entered was done-so with the blatant intent of disruption, typically by a condescending remark or an insult.
He also had the habit of making multiple threads per day and the vast majority of them always were generally inflammatory ("6 million how many Jewish holocausts were there", for one example of many), made with an obvious agenda to cause as much fuss as possible (frequently by asking the same, pointless questions again and again one example, again, of many) or were simply pointless.

Hell, in some instances he made multiple threads on a single or closely related topic when people stopped paying attention to them, sometimes he'd even be courteous enough to spread this behaviour out by a few days, but still; constant rehashing of known hot-button topics (for example his constant claims of US Al-Qaeda funding/founding/support which had been debunked numerous times). Almost everything he did was an obvious attempt to stir up trouble: from his Al-Qaeda topics, scientific and historical scepticism and illiteracy to his absolute hatred for anything 'capitalist' or 'United States'. all to gain attention and push his agenda of anti-US trouble making.

Keep in mind; I$I had been restricted from making threads as a warning, which he did not heed; he immediately went back to his prior ways of sniping at forum members and deliberately and carelessly hitting every topic he could seemingly think of which could get a significant reaction. This was in addition to other warnings by mods.

I$I broke pretty much every proviso in rule five when taken to the utmost literal definitions: he went out of his way to interrupt and derail threads and constantly rehashed the same hot-buttons (albeit in slightly different forms each time), he was warned several times and did not modify his behaviour to be any less of a prick to all in the forum outside himself and one could argue that his thread about Bucky being an ass-hole was a transparent attempt to shift Rule #5 onto Bucky and thus was a violation of Rule #5 itself (see final proviso).

Frankly, I agree somewhat that mods/admin should at least slightly give justification for things like bans and thread closure; a bit of increased transparency regarding forum matters would be nice to have, I'd implement that sort of policy on myself were I in a power position, but I'm not and probably wont ever be (gotta be realistic here). Ultimately it's the individuals decision one way or the other.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
19-11-2013, 11:43 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 07:21 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't like it.

Is it the first example of rule 5 being abused by the mods?

[Image: jill-greenberg-crying-photoshopped-babie...mes-18.jpg]

[Image: r8GV6.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 11:45 PM
RE: I and I banned.
(19-11-2013 11:07 PM)Boysurroundedbymoms Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 11:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No he's not a Christian. He's a Calvinist.
We have WAY too many teenagers here.
They're ALL douche bags.
I don't think you will like any of them, AT ALL.
Tongue

Well, I'll take your word for it. I haven't met any teenagers on here yet.

I would think, (unless you think it's creepy), that a reference to The Little Dutch Boy, (from Hans Brinker) in your sig would be appropriate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: