Banned? II

This.

Yes, we're quite clear on that issue now. Point being that a somewhat racially insensitive comment on his part was the trigger for this entire debacle.

 

Actually, koniferus, the word "fuck" falls into the PG-13 category, at least here in the USA.


Nice try.

 

I've noticed that too. Apparently the staff is exempt from rules, or have their own set of rules. Personally, I don't mind seeing the words "fuck" and "CUNTPUNT" on his signature and for anyone that is 13 that hasn't seen these words and is that sensitive to the point where the PG-13 rule has to be strictly enforced, then they need to grow up a bit. I don't mind that these words appear, but used in a non-environment-friendly fashion, like attacking other members, then that's unnecessary.

I'm 50/50 on this issue. It's nice to know that I can post in the Games/Jokes Random topic without getting a snarky response from Littlekill. (Yes, I remember that far back when I used to be active in that part of the forum). I don't know much about Void. I remember that he wasn't a complete ass to me, but I don't know the circumstances so I cannot say anything more about that.

It doesn't matter how much you contribute to the site. That shouldn't help you at all from not getting banned. Call the staff corrupt, but they are not corrupt in this respect.

A little word of advice...
Do NOT give the staff any reason to ban you. Instead of firing back at a mod or admin, just let it go, and ignore it. Sure, they might call my posts "baseless" and "unsourced," or "go play a different system," whatever. There's no use responding to that. Instead of writing back, something smartass, I just let it go. I wasn't writing an academic paper, but just stating my opinions basing it on observation. But whatever. That thread pretty much died after that, no flaming, no locking, no bans.

Calling out the staff because of something they did that you think is unjust is overkill. We can all see what they did and our opinion of them changes (good or bad), whether you call them out or not.

 

Ha! Derailing threads? Tell that to Cahos who not only continued the derailment of this thread, but also had the nerve to make an excuse for his "mistake" (hence why I made a seperate topic addressed to him only to be deleted.)

So, if you're going to punish people for "derailing threads", then maybe you should start with those guys in that thread I linked. Don't even be selective about this.

Oh, and fix your rules by the way. You guys need to implement DEFINITE CLEAR BOUNDARIES. As of right now, there are so many gray areas in your rules which practically opens up to lots of interpretations, many of them which can be used as an excuse against members to dish out seemingly unjustifiable punishments.

How is it overkill? Just because you can look and notice what each staff member did but do nothing about it does not do justice at all. No, when the staff member makes mistakes, and in this case, is quite unjustified, we all have the responsibility to call them out on it in a civil manner and ask for answers. Otherwise, you are going to allow stupid precedents being set up for future cases in which members can be banned for unjustifiable reasons.

 

Do you really think Seph or Loony is going to "change their ways" after seeing this thread and the other one? What exactly do we have to threaten them with if we don't? Leave the site? Don't spend money? This doesn't work in our favor no matter what way you look at it. I don't like the way the officiating goes in the NHL, but bitching about it doesn't change a thing.

I agree that the rules (or at least the enforcement of said rules), provide too much gray area, but I have no solution for that.

If unjustified bans are truly taking place, then each and every one of you that have spoken out against Loony have grounds for a ban, whether it is explicitly stated in the rules or not. They don't answer to a higher power. They can ban anyone for whatever reason, or for no reason. They could ban you just because they don't like you and then make up a reason as to why you were banned, and you won't be back to say that you were unjustifiably banned. What are you to them? Just one user that they won't miss. They can pretend to ban people based on rules where it is really just based on preference. We'll never know. We have a privilege of being here, not a right.

 

Sorry, but this isn't NHL or a spectator sport; this is a forum where members like you and I get involved. So your analogy is not applicable here.

Second, the purpose of this thread is to get answers from Loony regarding his actions taken on certain members, not to change him or Seph. Please, don't even falsely imply anything else here; that's insulting to people's intelligence.

The only point I agree with you is your last statement; yes being on this board is a privilege. But for the other points you mentioned illustrate the very potential problem we could face if things continue as of now. You pointed out that administrators can ban people for little or no reason, or simply "for not liking you". Which has been something I've noticed in the past here, particular with one moderator who chose to act on his biased feelings against Americans and, as a result of an argument between him and I, that moderator consequently chose to delete my posts, and then ban me on IRC for calling out on his foul actions while he continued to spew more insulting remarks against Americans.

Which brings to the potential problem of power abuse against members. Banning people for unjustified and irrational reasons is unacceptable, no matter how you look at it.

 

Alright, I've heard enough. I believe everything that needs to be said on this matter has been said. I'm requesting a mod lock this until Seph decides which way this is going to go.

I'd like to thank loonylion for his co-operation in being honest about his actions and the intentions thereof, and ricky for his objective view on things. My stance remains the same: That Void and LK should not have been banned, due to an error in interpretation of their posts and a questionable application of rules to secure their ban.

That is all.