Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[red_flanders]

I think Amsterhammer is a great poster, but come on. It's a week ban. Serve the time and move on, we don't all have to make a big deal out of it. If it were a permaban I'd be raising hell with you, but let's let the mods do their thing. It ain't easy, I can tell you that.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Yep, complaining about a one week ban is laughable. Amster can take it, hes not a kid and will be back.

I'm much more concerned about Foxxy, a poster who I think is needed longer term on this board,

 

[python]

Re: Re:

AFAIK, Amster went crazy about a post that had been edited by mods, had not much to do with Foxxy tbh. He complained in several treads and kept pushing it although mods repeatedly told him to stop. I won't make any judgement to what extent the ban was justified, but I can understand that the mods got crazy about it, and he did not listen at all to their responses.

...wanted to quote you for a balance.

my view of what happened to amster (and to that extent, to sniper, blackcat and even foxxy) isn't going to make me popular with the current mods. yet, i do feel that the 2 posts above i. harm's are excessively sweet. in fact, they represent a naturally understandable (yet quite inaccurate) view of a poster that belongs to their buddy system (a j-circle if you will)...to add to the confusion, i agree most of the time with at least 1 of the artificial sweats, and i certainly don't support the majority of foxxy's views. glen ? well, very little to glean anything solid there, imho .
you see, i am willing to to 'take fire' from all sides...and i may later in fact face your ire if my younger daughter's stuff lets me.
'

but you need to pay attention to 2 main points i made. both i trust were squarely on-topic: 1st, amster was imo over moderated. a 3-day ban imo would be enough.
2nd, you put way too much sugar on his ban (at least for those who followed his posts) to take you seriously. the guy, like most of us, has had his share of fights etc. was banned before etc. you just need to to take the j-circle, buddy-muddy logic out of the equation.

amster will be back, his ban is almost over and there isn't much more there to worry about.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

I'm much more concerned about Foxxy, a poster who I think is needed longer term on this board,

Dazed and confused eh?

I'd say that's about right.

 

[BigMac]

Nobody is on a jay-circle. Please appreciate and depreciate without going personal.

Cheers.

 

[Irondan]

Post, not poster.

That's the reason some posts got edited and deleted.

Also, that's enough of the back and forth with tit for tat

 

[MarkvW]

Re:

Yep, complaining about a one week ban is laughable. Amster can take it, hes not a kid and will be back.

I'm much more concerned about Foxxy, a poster who I think is needed longer term on this board,

Racist posting simply cannot be tolerated.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Yep, complaining about a one week ban is laughable. Amster can take it, hes not a kid and will be back.

I'm much more concerned about Foxxy, a poster who I think is needed longer term on this board,

Racist posting simply cannot be tolerated.

* should not.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Post, not poster.

That's the reason some posts got edited and deleted.

Also, that's enough of the back and forth with tit for tat

Not one to get pedantic, but this is the 'Member Suspension.......thread", which means it is about the poster.

Obv no need for tit for tat.

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry to see sniper get a 3 month ban. I like his postings. Yep he can be like a dog with bone about certain topics, but that should not be a reason for such a lengthy ban.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Post, not poster.

That's the reason some posts got edited and deleted.

Also, that's enough of the back and forth with tit for tat

Not one to get pedantic, but this is the 'Member Suspension.......thread", which means it is about the poster.

Obv no need for tit for tat.

Comments in this thread are about the suspended member, not the poster that posted about the suspended member, ect.

You took that out of context.

It was precisely a "post, not poster" situation.

I understand how you might read it differently because the words that violated the "post, not poster" rule were deleted. I've already said that. You even quoted me saying that.

Also, I don't need help interpreting forum rules or require a thread definition Benotti, but thanks.

 

[red_flanders]

Re:

Sorry to see sniper get a 3 month ban. I like his postings. Yep he can be like a dog with bone about certain topics, but that should not be a reason for such a lengthy ban.

Seems silly to have to point it out, but that wasn't the reason given for the ban.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Sorry to see sniper get a 3 month ban. I like his postings. Yep he can be like a dog with bone about certain topics, but that should not be a reason for such a lengthy ban.

Seems silly to have to point it out, but that wasn't the reason given for the ban.

Yes it was but the length was IMO OTT.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Post, not poster.

That's the reason some posts got edited and deleted.

Also, that's enough of the back and forth with tit for tat

Not one to get pedantic, but this is the 'Member Suspension.......thread", which means it is about the poster.

Obv no need for tit for tat.

Comments in this thread are about the suspended member, not the poster that posted about the suspended member, ect.

You took that out of context.

It was precisely a "post, not poster" situation.

I understand how you might read it differently because the words that violated the "post, not poster" rule were deleted. I've already said that. You even quoted me saying that.

Also, I don't need help interpreting forum rules or require a thread definition Benotti, but thanks.

It was not a criticism. And yep i missed the context.

"Comments in this thread are about the suspended member" s

 

[ebandit]

12 months for chewie....................that's harsh................

if i had any idea what being institutionally belligerent meant....it could be fair........

Mark L

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

12 months for chewie....................that's harsh................

if i had any idea what being institutionally belligerent meant....it could be fair........

Mark L

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

12 months for chewie....................that's harsh................

if i had any idea what being institutionally belligerent meant....it could be fair........

Mark L

I have no idea but Chewie and I have never gotten along. That being said - a year is fair? He has his opinions and sticks to them.
This is a message board folks where people go back and forth - makes it fun.
Oh well then again what is institutionally belligerent? No disrespect to the Moderators.

 

[Scott SoCal]

As one of the primary recipients of Chewie's institutional belligerence I can tell you mods that his ban is ridiculous. If you can't handle the colorful then you really should check yourselves. That or fold up the tent I it's entirety. This is the fourth really poor episode that I can remember - each time a bit worse than the last. Babes fiasco, Joe Papp fiasco, Maserti fiasco and now this.

These decisions are supposed to benefit the forum.

Edit: I'll post this in the mod thread too. Mods feel free to delete which one doesn't belong.

 

[BigMac]

Here will do.

 

[blutto]

.....awww.....come....on !!!!.....12 months !!!!!.....for an offence that frankly reads like gobbledygook...

...Chewie and I have had some wicked spats and some good times too and thru it all I ended up really admiring his wit, gusto, brains, tenacity, ability to turn a phrase.....and I can say without reservation that this forum will be a much poorer place for the next 12 months, much much poorer...

Most Definitely No Cheers Today

 

[MarkvW]

ChewbaccaD got away with murder for a long time. I expect he was well warned before his last incident.

 

[blutto]

Re:

ChewbaccaD got away with murder for a long time. I expect he was well warned before his last incident.

....I'm quite surprised that a proper upstanding citizen such as yourself would not realize that it is very bad form to dance on someone's grave....

Cheers

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

ChewbaccaD got away with murder for a long time. I expect he was well warned before his last incident.

....I'm quite surprised that a proper upstanding citizen such as yourself would not realize that it is very bad form to dance on someone's grave....

Cheers

He was begging for it, for years.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

ChewbaccaD got away with murder for a long time. I expect he was well warned before his last incident.

....I'm quite surprised that a proper upstanding citizen such as yourself would not realize that it is very bad form to dance on someone's grave....

Cheers

He was begging for it, for years.

Pushing the envelope maybe. There's at least one recently returned member who is considerably more disruptful than Chewie ever thought of being.

I'm with B on this one.

 

[the delgados]

Chewbacca routinely got on my nerves, but he always brought something to the table, and I respected him for doing so. I'm sure he has insulted me in the past, but here's the thing: I get over it; as do most people here. No need to ban because someone has a tendency to be belligerent from time to time. Not a big deal.
Really, the banning/suspending is getting way out of hand.