Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation Thread

[Netserk]

but you didn't delete that post, did you? It worked

I deleted half of the post...

 

[Eshnar]

I deleted half of the post...

duh. Half effective then

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No Mas, I'm not 'baiting to set you up for a ban', and you were the one who started with the deflection. I may not trust in my abilities, but I will nonetheless edit your post(s) if they require so. I have never banned you for no reason. It's a (good) reason to ban someone for re-posting moved/deleted material several times after being explicitly told not to do so. Dishonesty about one of your prior bans doesn't do you any good.

I said "my post" - quite specific to the post it was in.

And do not dare suggest I am being dishonest.

...

Here's your answer: No. Airstream weren't a sockpuppet.

...

Will you answer the question that you deflected, before we had our conversation?

No - the reason I asked the question is because I do not know, we are not privy to that.
You decided, in your wisdom to respond with a deflection.

We will try again.

Dr Lexus, sockpuppet? First time ban?
Ianfra, sockpuppet? First time ban?

 

[Netserk]

I said "my post" - quite specific to the post it was in.

"Indeed you have already banned me once for no reason"

Sorry I don't see "my post" there.

And do not dare suggest I am being dishonest.

When claiming that I banned you for no reason, when there was a reason is what, if not dishonest?

No - the reason I asked the question is because I do not know, we are not privy to that.

Yes you are: Member Suspensions

Here it goes again:

not the first time they were banned, was it?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I sense another thread permaclosed grazie a our dear friend doc V.

 

[BroDeal]

LOL. Just as I expected: D-bags would use the new rules to shut down opinions they don't like by constantly complaining to mods and threads would bog down with people arguing over whether rules have been violated. It is also not surprising the chief instigator would be the one who plays the victim in every other post, even as he does the same thing he always sobs about to others.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Indeed you have already banned me once for no reason"

Sorry I don't see "my post" there.

I was responding to the other part of your post, where you said you would/could edit etc as you saw fit.
I was being specific to that particular post.

When claiming that I banned you for no reason, when there was a reason is what, if not dishonest?

To clarify, you kept deleting a valid post for no reason. I reposted it and without a warning you banned me.

Yes you are: Member Suspensions

Here it goes again:

And I have checked that thread already - that is why I asked.

So again - Dr Lexus, sockpuppet? First time ban?
Ianfra, sockpuppet? First time ban?

 

[Netserk]

I was responding to the other part of your post, where you said you would/could edit etc as you saw fit.
I was being specific to that particular post.


To clarify, you kept deleting a valid post for no reason. I reposted it and without a warning you banned me.



And I have checked that thread already - that is why I asked.

So again - Dr Lexus, sockpuppet? First time ban?
Ianfra, sockpuppet? First time ban?

To the Underlined: There's some more dishonesty.

To the Bolded: So why haven't you answered, but instead deflected?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To the Underlined: There's some more dishonesty.

Feel free to post that "warning" I got, even the PM.

To the Bolded: So why haven't you answered, but instead deflected?

WTF are you on about?

Do you guys at all times post every single suspension in that thread?
To save more deflection - the answer is "no".

So, that is why I checked, neither DrL or Ianfra had any mention of earlier suspensions - that is why I then asked you guys.

 

[Eshnar]

So, that is why I checked, neither DrL or Ianfra had any mention of earlier suspensions - that is why I then asked you guys.

wrong. Check posts #201 and #231.

For Dr.Lexus I can't find any, so probably there really aren't.

edit: for Airstream, #257 and #291

you're not very good at searching.

 

[Netserk]

WTF are you on about?

1)Do you guys at all times post every single suspension in that thread?

2)To save more deflection - the answer is "no".

So, that is why I checked, neither DrL or Ianfra had any mention of earlier suspensions - that is why I then asked you guys.

1)We do our best to do so. I think it's more or less only spam, BPC and other sockpuppets (sometimes) that are not posted there. Everything else is AFAIK.

2) The answer is yes. There's a search option in the thread. It's very helpful.

...

You mention three names.

Ianfra - Previously banned.
Airstream - Previously banned.
Dr. Lexus - I know the the post in the Suspension thread says he is banned for trolling (which is also correct), but he was also found to be BPC.

...

So to address the original main point:

How many times in total now whilst others are banned for good first time out

How many non-sockpuppets are 'banned for good first time out'?

AFAIK only spam and sockpuppets gets 'banned for good first time out', and since thehog doesn't post spam nor is a sockpuppet, (the point of) my question was a rebuttal(not sure if correct use of this word, ESL, but I think you get my point) to his post.

 

[the sceptic]

LOL. Just as I expected: D-bags would use the new rules to shut down opinions they don't like by constantly complaining to mods and threads would bog down with people arguing over whether rules have been violated. It is also not surprising the chief instigator would be the one who plays the victim in every other post, even as he does the same thing he always sobs about to others.

ball, not man Brodeal. This post is in clear violation of the forum rules.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

wrong. Check posts #201 and #231.

For Dr.Lexus I can't find any, so probably there really aren't.

edit: for Airstream, #257 and #291

you're not very good at searching.

Thanks, I had missed ianfra.

1)We do our best to do so. I think it's more or less only spam, BPC and other sockpuppets (sometimes) that are not posted there. Everything else is AFAIK.

2) The answer is yes. There's a search option in the thread. It's very helpful.

...

You mention three names.

Ianfra - Previously banned.
Airstream - Previously banned.
Dr. Lexus - I know the the post in the Suspension thread says he is banned for trolling (which is also correct), but he was also found to be BPC.

...

So to address the original main point:




AFAIK only spam and sockpuppets gets 'banned for good first time out', and since thehog doesn't post spam nor is a sockpuppet, (the point of) my question was a rebuttal(not sure if correct use of this word, ESL, but I think you get my point) to his post.

Why did you not post this earlier? *Rhetorical question* no need to answer.

The whole point of me asking is the DrL one did not say it was for trolling, not a returned user.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Holy jesus christ is this discussion still going on? Does anyone have any idea what what it's about still? Wow.

 

[Netserk]

Thanks, I had missed ianfra.


Why did you not post this earlier? *Rhetorical question* no need to answer.

The whole point of me asking is the DrL one did not say it was for trolling, not a returned user.

Maybe we would've got to that point a lot earlier if there had been less deflection (which you were the first to do) and dishonesty (which I think you were the only to do)

 

[Netserk]

Holy jesus christ is this discussion still going on? Does anyone have any idea what what it's about still? Wow.

That's why I ended my post with this: "So to address the original main point:"

 

[BroDeal]

ball, not man Brodeal. This post is in clear violation of the forum rules.

Who cares? The mods probably have such a backlog of Vicker's complaints that it will take weeks to get though them all. Everything will have blown over by the the next time I log in to see how much worse the forum has become.

I propose the new rules be termed the "Vortex rules" because it is obvious the mods decided we needed more of that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Maybe we would've got to that point a lot earlier if there had been less deflection (which you were the first to do) and dishonesty (which I think you were the only to do)

Please post the "warning" that you sent to me.

Or - and I am allowed use this as one of the other mods used it to me, STFU.

Who cares? The mods probably have such a backlog of Vicker's complaints that it will take weeks to get though them all. Everything will have blown over by the the next time I log in to see how much worse the forum has become.

I propose the new rules be termed the "Vortex rules" because it is obvious the mods decided we needed more of that.

The new rules have nothing to do with me (in fact, I want less rules)- Alpe had great 'rules' here before, common sense, easy peasy.
Nothing wrong with them except they were not implemented.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Holy jesus christ is this discussion still going on? Does anyone have any idea what what it's about still? Wow.

It started with " I will try to be a wise-guy".

 

[LaFlorecita]

That's why I ended my post with this: "So to address the original main point:"

Lol

It started with " I will try to be a wise-guy".

Nice

Seriously though this seems to have turned into arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Cyivel]

Cannae lie, I've enjoyed this back and forth.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Cannae lie, I've enjoyed this back and forth.

There could be less of that if people answers question stead of trying to be a wise guy. wise guys are never wise men

 

[kielbasa]

Lol
Seriously though this seems to have turned into arguing for the sake of arguing.

No it hasn't. I think it's all been very constructive. An equitable resolution to all perceived wrongs is at hand.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Complaints on moderation can come to me, I'll do my best to answer them quickly.

Dan

 

[Cyivel]

Thank You, Dan.