Deleting threads, stupid or not

[maxama10]

OK, last time...

Nobody was banned for simply linking to PBL. The member in question was banned for his actions against the wishes of the moderators and the owner of this website, concerning the reason for the link.

Oh, alrighty. Err sorry. Thanks Army!

[BigEvil]

The member in question was banned for his actions against the wishes of the moderators and the owner of this website, concerning the reason for the link.

Hey Army - I have to respectfully disagree with that...

The situation that RogueFactor was banned for was posting a link to www.pblegion.com and the wish of the moderator(Beemer) was that Rogue not link to www.pblegion.com

Which by the way, is contrary to the story Beemer gave for RogueFactor's banning. The mods can't even get on the same page about why he was banned - or do not know the whole story. Beemer posted on AO that Rogue was banned for his link to an Automags.org SPAM thread that hadn't been moderated and contained porn. Beemer's post has since been deleted by one of the mod's.

So, then to be perfectly clear here Army, can anyone post links to www.pblegion.com now? Or are you saying that posting to www.pblegion.com is against the wishes of the moderators and owner of this website?

And will it get me (Or anyone else) banned? Or is it that only RogueFactor cant post to www.pblegion.com? Because that would crack me up if it were only him.

^I cant believe I used to do this stuff for him^

[TheTexan]

quick question DM is making a fair debate while lohman calls him an idiot and him friends post pictures and name calling post with no meaning and DM gets baned?
Someone post www.pblegion.com and they get baned because it isn't good with the mods. Lets not even start with beemers closing locking and bans that shouldn't have been. Its a shame this place has gone. On the good side cheers to pblegion lets get a beer bigevil.

[Lohman446]

quick question DM is making a fair debate while lohman calls him an idiot and him friends post pictures and name calling post with no meaning and DM gets baned?
Someone post www.pblegion.com and they get baned because it isn't good with the mods. Lets not even start with beemers closing locking and bans that shouldn't have been. Its a shame this place has gone. On the good side cheers to pblegion lets get a beer bigevil.

DM got banned for innappropriate posting. As did the person supposedly banned for just posting a link, Army has stated both. If you are going to call reality wrong (because it is inconvenient for your position), and state whatever you want regardless of truth it is hardly a fair debate.

[TheTexan]

DM got banned for innappropriate posting. As did the person supposedly banned for just posting a link, Army has stated both. If you are going to call reality wrong (because it is inconvenient for your position), and state whatever you want regardless of truth it is hardly a fair debate.

your right it isnt because you had not points

[Lohman446]

your right it isnt because you had not points

Rogue was banned for disruptive behaviour. Noone was banned for simply posting a link to PBL. Are you arguing that someone was even after Army stated noone was?

Even *if* someone was banned for posting a link comparing it to major socio-political events was a ludicrous stretch of analogies that represent a seeming lack of understanding of those events. Regardless Army has told us there was not. Is it reasonable to beleive that the moderators are engaging in some cover up? I would think not, after all if the moderators wanted to prevent someone from doing something they could simply warn them. If after a warning someone continued to do it it would indicate a total lack of respect for the owner and administration of this forum as well as an intent to be disruptive. At that point any ban would be, to use words some seem so found of "fair and just".

[TheTexan]

Rogue was banned for disruptive behaviour. Noone was banned for simply posting a link to PBL. Are you arguing that someone was even after Army stated noone was?

Even *if* someone was banned for posting a link comparing it to major socio-political events was a ludicrous stretch of analogies that represent a seeming lack of understanding of those events. Regardless Army has told us there was not. Is it reasonable to beleive that the moderators are engaging in some cover up? I would think not, after all if the moderators wanted to prevent someone from doing something they could simply warn them. If after a warning someone continued to do it it would indicate a total lack of respect for the owner and administration of this forum as well as an intent to be disruptive. At that point any ban would be, to use words some seem so found of "fair and just".

No I am not arguing what army said and I don't even want to debate with you because you will cry to army like you did to DM.

[RogueFactor]

Rogue was banned for disruptive behaviour. Noone was banned for simply posting a link to PBL. Are you arguing that someone was even after Army stated noone was?

And that disruptive behavior was posting a link to PBL, which is not against the rules. As usual, you dont know what you are talking about Lohman...again.

If after a warning someone continued to do it it would indicate a total lack of respect for the owner and administration of this forum as well as an intent to be disruptive.At that point any ban would be, to use words some seem so found of "fair and just".

There cant be intent to be dispruptive if the action committed isnt against the rules. Your logic...is flawed.

Let me clue you in on this. TK supports, financially, this forum at basically no gain to himself. Make this into work, into a problem, and the plug can be easily pulled on it.

Let me clue you in to reality. This is but one of many examples where you have bad info. Zupe pays for the upkeep of this forum, not Tom. This has been known for years. Except by a few who have no clue whats going on around here.

[Lohman446]

And that disruptive behavior was posting a link to PBL, which is not against the rules. As usual, you dont know what you are talking about Lohman...again.

Army specifically said it was not Rogue. If I beleive Army (and obviously you don't) of course our opinions of the outcome are going to be different.

No I am not arguing what army said and I don't even want to debate with you because you will cry to army like you did to DM.

Read my posts on the the Thorums and see if I ever asked Army to have anything to do with this. However, seems how you don't seem to disagree with what Army said and make no point to argue it and accept "noone was banned for simply linking to PBL" what is the problem?

[RogueFactor]

Army specifically said it was not Rogue. If I beleive Army (and obviously you don't) of course our opinions of the outcome are going to be different.

Right, so you have 3rd hand info? And Army 2nd hand info? Im the one who CC'd Army the PM's between me & Beemer

I have first-hand info. It was me and Beemer, and me & RobAGD. Army wasnt involved except as a spectator. I have no 'dirty laundry' to worry about airing. So Ive let it be known exactly what happened.

You, youve got bad info. Believe it if you want, doesnt mean its factual. Opinions are based on a lack of fact. Thats why what you believe is an opinion.

[RogueFactor]

Hey I know why don't we all argue over the semantics and legitimacy of a very simple-to-understand rule with a guy whose job isn't to make the rules but to enforce them. Never mind that since he is, you know, sacrificing the comforts of civilized life to fight for your freedom and stuff, he might have other stuff to worry about other than a bunch of whiny dickheads on an internet message board.

Edit: Dave if "dickheads" is against the flaming rules then I guess I'll take one for the team but for the record it felt really good.

Edit: Part Deux: The Reckoning: 5 days till Christmas but I'm still all .

Edit: Part Tres: La Mochila: Page 3 Second Gunman.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2461022&postcount=61

BTW----Was this thread ever going to be moderated, and the user banned for cussing?

[ThePixelGuru]

Lohman, you're still debating the wrong issues here. There are plenty of specific examples of weird bans in this thread if you'd just stop reading only the parts you want to. Anyone who's been banned for tripping the cuss filter has been banned for breaking a rule that was never stated. Rogue got banned for posting a link to PBL, though it was called "disruptive behavior" because he was warned not to link to PBL (justify that warning, if you can). Any time a user is not banned for flaming even when they admit to flaming (like teufelhunden in the Manifesto thread), registers with a dirty name (I won't call them out by name, but there's a flying vagina and a trash butthole, for example), or you see the guy who dodges to cuss filter to use a gay slur in his location tag, that's what we're talking about. Any time a user asks for a reasonable explanation of the rules or their enforcement and the moderators delete or lock the thread instead of offering or even just allowing reasonable discussion, that's what we're talking about. Any time a thread is locked because someone posted a PBL link, or when a link is deleted, that's what we're talking about. How's that for specifics? I just didn't get into specifics because I didn't want to distract from the main issue, which is the ban policy, and not the bans that are over and done with. It's clear to me that you do want to drag in semantics about these specific instances because it allows you to avoid discussing the real issue at hand, which is the ban policy.

As for your counter-analogy, it's invalid. You're talking about laws that are never enforced against anyone, while I'm talking about rules enforced selectively against personal enemies/grudges of the moderators. That's a difference in kind, not in scale. The Berlin Wall and deleting links to PBL are both the same kind of intent and goal (that being to keep people from leaving), the difference being the scale of the effort. Shooting people and banning them are kinds of enforcement, different in scale. Hence, the difference between the situations is in scale, not in kind, making it a valid analogy. Your analogy, however, is invalid, because the issue of non-enforcement and selective enforcement are different in kind. Again, scale is the mutable factor here, and can change to make one's point. In fact, this is the very definition of an analogy. If I said that two fat people running into each other was like two planets colliding, you would understand that I was attempting to convey the kind of collision here and not the scale. Again, though, I'm not sure if you are really this bad at debating, logic, and analogies, or if you're just trying to derail the discussion further.

To recap: there are many specific instances in which the moderators have not followed their own rules, and analogies are a valid way to talk about an issue and require similarities in kind, not in scale. None of this is the point. The point is that the ban policy needs to be changed, and moderators need to follow it. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Lohman446]

Tipping the cuss filter means you cussed - the rule is no cussing. There is another rule that says no circumvention. Is this not accurate?

[ThePixelGuru]

Tipping the cuss filter means you cussed - the rule is no cussing. There is another rule that says no circumvention. Is this not accurate?

Oh wow, you caught me in a misspeak. I should have said "posting four asterisks in a row," which has the same end result. I could have asked you what "tipping the cuss filter" was, but I didn't because that's not the issue you meant to bring up. Try that sometime, then maybe you can say something useful or relevant to the issue at hand. I'm ignoring you until you do.

[Lohman446]

Oh wow, you caught me in a misspeak. I should have said "posting four asterisks in a row," which has the same end result. I could have asked you what "tipping the cuss filter" was, but I didn't because that's not the issue you meant to bring up. Try that sometime, then maybe you can say something useful or relevant to the issue at hand. I'm ignoring you until you do.

So, asking you for clarification is not ok? Whats the difference between typing in four asteriks where a cuss word fits and circumventing the filter?