Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Edwardo Piet]

You have a strange way of leaving forever EP, it almost looks like you're going 'round in circles

EP is chasing his own fluffy little Penguin tail. Look how overExcited he gets.... he gets all overExcited in such a cunt-bastardly way too, doesn't he? How cute.

[Excited Penguin]

Never mind, everyone. Let's just pretend nothing happened. I'm willing to do that. Very well.

You can move on with the discussion, lest I derail the thread again.

[Angrboda]

I dare any of the stuff provide me with one single legitimate reason for why I got banned and I'll accept it. One single post. Anything at all. And then explain to me how that's breaking a rule.

This is wholly inappropriate. Trying to have your case aired in a thread about a new rule is exactly the type of disruption that you claim you don't do. As stated, this is not a democracy, and it is wrong of you to ask the staff to make a public defense of their actions. Staff deliberations are private and if you have questions about your being disciplined, then you should take it to PM with staff. All you are accomplishing here is to justify the poor opinions people have of you.

[SofaKingHigh]

Good, fuck off then.

There you go. That's both trolling and flaming. Let's witness the objectivity of the staff first-hand.

Oh, wait, it's only that when I do it. You lot disgust me.

No, it isn't.  It is me telling you to fuck off.

You clearly don't like this site, or the people who post on it.  You most certainly have insulted posters here, some who definitely did not deserve it.  You have acted the playground bully, then when called on it, cry like the immature fuckwit you are.

You've made your bed my old son, now it is time to lie in it.

[Longhorn]

Sorry Stimbo. I got a little prophetic in my last post....

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're being a dumbass.  This is a privately-owned website which is subject to the rules of the guy who pays the bills.

You'll learn that once Mom kicks you out.

Dumbfuck.

We have a forum Mom?

Well, yeah, don't we? <looks around>

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Let's clear some things up.

We are not a democracy. You sign up to the forum and explicitly accept the rules. You were deemed by the staff, after discussions and reports were filed against you, to have broken the rules.

Consider that on most other forums this would not have happened. Your behaviour in here would, in all likelihood, resulted in a permanent ban straight off the bat. We tend not to do that, even where it is agreed that someone is repeatedly breaking the rules. In this instance therefore, to say we actions against you for 'illegitimate reasons' is nonsensical. However, we do not ban people for no reason.

Neither do we ban people for havin disagreeable views (or even calling us 'cunts'). If we did, then why are there still people like Drich here? Who have some of the most morally repugnant and downright nasty opinions and views about people? I'll tell you why, because there is a clear set of rules that apply to everyone. He hasn't broken them, because being disagreeable isn't against them. You did, for the reasons stated.

So we're not going to ban you. You can call us cunts all you like, but until you do something actionable as per the rules, you'll have to be content embarrassing yourself on the open forum by claiming you're being persecuted when it's patently clear to everyone you're not.

You can't be serious right now. I proved without a doubt that certain users were both trolling and flaming me and you failed to ban them. What is your justification for that? That I didn't report their posts?

The fact that you banned me for "harrassing new members" is simply laughable.

The fact that you banned me for derailing threads is equally as ridiculous. If you read carefully my every interaction in these forums, it's me stating a benign opinion and everybody else jumping on my case for no reason at all. The rest is me responding in kind. I never insulted someone who didn't insult me first. Yet I'm the only one who got banned as a result.


I got banned because CD wanted me to get banned, period. He admitted as much. I never broke any rules and you all know this. If I did, you would be perfectly able to demonstrate it. But you dont want to go in the nitty-gritty with me because while I didn't break any rules I raised some good points here that made a lot of folks uncomfortable. So, at the end of the day, it seems there is a price to be paid for being a non-comformist. Your jobs as moderators were to be objective. You failed to do that in my case. I can't see how I can continue using these forums when I know that simply by being myself I will get abused and banned the very next time some half-assed dipshit gets "offended" by me.

^^

No. You didn't get banned because CD wanted you to be banned. You were banned because the staff discussed your rule violations and came to the conclusion that, in conjunction with your previous run ins with staff and other members, that you warranted a 2 week ban.

I don't much care for what you thinkhappened, and neither does anyone else. Neither do I care about what rules you think you didn't break. In our eyes you broke them, and were dealt with accordingly (and fairly). That's all that matters.

Now I must further iterate that, whilst calling staff decisions into question is a legitimate concern and rightly aired when warranted (not in this case), it must be done so in the correct place using the correct procedure.

Please read and understand, nobody here is accountable to you. Nobody on the staff, all volunteers and many of whom donate time and money to the running of this forum, are going to give people who continually try and justify their behaviour which led to their (temporary) ban the time of day.

I'm not responding to you any further on this. If you have a grievance, first read the rules and then bring them up using the correct medium.

[Edwardo Piet]

Never mind, everyone. Let's just pretend nothing happened. I'm willing to do that. Very well.

You can move on with the discussion, lest I derail the thread again.

[Edwardo Piet]

There you go. That's both trolling and flaming. Let's witness the objectivity of the staff first-hand.

Oh, wait, it's only that when I do it. You lot disgust me.

Um... that isn't trolling or flaming.

No wonder you think you were never guilty of either of those if you clearly don't know what they are, AF Rules-wise.

[Cyberman]

Sorry Stimbo. I got a little prophetic in my last post....

No worries, it was what I believe is termed a foreskin conclusion; or something like that. Something knob related anyway.