RE: Objections to the April Fools Day prank.
April 4, 2012 at 4:49 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2012 at 5:00 pm by AthiestAtheist.)
(April 4, 2012 at 4:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(April 4, 2012 at 4:36 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.I fail to see how our excuses aren't valid. We were doing a prank for April Fools Day; it was a one off thing, and we came right out and revealed ourselves at the end. Our actions held no malice.
This cannot be said for anyone else involved in this dispute.
I was actually speaking generally, but here are the type of excuses I'm talking about:
1. It's my site
2. It was a joke
3. He/she was being disruptive (while simultaneously being disruptive).
These are rather poor reasons to ban someone while at the same time instigating by breaking the same rules.
(April 4, 2012 at 4:40 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:(April 4, 2012 at 4:36 pm)AthiestAtheist Wrote: Why is it that the mods get to use every excuse in the book, but when someone just gets angry, it's Ban City? Once again I must point out the hypocrisy here.
Once again, misrepresenting the facts to meet your rhetoric.
Let's consider a certain recent poster whom was banned and claimed to be "angry"...
Being angry is simply posting again and again in one thread. Being angry is sending PM's to the staff and attempting to communicate first before jumping to conclusions publicly, swearing in said PM's if need be.
Posting all over your profile "They deleted my posts" when it can be verified in the public's eye that said posts are there? Publicly claiming the same thing across multiple threads? Using said profile as a billboard for posting accusations about the character of this place?
That's not "angry."
That's flat out lying and malicious.
Look, this is the type of thing I'm talking about:
Person: (something stupid)
Mod: *criticizes*
Person: *criticizes back*
Mod: *insults*
Person: *insults back*
Mod: *bans*
What gives the (same!) mod the right to ban someone for insulting someone (or being disruptive, etc.) after they themselves drove them to insulting them while breaking the rules at the same time? Usually it comes down to something like "they were being way more disruptive". So the mod is completely in the right because they were being "less" disruptive? That is very immature reasoning, and a poor example for others to follow. This isn't evidence, but it does describe the pattern I've noticed on this site.
"Sisters, you know only the north; I have traveled in the south lands. There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar did--not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if a war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."
-Ruta Skadi, The Subtle Knife
-Ruta Skadi, The Subtle Knife
