Why is having a mod on the ignore list against rules?

[pocaracas]

Always two there are... sides to an argument.

It seems there was some communications problem between you two...
Can't say I'm happy to see TGAC banned... I expected him to just go away on his own time...

[Marvin]

Despite The Germans are coming being permanently banned,

Has he?
Was he?

ahhh

Of course I'm on record warning against being deceived by his deceptive likeable likeableness.

[Zazzy]

I liked TGAC, and his posts here didn't seem much worse in terms of personal attacks than I've seen elsewhere here. Is it that he attacked the boss?

Also, I don't see Tj***pii (however he spells that) as being a worse flamer than others here. How is this sort of thing decided?

[Tiberius]

When you break the rules time and time again, then come back and complain about being called an anti-semite whilst in the same thread calling another member a child abuser, there isn't much of a choice you are giving the staff. That kind of behaviour is considered libelous in a number of countries.

I liked TGAC, and his posts here didn't seem much worse in terms of personal attacks than I've seen elsewhere here. Is it that he attacked the boss?

No. He called someone a child abuser in this thread. For me, that already steps over the line of what is acceptable behaviour. To do it so soon after being officially warned for another rule violation is just plain stupid.

Also, I don't see Tj***pii (however he spells that) as being a worse flamer than others here. How is this sort of thing decided?

Read the rules. Generally speaking, attacks have to have some kind of personal aspect to them. Over the top flaming is a punishable offense. Of course, if you feel that someone has violated the rules, use the report button. We can't be in every thread on the forums at all times...we will miss things.

[Esquilax]

Also, I don't see Tj***pii (however he spells that) as being a worse flamer than others here. How is this sort of thing decided?

It's something all the mods discuss and decide beforehand. In Tiploca's case, he came right out of the gate ranting and raving and breaking numerous rules, even after he was cautioned against doing so. There didn't seem much hope in that changing, and so I got my first swing of the banhammer.

[LastPoet]

I liked TGAC, and his posts here didn't seem much worse in terms of personal attacks than I've seen elsewhere here. Is it that he attacked the boss?

Nope, he was banned for multiple personal attacks. In his case the tipping point was for that shamefull attack to A Theist, a member that hasn't been around for some time, after accusing others of things they didn't do. As to Tiberius, he is a big boy and can handle him on his own. Infact, he removed himself from voting in this matter. The decision was unanimous amongst the remainder of the staff, despite the fact that some of us like what he had to say in many subjects. It just didn't justify his continued forum rule breaks.

Also, I don't see Tj***pii (however he spells that) as being a worse flamer than others here. How is this sort of thing decided?

Look again, we deal with issues one at the time Esquilax already dealt with him/her.

It's something all the mods discuss and decide beforehand. In Tiploca's case, he came right out of the gate ranting and raving and breaking numerous rules, even after he was cautioned against doing so. There didn't seem much hope in that changing, and so I got my first swing of the banhammer.

I hope you cleaned the banhammer and left it ready to use

[rexbeccarox]

Bummer.

[Captain Colostomy]

This isn't a wolf pack. Here if you challenge the alpha male, all the other wolves bare their teeth and jump your shit. And rightly so, may I add.

"Ours is not to question why, only but to do or die." Surprisingly, and to their credit, AF staff does allow the questions. It's when the questioner is unsatisfied with the answer that shit happens. That's a better situation than most forums allow.

[Psykhronic]

It's a shame, TGAC was a lot of fun when not pissed. His anger though, out of control - he seems to lack to ability to step away from the keyboard and calm down before posting. I cannot condone his treatment of Tiberius and his accusations towards A Theist, even if done out of impulsive rage, drunk or otherwise. Also, I quite dislike how he blew off Stimbo's suggestion on how to release some anger before posting simply because he was pissed/drunk.

---

I would also like to add - the mods do the best they can to be unbiased and rational in their decisions. That is awesome, thank you mods.

[FlyingNarwhal]

---

Despite The Germans are coming being permanently banned, I think I at least deserve the chance to counter some of the things he said in this thread which are completely untrue.

Tiberius willingly wronged me through dishonest behavior, I left the forum for 2 months out of disgust and rage and when coming back decided after some time that I do not want to engage in any form of conversation with him in any way since he hat lost all credibility and ,most importent of all: because I wanted to avoid lowering myself down on his dishonest character by enaging with him.

Right, let's get one thing clear off the bat. There was no "willingly" wronging of anyone here. You objected to my stance on how I would deal with racist friends, and made several posts (including one thread specifically targeting me) alluding to me being a racist sympathizer or indeed, a racist itself. You also took my position to the extreme, comparing my choice of remaining friends with racists to hanging out and drinking with members of the Nazi SS. Nobody in their right mind would equate the two; they are totally different.

When you came back, you actually sent me a PM asking if you needed to apologize to me for your behaviour. Who is being dishonest now? You write like I've done some terrible wrong to you, yet it was you who felt the need to ask if I felt wronged. I told you at the time that it was up to you to determine whether you wanted the apologize. I didn't demand anything of you.

The creator of an institution who has assigned a rule book of equality has absolutly no power of determining the way people have to be treated in this institution.

The reason why I left this forum for 2 months was because I suspected that he had the power to do whatever he wanted without facing any consequences.

Then you suspected wrong, as any member of staff will gladly testify. The rules apply to us just as much as anyone else. Additionally, with any issue that contains potential biases, we remove ourselves from the decision making process, as I have highlighted before. Whilst I was the person who reported your personal attack against A Theist, I immediately voided any vote I may have in what the punishment should be. Thankfully, the rest of the staff decided that you had gone too far, too often, and permanently banned you.

Coming back I put him on my ignore list so I could avoid him because I believed him to have that power signed to himself by himself.

You believed, but never asked, nor sought out the truth of the matter. That is your own fault.

AND NOT! Because I wanted to defy the rules of this forum.

That is rather irrelevant. If you agree to a set of rules when you sign up, then you get punished when you break them, even if it was not your intention to break them. Ignorance is not an excuse.

And should I find him ever to wrong anyone again in such a disgusting way and he wont face consequences I will leave.

The only way I can think I've ever wronged you is by disagreeing with you, which isn't a crime, nor is it against the rules in a discussion forum.

Tiberius is a deceitfull and dishonest bully and no matter whatever your possition whereever maybe, if you wrong someone, you should face responsibility!

You are the only one being deceitful here, by not disclosing the full facts of the matter.

I do not have anything to apologise for. In fact, I gave him the chance to settle this.

Ironically, you "gave me the chance" to settle this by asking me whether you needed to apologize to me. It was only later that you decided that you didn't need to apologize for anything, and by some warped logic that meant that I somehow refused to settle the matter with you. It was already settled. You left for 2 months; the entire thing was in the past and forgotten about. Clearly you had some niggling guilty about it remaining though, if the first thing you do when you get back is ask if you need to apologize.

I will not be framed as an antisemite!

I have never framed you as an antisemite.

I will not be framed as being someone who calls people racist for no reason, other than damaging their credibility!!!!

Yet this is precisely the kind of person you tried to paint me as. Someone who would enjoy drinks with a bunch of mass-murdering members of the Nazi SS...

I will not have myself silenced and the oppertunity to reply taken away!

You were only silenced because you broke the rules repeatedly. Prior to that, you used countless opportunities to defend yourself and your views. You are being dishonest yet again.

I will not have myself constantly reminded in a depracating way of my spelling mistakes because of his lack of argument!

Again, being dishonest. I did not "constantly" remind you of your spelling mistakes because I lacked argument. If you read through our discussions, you will find plenty of arguments from both myself and yourself. I only started telling you to write in comprehensible English because (a) your English was atrocious when you got angry, and (b) you kept on writing stuff which I misinterpreted due to your poor wording, and you would get very angry at the fact that I had misinterpreted it. It is not my fault if I misinterpret what you say because you were too angry and lazy to write in proper English sentences.

That is what he did! And if you believe that such behavior is in any way justified, then you have a problem and not me!

This is not what I did, and anyone who bothers to read through our conversations would see that.

---

I'll be honest I wasn't ever too fond of TGAC, he always seemed a bit hot headed. And I agree that he should have been banned, calling someone a child abuser is way over the line. But something just doesn't sit right with me reading this when he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself.