I was banned. I deserved the ban. I knew I would be banned for my comments and I felt so strongly about them, that I made them anyway. I did my time like a man and now I’m back.
I enjoyed my time away from the forums. I took it as an opportunity to relax and do other things. The time off allowed me to gain a new perspective. Needless to say, I got a ton of PMs, most of which I responded to. I also sent some PMs and tried to read some of the threads about the Moderation wars.
I had to read those threads in small doses because I found that if I read too many of SJ or Nordless’ posts in a row that they gave me an excruciating headache.
I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to a couple of points that I found particularly inane or offensive. I will do so in separate posts here in this thread. So prepare yourself for a dash of criticism mixed in with a pound of truth.
# 1 = Reader, you made some comments supporting RookRat’s right to make his merit less accusations based on your belief that he believed they were true.
That is a patently false statement. It takes more than an unfounded, some would say delusional, belief in the veracity of such an accusation to make it a non-libelous statement. As is, the comments by RookRat violated the TOS is so many ways that are too obvious to mention.
As a result of this heinous attack on my character I have decided to officially dub your clique with the name many of us have used privately heretofore, “The Axis of Evil.”
# 2 = Nordless, before I point out a couple of issues I have with you, let me give you some credit. You did disagree with the above statement from Reader. You pointed out that it indeed takes more than unfounded belief to make RookRat’s vile accusations acceptable and I thank you for your honesty on that point.
However, in the early going you explained the disagreement by saying that Cash “said some insulting things” and that I threatened RookRat and told him “to burn in hell.” While that may have been essentially true, you neglected to mention that before most of that happened, RookRat leveled some of the most vile and despicable false allegations against me that any forum member has ever had to endure! Shame on you.
# 3 Stocken’s ban was deserved, in my opinion. He started a thread that was designed to stir up trouble, it was foreseeable that it would end in a fight, it ended in a fight.
Most forum members didn’t read the argument that occurred between rook rat and myself, but if you had, you would have realized that the thread itself was the catalyst.
The best argument against banning Stocken came from Cadwah. And I agree with those statements. The plan for the thread was cooked up in the Drama Donkey’s private forum. Stocken was your Oswald, nothing more than a patsy.
In the end like most half-baked plans to make a fool of me, it made a fool of someone or someone’s.
# 4 - Phlabs moderation was acceptable in my opinion. He did the best he could with limited information to defuse an inflammatory situation. When more information was available and when cooler heads prevailed he showed flexibility and reduced sentences accordingly.
Much was made of the argument that Mods should provide more info to the banned. Initially I might have agreed with this statement, until Phlabs used Nordless’ banning for twice posting obviously inappropriate material regarding the etymology of the F word. Phlabs claimed that having levied the ban, Nordless PMed him “over and over and over and over and over” to dispute the decision.
What really got my attention and caused me to re-think my position (as well as several migraines) was that in attempting to argue this point about giving people a reason, Nordless over and over and over and over and over again re-disputed this old banning with long eloquent, seemingly-logical arguments the premise of which a Kindergartener could have refuted!
Originally posted by Red NightIsn't addressing one person and at the same time referring to an undefined 'your clique' a demagogical speech technique? Subtle enough to avoid another ban, but far more dangerous. My two cents.
# 1 = Reader, you made some comments supporting RookRat’s right to make his merit less accusations based on your belief that he believed they were true.
That is a patently false statement. It takes more than an unfounded, some would say delusional, belief in the veracity of such an accusation to make it a non-libelous statement. As is, the comments by ...[text shortened]... lly dub your clique with the name many of us have used privately heretofore, “The Axis of Evil.”
Originally posted by Red NightDoes this mean you're going to challange them to a game of chess?!! 😲
# 1 = Reader, you made some comments supporting RookRat’s right to make his merit less accusations based on your belief that he believed they were true.
That is a patently false statement. It takes more than an unfounded, some would say delusional, belief in the veracity of such an accusation to make it a non-libelous statement. As is, the comments by ...[text shortened]... lly dub your clique with the name many of us have used privately heretofore, “The Axis of Evil.”
Originally posted by Red NightYou're saying, that if you start a thread, and it causes trouble between members in the forum, the creator (you) should be banned.
# 3 Stocken’s ban was deserved, in my opinion. He started a thread that was designed to stir up trouble, it was foreseeable that it would end in a fight, it ended in a fight.
Can't wait to see you go again. 😀
Originally posted by stockenSure IF:
You're saying, that if you start a thread, and it causes trouble between members in the forum, the creator (you) should be banned.
Can't wait to see you go again. 😀
1. The thread was designed to stir up trouble.
2. It was forseeable that the thread would cause the kind of trouble that it ends up causing.
3. The trouble it causes is egregious enough to end in the banning of other forum members.