Originally posted by utherpendragonI've spoken up before when I thought people were banned unjustly. Why are you making a big deal about me doing so in this case?
Maybe she has been banned from the forums before no.1
Maybe several times no.1
Maybe it was the straw that broke the camels back no.1
You seem very sensitive about this whole thing no.1.
Why is that ?
I rarely talked to Skeets and never played her, but she was a long term member of the site who made significant contributions. It's seems absurd to ban her just because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou have shown again you still don't understand why Skeeter was banned......so why are you continuing on this subject?
I've spoken up before when I thought people were banned unjustly. Why are you making a big deal about me doing so in this case?
I rarely talked to Skeets and never played her, but she was a long term member of the site who made significant contributions. It's seems absurd to ban her just because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt was not in jest, it was a public accusation and a character assassination.
I've spoken up before when I thought people were banned unjustly. Why are you making a big deal about me doing so in this case?
I rarely talked to Skeets and never played her, but she was a long term member of the site who made significant contributions. It's seems absurd to ban her just because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest.
She was not sharp enough to back off when she was warned.
You are a piece of work yourself counselor.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you right.
The rules are in place for a reason.
06 Jan 12
Originally posted by andrew93Gee aren't you being a bit caustic and disagreeable?
Fail. You can't get even get the quote right in your profile. Just goes to show the level of reading comprehension in this thread. Laughable.
You've never heard of obiter dicta? Look it up and learn.
The fact I state she has been in breach of term 3c on a regular basis seems to have eluded you. You stay focussed on wilful (disingenuous) misinterpretation of my posts.
Jesus wept.
Almost everybody who posts in these forums on a regular basis is in violation of 3(c) on a regular basis IF it is read literally and without the elbow room desirable in interpreting it in light of the Site's desire to have robust discussions between grownups. The lack of hyper-aggressive moderation is the main reason why the Forums here don't completely suck as they do at virtually every other chess site.
Jesus wasn't much of a censor.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo we now agree Skeeter was banned for a violation of term 3c?
Gee aren't you being a bit caustic and disagreeable?
Almost everybody who posts in these forums on a regular basis is in violation of 3(c) on a regular basis IF it is read literally and without the elbow room desirable in interpreting it in light of the Site's desire to have robust discussions between grownups. The lack of hyper-aggressive they do at virtually every other chess site.
Jesus wasn't much of a censor.
Originally posted by shortcircuitMaybe people shouldn't "joke" about being a notorious banned cheater if they don't want people to "character assassinate" them by taking them seriously.
It was not in jest, it was a public accusation and a character assassination.
She was not sharp enough to back off when she was warned.
You are a piece of work yourself counselor.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you right.
The rules are in place for a reason.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're doing that thing again.
RHP can ban you for whatever it pleases whenever it pleases. Review Paragraph 13 of the TOS if you don't believe me.
Your last stated position on this was: "It's seems absurd to ban her just because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest."
At this point it looks like you think Skeeter was banned "because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest."
I can't see this in the TOS. So either you don't understand the TOS or you are simply being caustic/disagreeable.
Lastly, if you look it up I said the persona was dislikeable. Hence the previous fail.
Originally posted by andrew93Your nitpicking is uninteresting. "Dis-likeable" and "disagreeable" are synonymous in this case.
You're doing that thing again.
Your last stated position on this was: "It's seems absurd to ban her just because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest."
At this point it looks like you think Skeeter was banned "because SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties ...[text shortened]...
Lastly, if you look it up I said the persona was dislikeable. Hence the previous fail.
The members of Metallica raised a gigantic stink about a rather trivial issue. Absent their complaining and whining, the 3(c) issue would have never reached the dimensions it did. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the proximate cause of her banning was that "SC and the gals at Metallica got their panties in a bunch because she took seriously what one of them said supposedly in jest.""