The Village of the "Banned"

JJ Husker said:
Advocating? Bulls#!t, look it up.
Click to expand...


I don't have to look it up.  You can semantic it however you want.  Advocating.  Saying you'd be fine with it.  Approving of it if it did happen.   Whatever you want to call it.  "Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" is tacit promotion of it.

 
Mavric said:
I don't have to look it up.  You can semantic it however you want.  Advocating.  Saying you'd be fine with it.  Approving of it if it did happen.   Whatever you want to call it.  "Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" is tacit promotion of it.
Click to expand...
I think you do need to look it up.

advocating

/ˈadvəˌkāt/

publicly recommend or support.

Advocate is defined as to speak, write or stand up for something or someone. An example of advocate is a parent fighting for special education services for her child. One who actively assists, defends, pleads, prosecutes, speaks, writes, or otherwise supports the cause of another.

It’s a bit of a stretch to consider “it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing” or “there are worse things that could happen” as support for the idea that it should happen. And beyond the limited definition of “support” it can’t be applied to any of the remaining definition of advocate. I’m not sure I’m the one using semantics here. If you’re convinced saying something wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing is the same as supporting it happening, then we’re at a stalemate. One example though. Losing to North Dakota wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen. I believe that and if you think that means I want it to happen or that I’m advocating for it then you’re crazy.

But I’m done with it. Convincing you that you’re off base on this is a losing cause. I’ve never once seen an instance where you will adjust or change your mind and you’re the admin so I lose and you can do whatever you want to do. So F me I guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
Wrong.

BRB said “they are setting this up”. To me that meant they are setting up to have a false flag. They article he linked (which I didn’t read) but based on the visible part was about Rs claiming it would happen due to some deep state theory. My response to BRB, while trying to be funny/cute was saying that, imo a false flag attempt would be better than the deep state doing it. Thus not necessarily a bad thing.

That isn’t advocating for it. That isn’t saying it should happen or that I want it to happen. It is offering an opinion of one way being better than another way. Any attempts to portray it as more than that is wrong.

Look up the definition of advocating. I did not and am not advocating for it to happen. Somebody has to get creative to interpret what was actually said the way you are. And, if we toss context aside, even if it was just me straight up saying it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, how is that advocating for it to happen? It isn’t. It’s just my opinion that it wouldn’t necessarily be the worst thing that could happen.

Seems to me that you are making the subject taboo, selectively, for me only, and I think that sucks. But not to worry, I will stay 50 f#&%ing miles away from that subject from now on.

Advocating? Bulls#!t, look it up.
Click to expand...


"Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" is where we part ways.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
"Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing" is where we part ways.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I was comparing two hypothetical situations, a Trump hater or democrat vs a Trump supporter doing it as a false flag. Given those 2 choices, I feel it would be better for the country if it was a provable false flag. Apparently I should have explained it better originally instead of trying to be cute about it.

 
JJ Husker said:
My only acknowledgement for the warning is realizing the mods and admins can do whatever they want whenever they want and imo the 10 day suspension was bulls#!t.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not you think your punishment was fair, these are the facts:

1) On Aug. 8th, you posted something jokingly suggesting/hinting at the assassination of President Trump. I hid the post and left a verbal warning in the thread to not do this again because we don't think that kind of stuff is a good idea here. It was also the first time I can remember you saying something like that so I felt a verbal warning would suffice. I did not even call you out, but you took the time to apologize publicly for it and take ownership for it anyways.

2) You did something similar to the above again on Aug. 22. Call it what you want but it was similar. Mav was aware of the Aug. 8th incident and there was a discussion about how to handle this, hence the ultimate judgement. Moderators/admins reserve the right to enforce the guidelines and moderate the board as they see fit.

3) We have verbally warned, formally warned, and suspended people doing this kind of stuff in the past. I know everybody loves to play that game of 'woah is me' and act a victim with this kind of stuff but we literally just had this discussion three weeks ago so... I don't know what you expected to be honest.

I get being pissed about being moderated/suspended but you have gotten publicly upset just about every time you've ever been moderated and then you try to pretend like you don't care. You obviously care. It's human nature. There's nothing wrong with caring. But this is also clearly about trying to muscle some public support for what you feel is an injustice, which I think is insincere. If that wasn't at least partly true then you would've DM'd us instead.

One other note: we're not saying the conversation of assassination is 100% taboo. At least, that's not what I'm saying. Assassination attempts and threats against U.S. politician's lives are newsworthy events and discussions. But there's a difference between having that discussion (from a news/event standpoint) vs. making jokes, suggestive remarks, or showing implicit/explicit support for something like that on the board.

 
Enhance said:
Regardless of whether or not you think your punishment was fair, these are the facts:

1) On Aug. 8th, you posted something jokingly suggesting/hinting at the assassination of President Trump. I hid the post and left a verbal warning in the thread to not do this again because we don't think that kind of stuff is a good idea here. It was also the first time I can remember you saying something like that so I felt a verbal warning would suffice. I did not even call you out, but you took the time to apologize publicly for it and take ownership for it anyways.

2) You did something similar to the above again on Aug. 22. Call it what you want but it was similar. Mav was aware of the Aug. 8th incident and there was a discussion about how to handle this, hence the ultimate judgement. Moderators/admins reserve the right to enforce the guidelines and moderate the board as they see fit.

3) We have verbally warned, formally warned, and suspended people doing this kind of stuff in the past. I know everybody loves to play that game of 'woah is me' and act a victim with this kind of stuff but we literally just had this discussion three weeks ago so... I don't know what you expected to be honest.

I get being pissed about being moderated/suspended but you have gotten publicly upset just about every time you've ever been moderated and then you try to pretend like you don't care. You obviously care. It's human nature. There's nothing wrong with caring. But this is also clearly about trying to muscle some public support for what you feel is an injustice, which I think is insincere. If that wasn't at least partly true then you would've DM'd us instead.

One other note: we're not saying the conversation of assassination is 100% taboo. At least, that's not what I'm saying. Assassination attempts and threats against U.S. politician's lives are newsworthy events and discussions. But there's a difference between having that discussion (from a news/event standpoint) vs. making jokes, suggestive remarks, or showing implicit/explicit support for something like that on the board.
Click to expand...
I’ve explained what my intent was. I don’t care if you find it insincere or not. Really. You guys can moderate the board however you see fit, we agree on that.

One question though. How does DMing you as opposed to posting it here make any difference? And when was I supposed to DM you, after the 10 days was up? I feel/felt wronged and I wanted to air that publically and, when you’re suspended, you cannot DM because you can’t login. I would’ve loved the chance to DM and explain before I was suspended. But after having 10 days to stew on it, yeah, I wanted to b!^@h about it here.

And you’re wrong that I’ve gotten publicly upset every time. This time and the time I got suspended for calling someone dense (when they were being dense) is it. Every other time I’ve been warned I’ve accepted it and usually agreed with it.

Don’t feel bad. I’ve only been moderated wrongly twice. You guys are doing a good job most of the time.

 
Enhance said:
1) On Aug. 8th, you posted something jokingly suggesting/hinting at the assassination of President Trump. I hid the post and left a verbal warning in the thread to not do this again because we don't think that kind of stuff is a good idea here. It was also the first time I can remember you saying something like that so I felt a verbal warning would suffice. I did not even call you out, but you took the time to apologize publicly for it and take ownership for it anyways.

2) You did something similar to the above again on Aug. 22. Call it what you want but it was similar. Mav was aware of the Aug. 8th incident and there was a discussion about how to handle this, hence the ultimate judgement. Moderators/admins reserve the right to enforce the guidelines and moderate the board as they see fit.
Click to expand...


TiEbZ.jpg


 
Enhance said:
Regardless of whether or not you think your punishment was fair, these are the facts:

1) On Aug. 8th, you posted something jokingly suggesting/hinting at the assassination of President Trump. I hid the post and left a verbal warning in the thread to not do this again because we don't think that kind of stuff is a good idea here. It was also the first time I can remember you saying something like that so I felt a verbal warning would suffice. I did not even call you out, but you took the time to apologize publicly for it and take ownership for it anyways.

2) You did something similar to the above again on Aug. 22. Call it what you want but it was similar. Mav was aware of the Aug. 8th incident and there was a discussion about how to handle this, hence the ultimate judgement. Moderators/admins reserve the right to enforce the guidelines and moderate the board as they see fit.

3) We have verbally warned, formally warned, and suspended people doing this kind of stuff in the past. I know everybody loves to play that game of 'woah is me' and act a victim with this kind of stuff but we literally just had this discussion three weeks ago so... I don't know what you expected to be honest.

I get being pissed about being moderated/suspended but you have gotten publicly upset just about every time you've ever been moderated and then you try to pretend like you don't care. You obviously care. It's human nature. There's nothing wrong with caring. But this is also clearly about trying to muscle some public support for what you feel is an injustice, which I think is insincere. If that wasn't at least partly true then you would've DM'd us instead.

One other note: we're not saying the conversation of assassination is 100% taboo. At least, that's not what I'm saying. Assassination attempts and threats against U.S. politician's lives are newsworthy events and discussions. But there's a difference between having that discussion (from a news/event standpoint) vs. making jokes, suggestive remarks, or showing implicit/explicit support for something like that on the board.
Click to expand...


Enhance,

Not that you asked for my two cents here, but.... I get the practice of a verbal warning in thread. It allows you to address all contributors to the conversation at once and let all know its not ok. However, there are people who post and respond, only in their few moments of free time during the day and are unable to follow a conversation in its entirety. I've been given a vacation before following a verbal in thread warning, that I did not see and was not aware existed until I was told upon the completion of my vacation when I reached out for explanation. Would it be too much to ask to have the mods take it one step further- give the verbal warning in thread, but also PM the "offender" at risk of being banned that such verbal warning was issued? For me, I felt completely blindsided and felt the rule was arbitrarily enforced until you pointed out the verbal, at which point my thought was, "damn, that would have been nice to know." Not trying to add fuel to the fire, just trying to offer a suggestion that might help eliminate some of the angst posters feel when a vacation is issued. I know it certainly would have benefitted me.

 
FWIW, I knew I was warned the first time. And honestly I deserved it that time. No arguments. The only problem I have with the 2nd one that got me the little vacay was that what I posted was taken differently than I intended. Call me crazy but I see a clear distinction between the two occurrences. The 2nd time was a comparative opinion and was not advocating for it to happen. I guess I can understand how it could be interpreted as just more of the same but it really wasn’t. Oh well, s#!t happens. I’m over it. Just sucked being suspended for the season opener.

 
JJ Husker said:
To be fair it probably saved me from douching it up with everyone else. I did watch the game and read some of the board posts so I wasn’t unscathed  :lol:
Click to expand...




I was just a lurker for almost a year, maybe more than a year? and it did me well

(oops maybe i wasn't supposed to say that out loud)

 
Here’s an idea. Maybe the mods could jerk the slack out of the trolling constantly negative mfers? Pretty sure what they’re doing is against board rules. Is there any reason for someone to do a laughy face on anything resembling a positive comment? You can start with the d******d laughing at every post in the prayer thread.

 
Back
Top