chasallnut
Sophomore
@chasallnut
Posts: 506
Likes: 158
|
Post by chasallnut on Mar 26, 2017 14:46:17 GMT
As always she will not stand against the terrorist - She has yet to condemn the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attack, the Bataclan atrocity and many others. What was your name on the old board? Can you make a torpedo, Mr. Allnut? Will you do so, Mr. Allnut? One of my all time favourite films. Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 26, 2017 16:28:32 GMT
tpfkar "Lying" is a tricky one, as 3/4 of the board would have to feel the sting at one point or another. Harassing (not merely disagreeing with) the admins in their capacity of admin is a good one, and people got nuked at IMDb for it. I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Maybe even an ongoing 'sanction' thread. But then I'm just as likey to suggest bransles. melologue
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2017 0:03:30 GMT
I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Maybe even an ongoing 'sanction' thread. I have publicly stated reasons on occasion, but generally speaking, the reason for anyone's suspension/ban is no one's business but the one who was banned and the one who banned him/her. (No offense intended, cupcakes.) In Awhina's case, the reasons were indeed made clear to her and everyone else ad nauseam, but she is still claiming they weren't: area51.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=14449#p14449
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 27, 2017 13:24:24 GMT
tpfkar It's your party. Seems to me that that kind of thing is squarely in the "public" interest. I'll be sure to make it so when I set up and maintain my own board, sometime right after the 12th of never. part deux
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 27, 2017 13:27:16 GMT
I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Maybe even an ongoing 'sanction' thread. I have publicly stated reasons on occasion, but generally speaking, the reason for anyone's suspension/ban is no one's business but the one who was banned and the one who banned him/her. (No offense intended, cupcakes .) In Awhina's case, the reasons were indeed made clear to her and everyone else ad nauseam, but she is still claiming they weren't: area51.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?pid=14449#p14449I sorta disagree with this concept.
I think it is in the public's best interest to know the admins are fair and balanced. There should be no regard given to a person who breaks the rules and the proof of that prevents distrust of the admins as well as dispels the myths people are propagating about why they were banned.
|
|