|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 1:05:58 GMT
I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Ok, cupcakes ... I'm going to try it your way: Superdude has been banned for doxxing. Any questions?
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 29, 2017 1:36:26 GMT
Cant say I didn't see that coming.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Mar 29, 2017 2:19:26 GMT
I think this is a good idea because it helps everyone to understand the boundaries here.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 29, 2017 2:41:24 GMT
I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Ok, cupcakes ... I'm going to try it your way: Superdude has been banned for doxxing. The same reason that " cupcakes" had his previous account banned for.... IRONY!!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 2:47:51 GMT
The same reason that " cupcakes" had his previous account banned for.... IRONY!! Here?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 29, 2017 3:00:08 GMT
I'd suggest making it explicit what somebody is banned for. Ok, cupcakes ... I'm going to try it your way: Superdude has been banned for doxxing. Any questions? Yup. He had an account winnietheepomis....
Got banned. Edit: His current pic of Kyle Glass is being used as his ID pic because the idiot thinks that what I look like... It's his moronic way of mock doxing me... Would that be "moxxing"? I have him on IGNORE. There's a history from the previous board.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 29, 2017 3:19:41 GMT
tpfkar What would be the irony for knowing what the site rules are? It's not a given that pics people have themselves used wouldn't be fair game. Especially when somebody's making claims about them. It's my intention to follow the rules of any site I participate in. You going on again is what's ironic since you spend 90% of your time cussing people out, with or without the racist remarks. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 3:22:14 GMT
Ok, cupcakes ... I'm going to try it your way: Superdude has been banned for doxxing. Any questions? Yup. He had an account winnietheepomis....
Got banned. Oh yeah, I vaguely remember that. Who let him back in?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 3:28:02 GMT
What would be the irony for knowing what the site rules are? It's not a given that pics people have themselves used wouldn't be fair game. Especially when somebody's making claims about them. The rules here are pretty simple. Post porn or dox, get banned. Most everything else is discretionary. If I remember correctly, you were temporarily banned for using someone else's photo as your avatar. Blade, however, was not banned for doing the same thing. Hence discretionary, and IIRC, the difference here was in the complaint.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 29, 2017 3:40:43 GMT
What would be the irony for knowing what the site rules are? It's not a given that pics people have themselves used wouldn't be fair game. Especially when somebody's making claims about them. The rules here are pretty simple. Post porn or dox, get banned. Most everything else is discretionary. If I remember correctly, you were temporarily banned for using someone else's photo as your avatar. Blade, however, was not banned for doing the same thing. Hence discretionary, and IIRC, the difference here was in the complaint. I was banned? Or did you mean someone else? I have no problem following the rules if you tell me what I'm doing wrong. Just tell me and I'll stop it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 3:42:58 GMT
The rules here are pretty simple. Post porn or dox, get banned. Most everything else is discretionary. If I remember correctly, you were temporarily banned for using someone else's photo as your avatar. Blade, however, was not banned for doing the same thing. Hence discretionary, and IIRC, the difference here was in the complaint. I was banned? No, Blade, you were not. See the sentence you bolded.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 29, 2017 3:44:41 GMT
No, Blade, you were not. See the sentence you bolded. Ok I read it wrong. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2017 3:46:04 GMT
Who'd he dox?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 29, 2017 3:47:16 GMT
Looks like Aduh (Afeena) was also banned. What'd she do?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 3:49:20 GMT
It doesn't matter. As for Awhina's ban, there are several threads here that explain it all.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 29, 2017 3:50:28 GMT
What would be the irony for knowing what the site rules are? It's not a given that pics people have themselves used wouldn't be fair game. Especially when somebody's making claims about them. The rules here are pretty simple. Post porn or dox, get banned. Most everything else is discretionary. If I remember correctly, you were temporarily banned for using someone else's photo as your avatar. Blade, however, was not banned for doing the same thing. Hence discretionary, and IIRC, the difference here was in the complaint. Sorry, Admin... I'm not really responding to you... I'm just reading cupcakes' quote in your response and responding to that... It wasn't a pic that I have ever used.. Actually I don't think that it was an actual pic, at all.. but a still from a YouTube video. But.. Tomato/Tomatto, I suppose. But.. It was all corrected. And thank you for that.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 29, 2017 3:52:14 GMT
What would be the irony for knowing what the site rules are? It's not a given that pics people have themselves used wouldn't be fair game. Especially when somebody's making claims about them. The rules here are pretty simple. Post porn or dox, get banned. Most everything else is discretionary. If I remember correctly, you were temporarily banned for using someone else's photo as your avatar. Blade, however, was not banned for doing the same thing. Hence discretionary, and IIRC, the difference here was in the complaint. That is correct. Cinemachinery didn't report against blade. Someone did report against Cupcakes. Cupcakes' previous account was disabled for a certain time period but he was not permanently banned. Unlike Superdude, he didn't reveal any person's real life fb account or anything that could lead to that person's address. Cupcakes has since not used anyone's pic and is abiding by rules. For members: We do like to makes it clear that none of the members may post anything that can lead to another person's address or real life accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 3:55:39 GMT
It wasn't a pic that I have ever used.. Actually I don't think that it was an actual pic, at all.. but a still from a YouTube video. Then my question would be how did he know that was you?
|
|
|
Post by Nostalgias4Geeks🌈 on Mar 29, 2017 3:56:06 GMT
Um, excuse me for a moment, but what the fuck is "doxxing"??
Honestly asking. Don't make me use google!! That's too much clicking and typing!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 4:00:06 GMT
Unlike Superdude, he didn't reveal any person's real life fb account or anything that could lead to that person's address I would like to add something to this. When Superdude revealed Ben's real name and location, it was brought to my attention by ProBoards. I received an official warning from the Abuse Department that gave me 48 hours to remove the "offending content." They called it "harassment."
|
|