I am about to be b&....

[dagamer]

...on grounds that I am not informed of.

[GGoodie]

wtf is with this. I was told this was by pickle, so why was he banned hmmm?

[Qwerty]

It was a staff lounge thing. We had a vote. We (our side) did manage to reduce it to two months, though.

[dagamer]

Also, pickle reduced it to 1 month and 1 week.
But still...
IT IS RUDE TO BAN ME 6 DAYS BEFORE MY BIRTHDAY ON GROUNDS OF KURAI HATING ME!!!!!

[jakebob]

Nov 6, 2009 1:23:32 GMT -5 dagamer said:

Also, pickle reduced it to 1 month and 1 week.
But still...
IT IS RUDE TO BAN ME 6 DAYS BEFORE MY BIRTHDAY ON GROUNDS OF KURAI HATING ME!!!!!

No he hasn't. I can see the topic that explains this whole thing, and you're going to be out for more than 5 weeks.

And you want rude? Do you really want rude?

[Qwerty]

I'm afraid not even Pickle has the authority to do that. It's still at two weeks.

[dagamer]

Nov 6, 2009 3:51:07 GMT -5 @jakebob said:

You want rude? Do you really want rude?

No sir...

[GGoodie]

This ban in general is stupid. The staff have no reason to ban BoL. Like I said on chat, there is no rule that states "Staff can ban people for not liking them"

And you want rude? Do you really want rude?

Thats what im seein right now. Perhaps someone should explain why the vote started exactly. If im not mistaken it was because Kurai has issues with BoL.

[xShadowLordx]

We are not banning him for no reason, or because KuraiOorora just doesn't like him. JakeBob and myself agree with banning him, because of all his offenses. In fact, Jakebob posted this list of offenses in the staff lounge.

Nov 6, 2009 4:23:39 GMT -5 @jakebob said:

Right, on chat, he acts like a retard, says he'll use SQL injection to gain access to the admin account or use a DDoS to bring down the site's server (ie ProBoards), says that he'll call /b/ or /i/ to rain hell on the forum and spams mods to un-ban him if he's been banned with multiple accounts.

For a laundry list of what he's done, go to his profile page, put in "100" in the "Most Recent Posts" and look through them.

• He flames ShadeZero because he's either posted in the same topic as BoL, or BoL posted in one of his topics. He also accuses SZ of topic hijacking, even though SZ just posts in the topic.
  
• He replies to huge posts he can't argue against with "Cool story, bro".
  
• He picked on a new member because the newbie, Magic Powder, said he was from the community. When GV was nice to said newbie, BoL said we were "protecting TheListo" and said he felt like using SQL injection to hack into GV's account.
  
• He suggested to GGoodie what he could do if GGoodie didn't get modship on chat, and as a result, blew any chance of it working to smithereens.
  
• He got annoyed when he nominated himself for chat mod, and didn't get any votes, so he decided to make a topic voting for a forum mod's downfall, suggesting that ShadeZero should get one, then saying "OWAIT he already had one." and reminding mods not to edit his post because he has over 9000 copies set up.
  
• As an attempt to justify his recent "Forum Mod Downfall" topic, he made a topic entitled "It's not yet time to vote for a forum mod's fall!" and then said we didn't give him a chance to explain himself, in that he said "I'm NOT doing it because of that stupid voting thing that I could easily hijack", but because there's too many staff on the staff roll, and after being told off for THAT, said he wants more trouble for "the lulz".
  
• He made a "Was I respected?" thread tosee if he was respected before he went snooker-loopy. Not too bad, until you notice that he said if he gets less than 8 Yes's, random users that said no would get "brute force"'d.
  
• He then makes a topic saying he's going to be banned for grounds he's not been informed of. He then says Pickle said it's been negotiated to 1 month and 1 week, and said that it's quite rude to ban him 6 days before his birthday.
  

This ban is completely justified.

[GGoodie]

very few of those things break any rules.

[General Veers]

• The first bullet is flaming. That is against the rules.
  
• The second bullet is trolling. That is against the rules.
  
• The third bullet, in my case, would be conflict of interest, so I won't say anything about it.
  
• The fifth bullet is trolling and threatening rule-enforcers (i.e. staff). Threatening staff against carrying out the rules is against common sense, although not an explicit rule. It could be considered part of Rousseau's social contract (you comply with enforcers, and you are guaranteed certain rights).
  
• The sixth bullet is a threat against the forums, which "compromises security" and ergo goes against security rules.
  
• The seventh bullet is a threat against the forums.

I agree that the last bullet isn't necessarily against any rule, and indeed he has the right to know why he is going to be banned. Most of the others are against rules, either explicit or implied in the social contract. I must disagree with your statement that "very few of those things break any rules."

[GGoodie]

Nov 6, 2009 23:58:21 GMT -5 General Veers said:

The first bullet is flaming. That is against the rules.
The second bullet is trolling. That is against the rules.
The third bullet, in my case, would be conflict of interest, so I won't say anything about it.
The fifth bullet is trolling and threatening rule-enforcers (i.e. staff). Threatening staff against carrying out the rules is against common sense, although not an explicit rule. It could be considered part of Rousseau's social contract (you comply with enforcers, and you are guaranteed certain rights).
The sixth bullet is a threat against the forums, which "compromises security" and ergo goes against security rules.
The seventh bullet is a threat against the forums.

I agree that the last bullet isn't necessarily against any rule, and indeed he has the right to know why he is going to be banned. Most of the others are against rules, either explicit or implied in the social contract. I must disagree with your statement that "very few of those things break any rules."

1.) We all know how arch zero acts on chat...
2.) No, he is replying to posts in a sarcastic way to emphasize his
5.) Exactly, not against rules
6.) Thats not a threat on the forum. He just made a new thread instead of hijacking another.
7.) My god he was kidding. Get over it. Besides it was a threat to individual members, not the forum.

[dagamer]

*facepalm*
Am 11 year old CAN'T do anything. (trolling exception)
Right now I feel like ending the Star wars saga with the longcat deathstar flying in and Belgium-ing everything up like what GV did to my reputation.

[General Veers]

Might I ask how I was the one who ruined your reputation when I wasn't the one breaking all sorts of explicit and implicit rules? And might I ask why you keep trolling? And might I ask why we should continue to keep someone in the forums that would serve as a horrendous example to others and serve only to debase the forums?

[GGoodie]

No you may not.

[General Veers]

*Loses patience*

Very well, then: I won't ask. I'll provide the responses.

---

I wasn't the one breaking the rules and acting immaturely, "jokingly" threatening to take down the forums or individual forum members. I wasn't the one trolling every person who dared to counter my wishes or responses. I wasn't the one who bypassed chat bans. I wasn't the one who constantly spewed profanities. I wasn't the one constantly disrespecting staff. Reputation is proportional to behavior: the more (or less) one behaves, the more positive (or negative) reputation one will have. I behave well, and I owe some, if not most or all, of my reputation to my behavior and compliance to forum rules and expectations. You do not behave well or act very courteously, so you ruined your own reputation.

We should not keep someone who does not provide positively to the forums: if a person does not have the capacity to keep the rules, then that person does not have the capacity to be a forum member. If a person does not have common courtesy, then that person does not have the full capacity to be a good forum member. An entire group should not have to serve a single individual at the group's expense; rather, an individual should serve a group at the individual's expense if said individual so chooses. If the individual does not will to serve the group, then the individual should not join the group: to quote a cliche, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Can't a person 11 years of age do anything? One may think so, but you would be surprised at how many are capable of doing anything, unless you are one such individual. Your "fooling around" about threatening individuals is like an individual "fooling around" about carrying a bomb near an airport, or an individual "fooling around" about having illicit drugs on school grounds. Even someone "fooling around" about killing himself/herself must be taken seriously and watched. For all anyone knows, you aren't actually 11 years old: you could actually be some programming savant who will wait until later to carry out on your threats, although your immature behavior is evidence (not proof) to the contrary. Nonetheless...

You should also know that I was the one who swayed most of the other staff, although not all of the others, to switch from a permanent ban to a considerably, significantly shorter ban. You bite the hand that wields a shield for you, and that arm will eventually tire from the pain and cease to wield that shield during the middle of a siege. I don't know of too many others who are willing to substitute my shield in case it drops, but you should count your blessings if there is someone and his shield continues to deflect attack without failing.

[Qwerty]

TEXTWALL.

I'll read that one soon... I hope... maybe... after I finish my novel.

No offense, but when you want to say something, you sure do say it.

EDIT: I read it. In my case, Veers swerved me from a non-ban to a temporary ban instead of from permaban to temp ban, but whatever. I should say that the vote was not, by any means, unanimous. In fact, toward the beginning, the same number of people wanted BoL to not be banned as to be banned. The ban limit was added to appease them (and me), I believe... at least partially... maybe... whatever.

Nice extended metaphor.

[artik]

This is a little off-topic but can I be a admin?

Nevermind I already know the answer to that.



.......SOOOO........



Are you guys going to ban him or wat?

[Saza]

I'll let somebody else do the honors.
We're not really sure, probably seeing as this is a multiple, we might as well ban this one, too

[KuraiOorora]

And furthermore, to all who assume I have a personal detesting towards BoL:

Nov 6, 2009 22:23:08 GMT -5 GGoodie said:

This ban in general is stupid. The staff have no reason to ban BoL. Like I said on chat, there is no rule that states "Staff can ban people for not liking them"

And you want rude? Do you really want rude?

Thats what im seein right now. Perhaps someone should explain why the vote started exactly. If im not mistaken it was because Kurai has issues with BoL.

The staff have no reason you say? GGoodie, the evidence has been both discreetly and blatantly been thrown out right in front of you, yet you choose to disregard it in a poor attempt to defend BoL's if not already lack of respect of him towards us and us towards his being. And also, GGoodie, might I point out that the only time I was rude to BoL was the one list of screenshots which showed a personal talk I had with him, which in fact was given out only for staff to discuss.

I'm tired of your constant accusations of me having some sort of said 'personal hatred' towards BoL when you clearly have no proof or evidence except for those few screenshots, when in fact they weren't showing of such detesting as much as other ones that other users and staff had shown of their OWN behavior towards BoL.

I do not in fact hate BoL. I simply just detest his behavior and constant rule-breaking of forum policy. In fact, I would welcome his return after his ban if he took such ban both in a mature and appropriate manner as well as returning from it and no longer continuing such behavior as stated both on the forum and on the chat. If he would simply just do this without any arguing about it I will no longer have to keep my focuses on his childlike inconsistency.