Revelations upon Forum Policy

As is well known, I have been absent for the last two weeks. This is because I was banned from the Eyes on Each Other and Eyes on the World forums.

I was banned because I made a thoroughly unacceptable post, entitled "Hunter S. Thompson is a Loser who Should be Hurled into a Pine Box and Tossed into the Nearest Mineshaft"... or maybe I said "an abandoned mine", I'm afraid I just can't remember for sure.

Either way, I do believe that Hunter S. Thompson was a loser, and that he should indeed be put into the ground simply, inelegantly, and without all the hero-worship that for some reason he somehow recieved. Amusingly enough, however, I screwed up the title--I was referring to Brandon Vega, the dopehead who overdosed on methadone (and about a dozen different other drugs) while chatting on IRC with his friends. Apparently his last words were "I told u I was hardcore". So if anyone's wondering why I said Hunter S. Thompson died of a drug overdose when he actually shot himself, there's your reason.

Even so, I had made this post after seeing a few days worth of the rhetoric that regularly passes muster on the EyesonFF forums, and it was with much surprise that I was called a 'jerk' and banned for two weeks. Nobody likes being banned or being called names, of course, and so when I again had access to the forums in question, I looked over several threads to see just what was acceptable and what was not.....

Acceptable:

Quote:

---

However, current US foreign policy seems to be thus:
"If they're different from us, and they don't like us, then they're a threat and must either be destroyed or changed so that they're just like us".

For now, this policy has only been enforced against small, relatively defenseless states.

---

Quote:

---

These minutemen bastards are jsut racists.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I think everyone who wants a gun should have one so they can all shoot each other dead.

---

Quote:

---

Then those dumbass soccer moms aklfhshflkzdhfjfklsddafdsfds I'm pissed.....

---

Quote:

---

The american government know their Hitler.
"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."

---

Quote:

---

George read this BA-STA-RD!!. I sure hope he can read...

---

Quote:

---

George Bush reminds me of Vinzer Deling in so many ways...

---

Since this is a Final Fantasy Forum, I don't believe I'm going astray to assume that the "Vinzer Deling" in question is the tyrannical president of Galbadia in Final Fantasy VIII. Especially since the poster's icon was a picture of Selphie, the most absolutely useless character in FFVIII.

Unacceptable:

Quote:

---

Hunter S. Thompson is a loser who should be hurled into a pine box and tossed into the nearest mineshaft.

---

At first, I found myself unable to understand this. Calling someone a dictator and comparing them to Hitler should at least be comparable in scope to denying a dead druggie the dignity his supporters think he's due--especially if there is indeed a "zero tolerance" policy towards such activities. Under that concept, it seems cursing at someone and wishing for their death would apply as well, and yet they clearly do not. This caused me some trouble, until I arrived upon the answer.

Therefore, in accordance with the EyesonFF Forum's real spam/flaming policy, I will from now on only direct curses, epithets, death-wishes, and general hatred towards Conservative persons. There are, after all, conservatives I dislike (I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, for example, and found the "falafel" accusation hilarious), and with effort I'm certain I can find plenty more.

It is my hope that this solution will be fair and equitable not only for myself but for my fellow forum-posters.

There does seem to be a general lack of American conservative points of view here, so I'm hopeful you do stick around. Just keep in mind that right now, for some reason or another, neither side cares very much about making peace with the other and instead seem intent on stirring up emotions until we can't find any common ground at all, when in fact, the very ideals that America was based upon came through people working together, finding those common bonds and working to understand, not disregard what others had to say.

Take care all.

This belongs in Feedback.

As for myself, I'm a brand new mod and I've tried to be fair and not let any of my personal or political biases get in the way. However, we're only human, and seeing as how I've already been accused of being biased in my edits, I suppose I'll just try harder.

Each staff member at EoFF has at least a slightly different set of values, and therefore has a different view on what crosses the line, so I guess you just got on the wrong side of the wrong mod. That doesn't excuse inconsistancy, of course, but I always hope that people don't expect the group of individuals that make of the EoFF staff (or any staff anywhere) to make up a flawless machine.

I do agree with you though. :lol:

*applauds*

...is THAT really what you were banned for? .-.

Ah, it was foa, was it? I knew someone with that many underscores wouldn't be anything but trouble.

It takes awhile to get in-sync with the rest of the staff when you're new, and the slight thrill of the new power is likely to cause something that's borderline to get closed/deletes/warned without a second thought. I wouldn't worry about it, and next time if you feel something like this is unfair, you can always appeal it before the time is up, rather than just leaving for two weeks. Heh.

You're going to be accused of it eventually--and I'll add that you weren't the one who did it, nor do I want the mods to pore over every post and hit the 'ban' button every time somebody cusses without making it "s:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:".

I just wanted to note that the matter seemed extremely lopsided.

MoonsEcho--
And the worst of it was, I couldn't go back and fix the name, because they'd already banned me!

You still could've said something sooner. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Ah, it was foa, was it? I knew someone with that many underscores wouldn't be anything but trouble.

It takes awhile to get in-sync with the rest of the staff when you're new, and the slight thrill of the new power is likely to cause something that's borderline to get closed/deletes/warned without a second thought. I wouldn't worry about it, and next time if you feel something like this is unfair, you can always appeal it before the time is up, rather than just leaving for two weeks. Heh.

---

It wasn't me, you goof. I haven't banned anyone from anything. WAY TO ACCUSE THE NEWBIE >O

Sorry, that sounded like a confession. I still blame you though. *whip*

I got banned for saying something along the lines of "OMG UR STUPID!!!1" or whatever, so you aren't alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sexy McAwesome

I got banned for saying something along the lines of "OMG UR STUPID!!!1" or whatever, so you aren't alone.

---

I got banned for saying "J00 R wr0ngz!!11" in reply to something you had said. I think we were banned at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

I will from now on only direct curses, epithets, death-wishes, and general hatred towards Conservative persons.

---

Please dont tell me ur actually saying that EoFF is a liberal??! :lol:

I agree the decision to ban u was a lopsided one, and based on whatelse has been said u were well within ur rights to say what u said and not be banned, but seriously u just crossed the wrong Admin on the wrong day.

Yes: record it as a case of mod abuse.

Dont: pretend to be the picked on conservative minority in the media's light. It might work in the real world for Tom Delay, it wont work here.

The Hunter S Thompson post was, apparently, a deliberately provocative attack on a person who had just died in unpleasant circumstances, and seemingly directed at his fans and supporters as well.
That's why an EoEO ban was applied.

If you'd just said, in the course of a thread, "I think HST is a loser who should be forgotten", that'd be fine. People mightn't like it, but you're entitled to your opinion. You're not, however, entitled to make threads where the entire purpose (as it seemed) is to enrage people who're still deeply upset over something.

Let's look at another example: the Pope, as well all know, recently passed away. If someone made a thread entitled "Good job he's dead!", then I'd have EoEO banned them straight away. The same would be true if President Bush had just passed on.

However, if someone subsequently makes a post in which they express their dislike for someone, I wouldn't have so much of a problem.

There's a big difference between "This person sucks and here's why!" and "A meaningful topic about this person in which I will also express my dislike for him".
One is little more than trolling, the other actually has a point.

I have personally EoEO banned people for flaming conservative EoFF members; I've done the same when liberals get flamed. Poltical views aren't that important to me when it comes to enforcing the board's policy. However, there's a big difference between criticising a public figure - e.g. a president or politician - and going out of your way to make a deliberate attack on those who admire said person. Expressing opinions is fine, but trying to wind people up is not cool.

Quote:

---

However, current US foreign policy seems to be thus:
"If they're different from us, and they don't like us, then they're a threat and must either be destroyed or changed so that they're just like us".

For now, this policy has only been enforced against small, relatively defenseless states.

---

This post (by me, incidentally:p) is a legitimate expression of opinion on a political matter. It's not aimed at provoking those who support US foreign policy, and it's not trying to present my opinion as 'fact' or an 'absolute' - see use of the words "seems to be thus".

Quote:

---

Then those dumbass soccer moms aklfhshflkzdhfjfklsddafdsfds I'm pissed.....

---

Someone's opinion of 'soccer moms' in general. It's not directed at any particular EoFF member, it's not a grossly insensitive reaction to some recent bad news. Sure, it's a fairly crass and unreasoning statement, but it's not trying to get under anyone's skin. Merely expressing the author's own views.

Quote:

---

George Bush reminds me of Vinzer Deling in so many ways...

---

Again, an opinion - "reminds me of". I'd leave EoFF pretty quickly if policy said we're not allowed to dislike political leaders.

Quote:

---

Hunter S. Thompson is a Loser who Should be Hurled into a Pine Box and Tossed into the Nearest Mineshaft

---

Now this is different. That's a thread title; it's supposed to convey the entire purpose behind the thread. It expresses an opinion as though it is fact. It also fails to consider that there had been several threads made mourning his death, which pretty strongly suggests that a lot of people here cared about the guy and would obviously be upset by such a statement. The thread looked entirely like a "trolling" attempt.

Quote:

---

Therefore, in accordance with the EyesonFF Forum's real spam/flaming policy, I will from now on only direct curses, epithets, death-wishes, and general hatred towards Conservative persons.

---

After the US presidential election last year, a lot of Bush naysayers were EoEO banned after saying that Bush's win demonstrated America's stupidity, and similar accusations. Because their statements impliedly attacked every EoFF member who had voted for Bush, they were considered flame. There is a good way and a bad way of expressing any opinion.

Anyone who directs "curses, epithets, death-wishes, and general hatred" towards a fellow EoFF member will get soundly banned. However, I'm pretty tired of hearing people complain that "he said my favorite religion/politician/tv show sucks, that means he's flaming me!".

To recapitulate:

*A thread in EoEO/EotW which has no topic except the expression of hatred toward another person or group will likely be closed. If "another person or group" includes members of EoFF, replace "likely" with "definitely".

*If it appears that a thread was made entirely to belittle EoFF members by showing blatant disrespect for something that matters to them deeply, then it should meet a similar fate.

*If a thread is made that has a useful, debatable topic, and members express their opinions during the course of that debate, that is usually fine. This does not apply to "opinions" that are invented just to provoke negative reaction ("Well, in my opinion people who say things like you are all dumbasses!").[q=CloudSquallandZidane]I agree the decision to ban u was a lopsided one, and based on whatelse has been said u were well within ur rights to say what u said and not be banned, but seriously u just crossed the wrong Admin on the wrong day. [/q]Moderators and admins can effect EoEO bans. All such bans are recorded in the staff forum, where other staffers can disagree with them if they choose. If the majority of staff think something's a bad call, the ban is generally reversed.

Hey, it takes a while to get used to the feel of a forum. Don't take it too seriously, man. Lighten up and post in GC or go to chat or something. Besides, would you like it if I killed you, hurled you into a pinebox, and tossed you into a mineshaft or something like that? Or maybe did all that without killing you? Well, if it was me, I would think it would kinda suck. :p

True, some people cross the line around here, but that doesn't mean you have to. It's a simple case of common sense, and the Golden Rule. I was definitely abrasive sometimes in my past life here and kinda got away with it, mostly because I shyed away from open, explicit attacks, which I would also allow on myself, but again, I wouldn't like being openly attacked.

Now here, have a cookie. :cookie: :D

As someone who regularly checks EoEO and WE, and have been the witness of some EoEO bannings, I have to say Staff's done a pretty good job of it. They don't ban views - they ban the way that that view was expressed. At least, from my experience here, and I've been around for a good long time.

I would have to agree with this banning if that thread was, in fact, made soon after his death. It wasn't a perma-ban, it was merely a temp-ban to show you that there are more reasonable ways to express your opinion.

That thread must have been hilarious. "I told u I was hardcore." :laugh:

I think the temp ban was unnessasary.

I was going to say something about eoeo that kind of ties in with this, so I'll say it here.
The "zero tolerance policy towards flaming and spam" is a load. Spamming and flaming is tolerated, sometimes it's just an edit, sometimes it's completly ignoring it(and no, a few times I know staff did see the post), but it's not zero. I remember when the eoeo bans were first put in place, Bleys, I think it was him, said how he felt kind of bad about the first person they did it too, because he didn't think she was trying to be terribly rude, but rules were rules! Maybe it wasn't Bleys who said that, maybe it was Unne or whoever else, I'm not trying to be all "oooh old staff rox more"

Sometimes it's a case of, "well, nobody bothered reporting the post, so I guess they aren't all that cut up about it".

It's because 92.7% of this forum is made up of socs and unbalanced mods.

Yes, there are communists everywhere these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omecle

It's because 92.7% of this forum is made up of socs and unbalanced mods.

---

92.8%, as it happens. ;)

My fair Britons, what exactly are socs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

My fair Britons, what exactly are socs?

---

The EoFF Wiki reveals all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omecle

It's because 92.7% of this forum is made up of socs and unbalanced mods.

---

Yah, that makes sense considering it's the stupid newbies that get away with spamming all the damn time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MecaKane

Yah, that makes sense considering it's the stupid newbies that get away with spamming all the damn time.

---

On topic, I wonder if you'd get an EoEO ban if you posted that there :)

I think you would, as you'd have to say "it's the newbies who I consider to be stupid" instead of "it's the stupid newbies" to get away with it.

Psy's catching on.

Big D speaks for me on this issue.

I'd say sharing your negative views on a particular celebrity figure in a thread is different than making a new one with the intent of bashing that person, especially when they had just passed away. There are much more civil ways of expressing yourself, see Big D or The Captain's posts for examples. And it was Shlup that did it. Always Shlup.

Please use the warn button if you come across posts that you think aren't in accordance with the rules of this message board. Just be nice! Remember, it's only two weeks, and they're over now.

Was your last paragraph sincere or were using sarcasm?

I don't think I ever banned anyone from EoEO. Remember: BoB is the new scapegoat. It was him!

But, yeah, if you had made a new thread... and just after he died. I think that crosses a line.

And, to be fair, I made a thread for expressing views on Hunter, in The Lounge no less. That was free for anyone to come in and express their views in a considerate manner.

I got EOEO banned awhile back for making "lambs" references with regards to George Bush voters, and that wasn't nearly so inflamatory. It's hardly one-sided.

Being prettymuch the only other conservative at this forum that I've noticed, I've seen it too. I'm usually pretty sarcastic anyway, so I'll come back in debates with smartass comments, but I shy away from direct attacks and insults on specific people. Having been called a "racist" and "homophobe" too many times to count by now, I've almost begun thinking that petty insults of the like aren't an issue and are allowed here.

I get it. So if he said "I THINK Hunter S. Thompson should be...and here's why" or perhaps "Do you think Hunter S. Thompson should be...like I do?" then it would have been alright? It's already been shown that referring to "dumbass soccer moms" and "those bastards are just racist" is perfectly acceptable, as well as "I hope everybody who supports this issue gets shot and dies". It just seems to some of us that the line is drawn a bit to the left.

We wouldn't have been any less vindictive towards a liberal's graceless anti-Pope thread right after that guy died than we were towards a conservative's graceless anti-Thompson thread following his death.

I would test that statement, but it's been days since that Pope guy died.

Wait til the next pope dies then :p

If GWB dies from choking on a pretzel this coming Super Bowl I will test it out on him. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

We wouldn't have been any less vindictive towards a liberal's graceless anti-Pope thread right after that guy died than we were towards a conservative's graceless anti-Thompson thread following his death.

---

First, let's acknowledge that he got the name wrong, he was referring to the guy that overdosed while talking in a chat room. Some of the people in the chat room were egging him on, some were begging him to stop or call somebody, and he kept doing it, and he died. His last words, as stated earlier in this thread, were "I told u I was hardcore". Whereas the Pope is the leader of more than a billion Catholics, an advocate for human rights and peace, and a man loved and respected even by those outside his religion. There's a bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?

And, again, as has been pointed out, it's been a short time since the Pope died.

Quote:

---

First, let's acknowledge that he got the name wrong, he was referring to the guy that overdosed while talking in a chat room. Some of the people in the chat room were egging him on, some were begging him to stop or call somebody, and he kept doing it, and he died. His last words, as stated earlier in this thread, were "I told u I was hardcore". Whereas the Pope is the leader of more than a billion Catholics, an advocate for human rights and peace, and a man loved and respected even by those outside his religion. There's a bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?

---

But did he even make that point to an administrator or a CK? He could have pm'ed them pleading his case, but as far as I can tell he didn't. That excuse is invalid.

Notice I said an anti-Thompson thread and not an anti-"i told u i was hardcore" thread. I have no idea why anyone would be making a thread about that kid, anyway. He died years ago.

And now that I think about it, it's pretty crazy that anyone would ever confuse that kid with Hunter S. Thompson, of all people, anyway. That's like confusing some random person named Selma Baker in the local obituaries with Pat Benatar.

Pat Benatar died?

Take care all.

Exactly.

This is one confusing thread.

Good on ya, everybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

But did he even make that point to an administrator or a CK? He could have pm'ed them pleading his case, but as far as I can tell he didn't. That excuse is invalid.

---

Again, as was pointed out, he was banned before he got the chance to change it. I don't know what all he was banned from, so I can't tell you if he could or why he didn't point it out to somebody, but chances are he probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it anyway.

If Brandon Vega died years ago, why would somebody even make the connection between him and the Pope?

If you're banned from Eoeo, like he was, you can still use pms. If you're banned from the forums you can still view them if you log out, and find an admin's or mod's AIM or MSN or whatever name. If you were a really big dick and they ip banned you, you could still go into chat and contact one of the staff in there.

And get off the pope thing, you've missed the point entirely.

Quote:

---

Again, as was pointed out, he was banned before he got the chance to change it. I don't know what all he was banned from, so I can't tell you if he could or why he didn't point it out to somebody, but chances are he probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it anyway.

---

He was only banned from EoEO and WE. He was not banned from any other forums, nor was his use of PMs disabled. Basically, "it's a little late now."

Quote:

---

If Brandon Vega died years ago, why would somebody even make the connection between him and the Pope?

---

*WOOSH*

Sasquatch, why don't you quit splitting hairs about it? Because it's really annoying and not productive. Disrespect for the dead is disrepsect for the dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

If GWB dies from choking on a pretzel this coming Super Bowl I will test it out on him. :D

---

It won't be a pretzel, it'll be another stab at popping a wheelie on his tricycle after one too many grams of coke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If Brandon Vega died years ago, why would somebody even make the connection between him and the Pope?

---

Wow, buddy.

The connection made was between Hunter S. Thompson and the Pope. And because Hunter S. Thompson and Brandon Vega are two totally different people who had nothing to do with each other, no one could have possibly guessed, "Wait, are you actually talking about that kid from that chat room who overdosed a couple years back? Because people confuse that kid with Hunter S. Thompson all the time."

every time the name Vega occurs in this thread i think of john travolta

After being so sick for the last couple days that I barely even looked at these forums for all the wheezing, coughing and hacking up gobs of phlegm that looked like... well, I'd ban me if I actually described what they looked like on this forum... I'd end up running multiple pages to reply to every comment made, so I'll keep it light.

Quote:

---

Now this is different. That's a thread title; it's supposed to convey the entire purpose behind the thread.

---

So a statement can be offensive if it's in the title of the message but not if it's in the thread? Would now be the proper time to note the "The I Hate Ann Coulter Thread" or would it matter?

Quote:

---

It expresses an opinion as though it is fact.

---

Am I supposed to express my opinions as if they were a crock and I didn't want anyone to agree with me?

Quote:

---

It also fails to consider that there had been several threads made mourning his death, which pretty strongly suggests that a lot of people here cared about the guy and would obviously be upset by such a statement.

---

And likewise, I assume that no one cares about the President, or perhaps has a mother who's a 'soccer mom', or supports the Minutemen, or citizens of the United States who support their country, for that matter?

If that's all you've got for a defense, then...

Quote:

---

Again, as was pointed out, he was banned before he got the chance to change it. I don't know what all he was banned from, so I can't tell you if he could or why he didn't point it out to somebody, but chances are he probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it anyway.

---

He DID have the opportunity to do it. I have had an EoEO ban before. You can still go to EoFF and post in every single forum except for Eyes on the world and Eyes on each other. You can also send and receive private messages to any EoFF member that you so please to, as frequently as you like. The only restrictions he had was that he could not go into the EoTW or EoEO forums. He had the ability to argue his case, and as far as I know, he did not take that opportunity.

Quote:

---

So a statement can be offensive if it's in the title of the message but not if it's in the thread? Would now be the proper time to note the "The I Hate Ann Coulter Thread" or would it matter?

---

Anne Coulter didn't just die. If she were to die, and then I had made that thread, I would expect to be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Am I supposed to express my opinions as if they were a crock and I didn't want anyone to agree with me?

---

There are varying degrees between expressing something as an unquestionable truth and presenting it as a total crock, ya know? Try to find one of them. It can't be too hard because the hundreds of other members who post regularly seem to have found one.

It sounds to me like you're just flailing around wildly, typing in whatever poor excuse for your actions pops into your head first. Don't bother responding to this with another lame excuse like "NO YOU ARE" because I don't really care.

This is almost comedic. I apologize, I didn't mean to confuse all of you.

Let's see.

-Brandon Vega. Young. Overdosed. Moron. Died years ago.
-Pope. Old. Great man, great leader. Survived gunshot wound, died recently.

Somebody tried to relate The Redneck's post, which would have disrespected Vega, to a thread that would disrespect the Pope. Let me find it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

We wouldn't have been any less vindictive towards a liberal's graceless anti-Pope thread right after that guy died than we were towards a conservative's graceless anti-Thompson thread following his death.

---

There was no "sorry, we didn't know you were talking about somebody else, here let me open that thread back up for you", there was a ban.

And I see it--it's alright to disrespect and insult somebody, as long as they're not a member here, not dead, and not liberal, or usually a combination of degrees of those three. Hence, everybody is free to disrespect and insult Anne Coulter, and nothing should be done about people disrespecting the recently-deceased Pope, but anything regarding Hunter S. Thompson, or for some reason Brandon Vega, should be immediately shut down.

And people present their arguments as something they agree with. It just doesn't make sense to be impartial to one's own arguments.

("Dueling quotes"...Hah. I get a kick out of those every time.)

Kishi is referring to Hunter Thompson just likeThe Redneck's thread refers to Hunter Thompson, not Brandon Vega. Nobody cares about Brandon Vega.

Who IS Hunter Thompson and what if anything does he have to do with i told u i was hardcore?

Hunter Thompson was an American journalist and writer as well as proponent of the use of mind-altering drugs who recently committed suicide.

Brandon Vega was some kid who ODed while in a chatroom and his last words were "i told u i wuz hardcore" or some crap.

The Redneck made a thread stating that Thompson is a moron and ostensibly comparing him to Brandon Vega.

The Pope also died recently and we generally try not to allow threads that denigrate someone right after they have died.

Brandon Vega has been dead long enough that we can ridicule his moronic self.

Nobody was comparing the Pope to Brandon Vega or even Hunter Thompson.

Everyone should go soak their heads.

Quote:

---

So a statement can be offensive if it's in the title of the message but not if it's in the thread? Would now be the proper time to note the "The I Hate Ann Coulter Thread" or would it matter?

---

No, since there's nothing remotely flame-like in that title.

I hate Raistlin.

(SPOILER)Flame? Maybe.

Raistlin is blah blah blah body thrown in a mine shaft.

(SPOILER)Flame? Definitely.

I hate you too. :love:

Yeah, the general amount of rudeness that came from Rednecks thread was much different than the Anne Coulter thread, or any other thread that I have seen in a long time. Let's look at it this way:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Brandon Vega is a Worthless Loser who Should be Hurled into a Pine Box and Tossed into an abandoned mine

---

Still banworthy if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Anne Coulter is a Worthless Loser who Should be Hurled into a Pine Box and Tossed into an abandoned mine

---

Ban worthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some idiot

The Pope is a Worthless Loser who Should be Hurled into a Pine Box and Tossed into an abandoned mine

---

Ban worthy.

I think all of the mods are with me here. Had any thread been made with that title, there would have been a ban.

I think the statement on it's own is borderline, but The Redneck's general attitude pushes it on the ban side. Staff's gotta keep on the look out for loonies, you know. I think they do a pretty good job of it, seeing as, when they let a looney slip through the cracks they generally turn into long-time members that never ever shut up and you can't get rid of them.

And, no, I don't mean me, assholes.

*Loony

:p

Unless you were making a direct referrence to BoB, which I will punch you if you are, then:

loon·y or loon·ey also lun·y Audio pronunciation of "looney" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ln) Informal
adj. loon·i·er, loon·i·est

1. Extremely foolish or silly.
2. Crazy; insane.


n. pl. loon·ies, also loon·eys

A foolish or crazy person.

Loonies are easy to slip though cracks.

Note the capital L in my post.

I did note that, but I also noted that you are a whore, so it evens out.

I think "Adolf Hitler is a worthless loser who should be stuffed into a pine box and hurled down an abandoned mineshaft" would be acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I think the statement on it's own is borderline, but The Redneck's general attitude pushes it on the ban side. Staff's gotta keep on the look out for loonies, you know. I think they do a pretty good job of it, seeing as, when they let a looney slip through the cracks they generally turn into long-time members that never ever shut up and you can't get rid of them.

And, no, I don't mean me, assholes.

---

Are you refering to me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Are you refering to me?

---

When I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I think the statement on it's own is borderline, but The Redneck's general attitude pushes it on the ban side. Staff's gotta keep on the look out for loonies, you know. I think they do a pretty good job of it, seeing as, when they let a looney slip through the cracks they generally turn into long-time members that never ever shut up and you can't get rid of them.

---

No.

When I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

assholes.

---

Yes. :love:

She meant me both times, though. :p

Glad you noticed.

wow, your former staff titles match, Shlup and Raist. Such a cute couple. :love: :love: :love: :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

When I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

assholes.

---

Yes. :love:

---

Of course. Thats the most important part!

Mandee, please refrain from participating in off-topic conversation in this thread. Doing so is considered spamming and is against the rules. *does schizophrenic butt-scratch dance*

Don't moderate...leave the moderating to the mods. If you have a problem the use the warn button to PM a moderator to come in and take control of the situation :D

Don't modwhore, ed - you could've just used the Warn button and a moderator would've taken care of it. :p

Shut your faces, the lot of you. *can mod whore* :cool:

*reports Yams' post for flaming*

yea, he compared all of us to Lot. Thanks for the hardship, sweet potato boy!

This is all spam. Im reporting the lot of you! Every last one!

I'll report you, punk ass.

And so he did.