Since this is now the official Danyal memorial thread I figure I might as well join in:
Danyal made some really interesting threads and had some rather...peculiar attitudes towards things. However, he could have done without that proselytizing attitude of his and making multiple threads about the same topic or just to prove his point. Alas, he was warned repeatedly so I won't exactly shed a tear about him getting banned. Still a shame that he couldn't pull himself together, though....
Good riddance to the trolls. Let's hope the Mods start doing their job more consistently now. Internet bullying should be unacceptable, regardless of how "entertaining" a bunch of people on the forum think it is.
Katatori-kun: Good riddance to the trolls. Let's hope the Mods start doing their job more consistently now. Internet bullying should be unacceptable, regardless of how "entertaining" a bunch of people on the forum think it is.
Speaking of which, if mods are reading this, you know what would be great? A little "this is why X got banned" thing. Like, why was Ultrahammer banned? Seriously, I hate that guy, but he wasn't that bad.
Danyal made some really interesting threads and had some rather...peculiar attitudes towards things. However, he could have done without that proselytizing attitude of his and making multiple threads about the same topic or just to prove his point. Alas, he was warned repeatedly so I won't exactly shed a tear about him getting banned. Still a shame that he couldn't pull himself together, though....
Katatori-kun: Good riddance to the trolls. Let's hope the Mods start doing their job more consistently now. Internet bullying should be unacceptable, regardless of how "entertaining" a bunch of people on the forum think it is.
Does this mean Danyal and Mr. Tarlow? Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Danyal made some really interesting threads and had some rather...peculiar attitudes towards things. However, he could have done without that proselytizing attitude of his and making multiple threads about the same topic or just to prove his point. Alas, he was warned repeatedly so I won't exactly shed a tear about him getting banned. Still a shame that he couldn't pull himself together, though....
I still don't understand why he was banned.
Making a thread on an explicitly banned topic (pornography and pedophilia are explicitly banned subjects and simulated child pornography covers both) while having 1 short of a ban.
DJjaffacake: Does this mean Danyal and Mr. Tarlow? Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Danyal's tendency to flood the board with inflammatory topics (sometimes 3 or 4 a day) and a "my shit don't stick" attitude did not make him beloved in the eyes of the R&P crowd.
Taylor's issues more stem from his tendency to post one-sentence threads that are pretty much Paulite talking points.
Trolling and bullying are only two few reasons to reprimand a post and not the only restrictions under the Code of Conduct.
Danyal made some really interesting threads and had some rather...peculiar attitudes towards things. However, he could have done without that proselytizing attitude of his and making multiple threads about the same topic or just to prove his point. Alas, he was warned repeatedly so I won't exactly shed a tear about him getting banned. Still a shame that he couldn't pull himself together, though....
I still don't understand why he was banned.
I guess you don't mean the last straw but the ones before that, right?
Well as far as I could see every single one of his threads wasn't really about discussion but trying to show everyone that he was right. Couple that with his combative discussion stance which relied far too much on posting pictures/videos/wikipedia links and what-have-you without ever budging from his original stance and what you get are pissed off people. And I guess if a good deal of them pressed the report-buttons...well...
Thats just my guess, though - as for the official reasons I could guess but you'd have to ask the mods for the details.....
EDIT: Just saw the Gentlemans post....that was what his last straw was about...
DJjaffacake: Does this mean Danyal and Mr. Tarlow? Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Danyal's tendency to flood the board with inflammatory topics (sometimes 3 or 4 a day) and a "my shit don't stick" attitude did not make him beloved in the eyes of the R&P crowd.
Taylor's issues more stem from his tendency to post one-sentence threads that are pretty much Paulite talking points.
Trolling and bullying are only two few reasons to reprimand a post and not the only restrictions under the Code of Conduct.
Well yeah, clearly they get (or got, in Danyal's case) on people's nerves and broke some rules, but I was specifically questioning calling them bullies, because being annoying and stubborn do not a bully make.
DJjaffacake: Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Anyone who makes routine posts attacking a religion as a whole (or any other diverse group of people) is an Internet bully. He may not have seemed that way to you because he never attacked your group. Unfortunately at the moment the mods seem to be rather tolerant of bullying as long as the "right" group is under fire.
DJjaffacake: Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Anyone who makes routine posts attacking a religion as a whole (or any other diverse group of people) is an Internet bully. He may not have seemed that way to you because he never attacked your group. Unfortunately at the moment the mods seem to be rather tolerant of bullying as long as the "right" group is under fire.
Surely that makes him a bigot, not a bully. Beside I'd much rather he was allowed to attack religion than not, although I don't like the fact that threads that attack atheism often get banned, whereas anti-religion ones don't, so I'm with you there.
DJjaffacake: Because I didn't see too much of what Danyal did, but from what I did see he wasn't an internet bully, and Zachy boy definitely isn't.
Anyone who makes routine posts attacking a religion as a whole (or any other diverse group of people) is an Internet bully. He may not have seemed that way to you because he never attacked your group. Unfortunately at the moment the mods seem to be rather tolerant of bullying as long as the "right" group is under fire.
Surely that makes him a bigot, not a bully. Beside I'd much rather he was allowed to attack religion than not, although I don't like the fact that threads that attack atheism often get banned, whereas anti-religion ones don't, so I'm with you there.
In this case, he's both. Because he's taking actions (posts) to vilify real people in the world.
But you are right. On this board if I make a post claiming that Atheists are immoral people I guarantee that I would get a warning, but posters can declare that all members of a certain unpopular religion are backwards and not even get a peep. It shows there is a deep administrative bias entrenched in the moderation, and that they are limiting our free speech not for the good of all but to pursue an ideological agenda.
While it was rather pointed, the op is a good one that I strongly agree with. It is rather hard to have a debate when the premise is poorly defined. And for what its worth, I thought this was kind of meant towards KILLUMINATI (a ringing in of a new era if you will).
On the subject of Danyal, I can't say I'm sad to see him go. He had a habit of creating strife in almost every thread he commented in, and the way he flooded the board with topics we had discussed very recently really irritated me.
Katatori-kun: Anyone who makes routine posts attacking a religion as a whole (or any other diverse group of people) is an Internet bully. He may not have seemed that way to you because he never attacked your group. Unfortunately at the moment the mods seem to be rather tolerant of bullying as long as the "right" group is under fire.
Katatori-kun: Libertarianism is nothing more than economic anarchy, financial policy distilled down to "I've got mine, so fuck you." Such a policy has never been proven to produce good results for societies. Traditional American conservativism is less bold in it's giant middle finger raised toward everyone else who isn't already rich, and instead disguises that middle finger by dressing it up in a preacher's outfit.
Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies.
-Wikipedia
So, Libertarians are a diverse group of people - and you're attacking Libertarianism as a whole. You're an Internet bully - according to your own definition! Or are you tolerant of your own bullying because the "right" group is under fire?
Katatori-kun: On this board if I make a post claiming that Atheists are immoral people I guarantee that I would get a warning, but posters can declare that all members of a certain unpopular religion are backwards and not even get a peep.
1. Show me a post that declares atheists are immoral people that did get warned, and show me a post that declares all members of a religion backwards that didn't get warned. 2. The fact that I call skydiving dangerous does not mean that I have to call all sports or even non-sports dangerous.
Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, "religion" is a term like "sports": Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous ("free solo" rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail no more risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of "sports" as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term "religion" is scarcely more useful.
Mostly because he'll no longer be offering a target to aim at.