OOT rules clarification

[Ulysses]

Dynasty and other mods,

I was banned yesterday for asking a question about whether or not two members of this forum were dating. I now realize that posting this kind of speculation regarding such ultrasensitive personal information is a major offense on 2+2 and I apologize deeply to all of those who were hurt by my callous actions.

I would however, like to ask for clarification on a few other items, so as to minimize the chances of being banned again.

Drinking - there have been numerous posts by other 2+2ers that describe excessive drinking by other forum members. Is this acceptable? A number of times 2+2ers have posted information about going out with me and witnessing my excessive drinking. This seems like pretty personal information to be sharing - is this OK?

Gambling - I have seen lots of posts across this forum that involve accounts of large gambling losses, including some of mine. This is pretty sensitive financial information, so I just wanted some clarification on what is OK to talk about when describing crazy gambling done by forum members.

Mental health - A poster yesterday created a whole thread focused around speculation that I might be going crazy. This thread resulted in extensive hurtful discussion. Sort of wondering why this was allowed to remain.

Drug use - In another thread, there was posted speculation (apparently from 2 members) that I was the person doing crazy amounts of cocaine. I'm a little shocked that my name was linked in that thread along with known degenerate drug users like crsig, cmfzzed, and DcigrThs (names changed to preserve anonymity). While that thread did make clear I was not that person, the speculation does seem very hurtful.

Sexual orientation - A forum member posted speculation that I had homosexual desire for bruiper and others also speculated that I am in love with anavardo (again, names changed). Not quite sure why this topic of speculation is allowed on here.

Anyway, like I said, there has been much speculation and discussion on this forum that I might be an insane cheating homosexual cokehead who drinks and gambles to excess, and all of that discussion was allowed to continue unabated. It sounds like you guys are now trying to reign in this outrageous behavior. I commend you for this and look forward to hearing more about the new policies.

I assume this is all a direct result of the new civility and decorum brought to this forum thanks to Quick Reply.

Best regards,
El Diablo

[pokerdirty]

El Diablo = Paul Phillips?

[DMBFan23]

"I might be an insane cheating homosexual cokehead who drinks and gambles to excess, and all of that discussion was allowed to continue unabated"

So, are you or not?

I used quick reply,
-DMB

[Ulysses]

PD: No, I obviously have nothing but the utmost respect for our moderators.

DMB: I'm not homosexual and I don't cheat.

[Shajen]

El Diablo,

This looks like the perfect spot for the "crop duster".

flatulently yours,

Shajen

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I might be an insane cheating homosexual cokehead who drinks and gambles to excess

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking forward to hanging out with you one night before New Year's.

[pokerdirty]

Also, I would like to thank you for changing the names of the other people. I know if I came on to an internet board and openly told everyone that I do certain illegal things, that I would want to be protected. If I ever become involved in any 2p2 rumors, it's good to know someone as yourself would have the decency to do such a thing.

P. Dirt

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
drug users like crsig, cmfzzed, and DcigrThs (names changed to preserve anonymity

[/ QUOTE ]
brilliant /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

i could see why the thread may have been locked (thats a judgement call), especially if requested by said individuals from the thread but i have to say i am really surprised that you were banned for that (even for only a short period of time).

[uw_madtown]

El Diablo,

I'm glad to see the continual, positive impact of Quick Reply on these forums. It truly is a marvelous addition to the forums.

Missing your normal avatar,
Madtown

[BottlesOf]

You were banned? And for that? Very lame.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

I think the rules dont apply when talking about an internet celebtrity. much like the media.


also you must be going crazy. ive never seen u w/ a diff avatar.

[MonkeeMan]

A ban for that? People around here are ban happy. Locking and maybe deleting the thread would have been adequate. I'm especially upset that it got locked as I was formulating a lame reply.

Happy posting,
Peace,
Merry Christmas, er, Happy Holidays,
Yours In Sanity,

Born 2 Loose

[chuddo]

el diablo,

i am sorry you experienced what was likely an unfair and oddly biased banning.

but surely you must realize that such speculation is NOT APPROPRIATE on the two+2 forums, despite what your common sense may tell you.

i am sure mslif and jason_t both forgive you.

appalled,
chuddo.

[Ulysses]

B2L,

I have no problem with being banned for such an egregious violation of the rules. I look forward to all such unacceptable behavior (as described in my OP here) being curtailed in this new era of OOT. At the time I made the post yesterday, I did not understand the ultrasensitive nature of the question I so naively asked, but now I do. Having understood how serious and hurtful it was, the only source of confusion to me now is why that thread was locked instead of deleted.

[MrWookie47]

El D,

The thread has now actually been deleted.

Informatively,
Wookie

[ThaSaltCracka]

good post El D.

[NotMitch]

El Diablo,

Was the cocaine thing in regards to the "cokehead" account? Because IIRC that guy couldn't be bothered to even do laundry and you dont strike me as the type of guy who cant get his clothing cleaned.

Curiously,

NM

jason_t is mine.

mslif, keep away from him. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[sfer]

Diablo,

I believe this post should go in the new Bad Beat forum. Perhaps you've come across it already?

Best Wishes,
sfer

PS, I think that's a crappy way to get outed. Holla.

[Vavavoom]

El D,

U got banned for being a homosexual drug abuser....That Sucks...Glad to have u back....now that you are clean...

Holla

Vava

[nolanfan34]

I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public.

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[kenberman]

Hi El Diablo,

When I use Quick Reply, I always get an error. This makes me sad.

Best Wishes,
Kneel B4 Zod

[Boris]

This is BS bro. Tell us some more gossip.

Who was the Mod that banned you?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public.

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty damned good post.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public.

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty damned good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nolanfan never disappoints when it comes to moderation stuff.

[B Dids]

Agree w/Ent and Nolan.

The way astro phrased it in his rules post is pretty much spot on.

[ QUOTE ]
jason_t is mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bi[/i]tch, please.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
jason_t is mine.

mslif, keep away from him. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You ladies need to settle your differences the old-fashioned way...with creamed corn wrestling. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bosoxfan]

[ QUOTE ]
also you must be going crazy. ive never seen u w/ a diff avatar.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D
I can't remember that far back. What was your avatar before the name change?

[Jack of Arcades]

IIRC, a picture of U.S. Grant.

[offTopic]

Hello Masked Man,

You were banned for that post?

bwahaha haha
hahaha hahahaha
hmph haha haha

Awaiting the poetry nits,
offTopic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public.

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think that's the same at all. What damage could happen or what violation is being done by speculationg as to whether or not two USER NAMES are dating. None IMO. Posting details of someone's work or posting their image without permission is much different as it could possibly be used to effect the person in real life.

I don't think this reaches that level at all. Now I can completely understand if the people involved PM'd a mod asking for the thread to be locked or removed and the mod chose to do so. However I don't think it was anywhere the level that should warrant premptive action.

I mean all it asked is if two users are dating. Nothing offensive or invasive what so ever.

[jakethebake]

I assumed he meant this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/sleepboxer/al.jpg

[Ulysses]

nolan,

Thank you for your response. However, this PM I received basically sums up why I don't think what you wrote really applies in this situation.

"...that it's perfectly reasonable for people who use 2+2 as an internet dating site and then hook up publicly while drunk at Magoo-fest to expect some modicum of privacy afterward. Shame on you and the rest of the rumor mongers!"

Also, as you point out, people create a level of detail regarding what they are comfortable discussing openly. For example, some are comfortable discussing winrates/income/etc. and others aren't. I fully agree that those boundaries should be respected. However, when an individual and his circle of friends openly post (on the forum, NOT in any sort of PM/IM/etc.) about his exploits picking up chicks and nailing strippers, it sets a standard for what one might expect to be talked about when it comes to said individual.


Your friend,
El Diablo

Yeah, this is pretty much the last straw.

Mods, can you please IP ban this Diablo freak?

[Ulysses]

[censored],

I agree with your post completely.

[pokerdirty]

If El D's post was lock-worthy and was banned, why didn't he get a * ?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jason_t is mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bi[/i]tch, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both you shut up, He is mine!!! Someday we will be a happily married christian couple.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If El D's post was lock-worthy and was banned, why didn't he get a * ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one OOT mod uses that system.

[B Dids]

Frickin' Commodus.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2 as an internet dating site

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I want my membership fee refunded. I came here for masturbation advice and such.

[BeerMoney]

Probably your worst post ever.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jason_t is mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bi[/i]tch, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both you shut up, He is mine!!! Someday we will be a happily married christian couple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mrs. Utah is still a whore.

[SackUp]

what is OOT good for if we cannot mindlessly speculate about other posters while showing pics of naked women?

Posts like this should only be locked or deleted - and only as a result of the interested parties objecting to the thread. Otherwise, who gives a fcuk?? This is an interenet message board where anonimity is found in a user name.

Is a mod secretly dating a "normal" user and they don't want any showing of inprorpiety or favortism?? I just don't get it sometimes.

[Ulysses]

nolan,

To clarify my previous response to you. I'm simply saying the following two statements are imo very different:

"I heard Dominic hooked up w/ Traci Lords - any comment!?"

and

"I heard Steve Thompson (JA Sucker) hooked up with this undergrad chem student Kim Wong (Stanford, junior) - any comment!?"

Of course, these things are largely a judgement call and depending on who/what you know, your perspective re: their appropriateness is likely to be different.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
I was banned yesterday for asking a question about whether or not two members of this forum were dating.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D,

No, no you're not PITTM.

bwana

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


"...that it's perfectly reasonable for people who use 2+2 as an internet dating site and then hook up publicly while drunk at Magoo-fest to expect some modicum of privacy afterward. Shame on you and the rest of the rumor mongers!"



[/ QUOTE ]

This was my initial problem with removing the original post. There is credance to the arguement that any relationship that there may be is A) already within the public domain when it comes to 2+2 and OOT and B) that it is in the public domain as a direct result of the parties involved, either through actions or telling other 2+2ers. I think if anyone were to look at it reasonably they would have to come to the conclusion that the parties are not entitled to a blanket privacy policy when it comes to their relationship because of this.

This would be similar IMO to something that may occur if TT were to date Jessica Beil or Gonores and his personal assistant. Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

Now obviously this only goes so far and posts that are blatantly offensive, vulgar or with an otherwise meanspirited intent concerning any relationship would go to far and should be dealt with. But this was not the case IMO.

[Boris]

All I know is if I ever hook up with Mrs. Utah and she is too embarrassed for it to be public knowledge, I'm gonna be really bummed out.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard Steve Thompson (JA Sucker) hooked up with this undergrad chem student Kim Wong (Stanford, junior) - any comment!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard they went to Chipotle and drank a bottle of hot sauce. Confirm?

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll actually answer this seriously. The difference I think between your post, and some of the other things mentioned, is that the latter items are usually details that the posters in question offer up voluntarily. That's a lot different than speculating about someone or posting personal info that they wouldn't want to be public.

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow are these two things not even close to comparable

I agree with [censored]

[J.A.Sucker]

Dear Diablo,

Boundaries, dude. Boundaries.

XOXO,

Steve (a.k.a. Sucker)

[Boris]

It's true. They then experimented with the Ass Eating to ease the pain. The really educated chicks are into that kind of stuff.

[college_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty damned good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, nolanfan is implying that two very dissimilar things are similar.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the June trip, several people got angry about certain details making their way back onto the boards. It was generally agreed that there are certain lines and areas that it's best to use discretion, or at least check with the original poster.

I'm just saying, there is a precedent regarding 2p2 trips, and it's that people's privacy should be respected if it's questionable whether they'd want something coming out into the open.

[samjjones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the June trip, several people got angry about certain details making their way back onto the boards. It was generally agreed that there are certain lines and areas that it's best to use discretion, or at least check with the original poster.

I'm just saying, there is a precedent regarding 2p2 trips, and it's that people's privacy should be respected if it's questionable whether they'd want something coming out into the open.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this terribly hypocritical, but if the precedence HAS been established, it should be respected. Note that I am far removed from the OOT inner circle, so my views are influenced accordingly.

[Ulysses]

Madtown,

Actually, the level of discretion displayed here is incredibly high.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the June trip, several people got angry about certain details making their way back onto the boards. It was generally agreed that there are certain lines and areas that it's best to use discretion, or at least check with the original poster.

I'm just saying, there is a precedent regarding 2p2 trips, and it's that people's privacy should be respected if it's questionable whether they'd want something coming out into the open.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm, what if for example I went to the vegas trip and slept with a prostitute and then were to openly talk about it with the other 2+2ers in attendance of the vegas trip. Should I really get upset if that information were to then make its way back to 2+2?

If I wanted it to remain private should I not have kept it that way to begin with.

btw) I'm not trying to morally equate sleeping with a prostitute with having any that is going on here. I do however think the privacy concerns are similar.

Also so there is no confusion I know absolutely nothing about the details of the actual situation and any I post is in the abstract to further the point im making.

[AngryCola]

I think nolanfan is getting too much crap for his example. The main idea of his post still seems valid to me.

[censored]:
[ QUOTE ]
what if for example I went to the vegas trip and slept with a prostitute and then were to openly talk about it with the other 2+2ers in attendance of the vegas trip. Should I really get upset if that information were to then make its way back to 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

This example is a bit too vague for me to give a solid reply, but that information being posted on the site at a later date shouldn't be a given, IMO.

[SL__72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the June trip, several people got angry about certain details making their way back onto the boards. It was generally agreed that there are certain lines and areas that it's best to use discretion, or at least check with the original poster.

I'm just saying, there is a precedent regarding 2p2 trips, and it's that people's privacy should be respected if it's questionable whether they'd want something coming out into the open.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmmm, what if for example I went to the vegas trip and slept with a prostitute and then were to openly talk about it with the other 2+2ers in attendance of the vegas trip. Should I really get upset if that information were to then make its way back to 2+2?

If I wanted it to remain private should I not have kept it that way to begin with.

btw) I'm not trying to morally equate sleeping with a prostitute with having any that is going on here. I do however think the provacy concerns are similar

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't there some special rule about telling people about the events that take place during trips to Vegas after the fact?

[jesusarenque]

http://www.webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/issue2/crybaby.jpg

[tonypaladino]

[censored] has made the most sense out of anyone in this thread.

[imported_anacardo]

El Diablo,

You absolutely reek of hubris. Were I either of the parties in question, I would have stumbled into a whole group of you people, slipped into a red haze and snapped awake hours later, clutching a meat cleaver with my arm stained red to the elbow.

Fondest regards,

Tronco de Anacardo y Chocolate.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'd bet for example that you wouldn't want J.A. Sucker or Boris to create a thread with your company name, or your picture, right? I'm sure there's funny ways they could work that info in, but there's an expected level of privacy that people should be able to expect. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty damned good post.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, nolanfan is implying that two very dissimilar things are similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point was that people have their boundaries, and once they have been made clear (and, despite my relative unfamiliarity with the land of OOT I believe the parties involved in this one have made their respective stances clear), then even the most highly respected posters shouldn't be starting threads about such subject matter.

Much in the same way that I wouldn't care if someone posted my pic or where I worked, but wouldn't ever post that information about someone whom I knew to be very privacy-oriented. Everyone has their boundaries, and it's important (to me) that we treat each other with enough respect in regards to these.

I didn't read El. D's original post, so I don't know whether it was made with an understanding that these individuals wanted to remain private or not (I doubt that it was, as I don't see Diablo as being malicious without provocation), and I don't think he should have been banned for the post -- but I think that there should be some consensus reached as to what should be posted in regards to rumors about others, and that consensus should be followed.

With regards to information that has a sensitive history, it would seem most prudent to me just to leave it be, and not bring it back to the top of OOT.

Rob

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.users.qwest.net/~brianacuff/images/democrats.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I love that picture.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] has made the most sense out of anyone in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that there are so many different takes on what, if anything, should have happened here. This tells me that issues like this one fall into the grayest area of general policy.

[tonypaladino]

I was kinda hoping that this thread would be about the stupidity of not being able to mention the word "poker"

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
I was kinda hoping that this thread would be about the stupidity of not being able to mention the word "poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Are you familiar at all with OP's style?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
The point was that people have their boundaries, and once they have been made clear (and, despite my relative unfamiliarity with the land of OOT I believe the parties involved in this one have made their respective stances clear), then even the most highly respected posters shouldn't be starting threads about such subject matter.

Much in the same way that I wouldn't care if someone posted my pic or where I worked, but wouldn't ever post that information about someone whom I knew to be very privacy-oriented. Everyone has their boundaries, and it's important (to me) that we treat each other with enough respect in regards to these.

I didn't read El. D's original post, so I don't know whether it was made with an understanding that these individuals wanted to remain private or not (I doubt that it was, as I don't see Diablo as being malicious without provocation), and I don't think he should have been banned for the post -- but I think that there should be some consensus reached as to what should be posted in regards to rumors about others, and that consensus should be followed.

With regards to information that has a sensitive history, it would seem most prudent to me just to leave it be, and not bring it back to the top of OOT.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much what I was trying to say. I also don't think a banning was appropriate, as I think there's a warning that could have been done.

I'll admit that Diablo and [censored] raised some valid points as well, as I couldn't have seen that PM of course, and I didn't see all of the original posts along the way leading to this. Not that that would stop me from having an opinion, of course.

[tonypaladino]

In what way do you mean that?

[IndieMatty]

Tony,
Re. Poker. Your're a good poster, you're allowed in context. The general ban was made for people who couldn't discern between what is proper and not.

All,

Let me use this as an opportunity to point all OOTiots to an excellent thread about El Diablo here, who is as I stated yesterday, clearly losing his mind.

Dinner (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4142268&Main=4141975#Pos t4142268)
Best,
Matt

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] has made the most sense out of anyone in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it interesting that there are so many different takes on what, if anything, should have happened here. This tells me that issues like this one fall into the grayest area of general policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there would be a lot less if everyone saw the post. Dialblo didn't really say anything.

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
In what way do you mean that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean: Of course he's going to return like Napoleon from Elba and start a bunch of [censored]. To have been disciplined by the 2+2 mods must have been an intolerable affront.

Maybe, maybe, after the ten googolth time people ask, we could just leave them the [censored] alone in public. Maybe?

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you could argue that they posted the information and the couple in question did not but I would counter that the vegas trip was advertised as a 2+2 and OOT get together and that its reasonable to expect any results of said trip to make its way to 2+2 and OOT. This of course is the forum where we all communicate regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the June trip, several people got angry about certain details making their way back onto the boards. It was generally agreed that there are certain lines and areas that it's best to use discretion, or at least check with the original poster.

I'm just saying, there is a precedent regarding 2p2 trips, and it's that people's privacy should be respected if it's questionable whether they'd want something coming out into the open.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find this terribly hypocritical, but if the precedence HAS been established, it should be respected. Note that I am far removed from the OOT inner circle, so my views are influenced accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's what happened after the trip in june.

One poster made a post with very explicit detail.

In that very thread, people said "dude, that's not cool" and others agreed.

If you'll note- save one thread that was a horrible idea- (A thread that had a lot of people who were in Vegas yelling at PITTM)People didn't share a whole ton as to what happened in November specifically because of what was discussed regarding the June trip.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
I was kinda hoping that this thread would be about the stupidity of not being able to mention the word "poker"

[/ QUOTE ]

me too

[ThaSaltCracka]

I am getting something entirely different out of El Diablo's post. From what I can see, El D is wondering why his thread about two posters, which contained some fact, and some rumor, was locked(which resulted in the short banning), and why other threads containing posts about him, posts which are based on nothing but rumors, rumors which border on slander, are allowed? Atleast thats how I see it.

[Ulysses]

anacardo,

/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Your friend,
El Diablo
KIRC

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting something entirely different out of El Diablo's post. From what I can see, El D is wondering why his thread about two posters, which contained some fact, and some rumor, was locked(which resulted in the short banning), and why other threads containing posts about him, posts which are based on nothing but rumors, rumors which border on slander, are allowed? Atleast thats how I see it.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is how i read it as well and then the thread spiraled in many different directions.

[Eurotrash]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what happened after the trip in june.

One poster made a post with very explicit detail.

In that very thread, people said "dude, that's not cool" and others agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]


haha, the way I remember it, one person said "dude, that's not cool"

and then Saltcracka said something like "stop being such a [censored] prude" and I laughed very hard at that because it was so true.

[DMBFan23]

wait, there was actual content to this? I thought you were being sarcastic.

man, whoever banned you has some stones.

[B Dids]

Another point which warrents mentioning to me.

I don't think it takes a really observant person to see that given the current culture of OOT, it's not exactly a place where people would want to put their personal lives on display.

This forum is just uniformly horrible towards women. Until a post can go more than 20 replies without somebody being called a whore or a [censored], I think erring on the site of not openning up people to be insulted is probably wise.

[asofel]

nice post Dids

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
nice post Dids

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you guys READ THE [censored] PATRICK EWING POST IN HIGH LIMIT!!!

Diablos a whore! I know for a fact that he made out with _ women one night!

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
what is OOT good for if we cannot mindlessly speculate about other posters while showing pics of naked women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The longer I participate in OOT, the more I think of it as a jungle. It should be. It should be pretty much free will up to the point of affecting somebody's real life, and even then there should be SOME leeway (see Lexington Brian). I now believe that the only bannings should be for generally sucking. FWIW, [censored] was doing a very good job in this department.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Until a post can go more than 20 replies without somebody being called a whore or a [censored], I think erring on the site of not openning up people to be insulted is probably wise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread qualifies. But now that you've got the ball rolling...

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nice post Dids

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think it takes a really observant person to see that given the current culture of OOT, it's not exactly a place where people would want to put their personal lives on display.

[/ QUOTE ]really since when?


[ QUOTE ]


This forum is just uniformly horrible towards women. Until a post can go more than 20 replies without somebody being called a whore or a [censored], I think erring on the site of not openning up people to be insulted is probably wise.

[/ QUOTE ] true

[jason_t]

I would like to clarify a few things here.

First, to answer the question that everyone wants the answer to: mslif and I are in a relationship. We have been for a little over a month now.

Second, I would like to explain how this happened. It wasn't a random drunk hookup as speculated in this thread. In July mslif PMed me about a post I made in OOT and later about a post I made in SMP. I replied to these PMs and we entered into a nice dialog about various topics. We exchanged PMs every few days and at some point the conversations were interesting enough to me that I offered her my AIM screenname. We started talking over AIM regularly and clicked really well. She came on the November Vegas trip and the first afternoon she was in Vegas we met up for lunch. We clicked just as well and by the end of the weekend it was apparent that we both wanted a relationship.

Third, I would like to clarify why we were shy about this topic. We wanted privacy on this topic because a certain poster has harassed her and I on the forums and via PMs both before and since the Vegas trip. The nature of the harassment that she received was intense and she didn't want to have to deal with more of it from him nor anyone else. OOT is not kind to women.

Lastly, I did not request nor did I approve of El Diablo being banned. I requested through Dids and Evan that his ban be reversed as soon as I heard about it.

[asofel]

nice post jason...maybe people can leave this alone now...

[MonkeeMan]

Thank you for not using "2+2 as an internet dating site".

[ QUOTE ]

We wanted privacy on this topic because a certain poster has harassed her and I on the forums and via PMs both before and since the Vegas trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...a certain poster has harassed her and me..."

[MrWookie47]

Man, we did not need this gimmick account. We already have a forum half full of them. The other half is people who don't care and are always getting corrected by the damn dirty nits.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, we did not need this gimmick account. We already have a forum half full of them. The other half is people who don't care and are always getting corrected by the damn dirty nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

You beat me to the punch. Worstest gimmmmickckck ackount evre.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Re. Poker. Your're a good poster, you're allowed in context. The general ban was made for people who couldn't discern between what is proper and not.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory. However, Monty Cantsin and Matt Flynn had threads moved that should have stayed in OOT and several other less known posters had threads moved that belonged in OOT and most definitely did NOT belong in the forums they were moved to.

It isn't just posters that have problems discerning what belongs and what doesn't.

[tonypaladino]

I have also had a thread moved to B&M where, appropriatly, it was deleted because it clearly did not belong there.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
I have also had a thread moved to B&M where, appropriatly, it was deleted because it clearly did not belong there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have faith in Astro. He knows the spirit of this place better than most.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
I have faith in Astro. He knows the spirit of this place better than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I. However, I'm pretty sure it wasn't astro making these bad decisions.

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nice post Dids

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you guys READ THE [censored] PATRICK EWING POST IN HIGH LIMIT!!!

Diablos a whore! I know for a fact that he made out with _ women one night!

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this _ equal to what you booked in November? Whoa.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have faith in Astro. He knows the spirit of this place better than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I. However, I'm pretty sure it wasn't astro making these bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

So lets move towards the future. Why dwell on the past.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nice post Dids

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you guys READ THE [censored] PATRICK EWING POST IN HIGH LIMIT!!!

Diablos a whore! I know for a fact that he made out with _ women one night!

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this _ equal to what you booked in November? Whoa.

[/ QUOTE ]

No poker in OOT. noob.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
So lets move towards the future. Why dwell on the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

because unless things have changed astro isn't the only OOT mod and bad decisions have been made within the last 7 days.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
Third, I would like to clarify why we were shy about this topic. We wanted privacy on this topic because a certain poster has harassed her and I on the forums and via PMs both before and since the Vegas trip. The nature of the harassment that she received was intense and she didn't want to have to deal with more of it from him nor anyone else. OOT is not kind to women.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has he been IP banned yet? Not that it's exactly difficult to circumvent.

(I'm assuming that the poster in question is the most obvious suspect)

[B Dids]

Saddly, we can't do IP bans (nor are they really that effective).

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So lets move towards the future. Why dwell on the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

because unless things have changed astro isn't the only OOT mod and bad decisions have been made within the last 7 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the TV show can be canceled...

Post deleted by [censored]

[chuddo]

wow that is the craziest post i have ever read.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
wow that is the craziest post i have ever read.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah no [censored], it has me scared.

[asofel]

why do you still read this stuff man? If its annoying or whatever why bother? I don't understand why you keep creating accounts to trade posts back and forth...isn't it easier just to say f it and read stuff elsewhere?

[ThaSaltCracka]

He is a masochist I think.

[tonypaladino]

you all think it really is ThinMan?

[JihadOnTheRiver]

I had no idea why TM was ever banned. At least this thread clears it right up...

[B Dids]

One of the reasons he likely does is because people respond. Just ignore the guy, don't gratify him. At all.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
you all think it really is ThinMan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Q. Mods, IP check?

Post deleted by [censored]

[[censored]]

my artistic interpretation of thinman

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6280/capefear4xx.jpg

come out, come out where ever you are!

The thing is though I have reason to believe him

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah no [censored], it has me scared.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ThaSaltCracka]

air it out man.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

This is [censored] awesome. BRING ON THE EMAILS! Nothings on TV, this will do nicely. DUCK THE FODGERS!

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah I want to see them too. Or at the very least I want jason t to answer back.

[Sponger15SB]

Thinman,

POTD!

Regards,
Sponger

[Victor]

i really wanna know what he said.