|
|
|
|
#1
11-11-2005, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I\'m very sorry
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] another wonderful job by the mods oo lets ban paul philips, one of pokers smarter minds. yea thats smart. ban barryg next while ur at it [/ QUOTE ] barryg behaves like an adult. [/ QUOTE ] Oh really? |
|
#2
11-10-2005, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m very sorry
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Phillips banned but Vince Lepore still posting. Yeah. That makes sense. [/ QUOTE ] Vince Lepore's relationship with the site owners is probably a large part of the reason Paul was banned. They were probably just biding their time waiting for an opportunity. Mason's email practically goaded Paul into a response that would lead to a ban. |
|
#4
11-09-2005, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m very sorry
[ QUOTE ]
>>Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum.<< [/ QUOTE ] COME ON. "first to us privately, and then to the forum." i mean seriously. reading this makes me cringe. |
|
#5
11-09-2005, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I\'m very sorry
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] >>Paul, we are considering granting your wish of never allowing you to post here again. You need to appologize, first to us privately, and then to the forum.<< [/ QUOTE ] COME ON. "first to us privately, and then to the forum." i mean seriously. reading this makes me cringe. [/ QUOTE ] You know, when speaking to other people in person about this set of forums, I almost always refer to them as "The Cult of Personality Message Boards." Not that I really have anything against CoP Message Boards. Heck, I've been known to run a few myself. But, I think this example ("Apologize to me and everyone else because you disagreed with how I run this site") sort of reinforces my opinion of the place. |
|
#6
11-09-2005, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
The site has one and only one owner. The owner is 2+2. The owner posts the ground rules. The users either honor the ground rules or they are dealt with by the owner in accordance with the ground rules.
The ground rules are clear and widely publicized. For example, the Politics list the specific ground rules for that forum as the very first post. This setup is very direct and explicit. It seems to me that any drama generated is not from 2+2 but rather, from those who choose to not honor the clearly articulated ground rules. Anyone posting 2+2, regardless of native talent level, popularity, or other gifts, is posting on private property at the owner's pleasure, and as such must honor the rules of the private property owner. |
|
#7
11-09-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
Two points:
1) The owner's actions undermine the service which he pretends to provide. 2) The punishment of the transgressor is symbolic and retributive; it is virtually unenforceable. |
|
#8
11-10-2005, 01:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
Both points are incidental to owner's assertion of private property rights and owner's enforcement of clearly stated and simple ground rules.
Owner is well within bounds of ground rules; visitor is not and then gets dramatic. Use of the service is 100% at the owner's pleasure, per ground rules. Owner plays by the stated rules and even shows courtesy by providing outs to visitor; visitor shows utter disrespect of both owner and owner-provided outs. |
|
#9
11-10-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
This isn't about ground rules. Of course Mason is within his rights. But he's also being petty. The right to oppose stupid rules, with drama, if necessary, belongs to the respondants here. Paul Phillips can't engage in that on this forum, but I can and will (as long as I am not banned).
Here is your logic applied to civil rights: "KKK members exercise their constitutional right to spew hatred. Black people don't like this and get all dramatic. They should shut up and take it because the law is the law." |
|
#10
11-10-2005, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One owner who sets explicit rules for use of private property.
I notice you are applying my property rights argument to a different area of concern-- rights of free speech and assembly granted to US citizens.
This is an apples to oranges comparision. 2+2 has one and only one owner. The owner sets ground rules and optionally chooses to enforce them. The visitors use 2+2 property for free at the pleasure of the 2+2 owner. The 2+2 owner provides a service to the public at great expense of time, effort and money. I notice 2+2 does not charge for this service nor require that visitors purchase a 2+2 product, etc. I notice that visitors must honor ground rules for use. |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
