My Reason and Phillips Poll

[Michael C.]

Unless Paul made a completely different post that I missed, banning him was absolutely ridiculous. Disagree with him? Fine. But there's no way what I read of his can be construed as a personal attack. I sometimes think moderators go too far too. I realize it's a tough job, and if I did it I'm sure some people would disagree with my decisions. But whatever they get paid or don't get paid, they have to have somewhat of a thick skin. Instead you guys decided to make an example of Paul simply because you disagreed, and someone got his feelings hurt. Those are very bad reasons, and I think you've really hurt your site. I'm pretty sure Paul won't be back, although I hope I'm wrong. So congratulations for getting rid of him, since that's the result regardless of the intention. I think some　posters deserve to be banned, but when in doubt lean in the direction of discretion. That was not done in this case, and the loss is yours, and the 2+2 communities. It's not like we have that many real voices in the world of big time poker, and now we've lost one of them. Sorry this is so long, and my appologies if Paul made a completely different post other than the one I saw. But if it is just that one, banning him was completely wrong, in my opinion, which is all any of us can ever really give...

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
But there's no way what I read of his can be construed as a personal attack.

[/ QUOTE ]


He said something about Dynasty.. and then when they asked him to apologize for it, he called the owner/operators of the site 'Nazi youth'.

[Michael C.]

The comment he made about Nazi youth was wrong. It was also done AFTER the banning, not before. His comments about Dynasty hardly seemed like a personal attack to me, but were more Paul's oppinions that there were too many bannings, and the fact that the software left up "post deleted by moderator."

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
The comment he made about Nazi youth was wrong. It was also done AFTER the banning, not before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm missing something, this can't be true. How could he make a post after he was banned? Perhaps you are just using the wrong term.

[Michael C.]

OK, more correct would be after he was threatened with a banning and asked to appologize. Better?

[mosch]

The timeline is correct.

It went:
Paul criticizes Dynasty and UBB.
Mason tells Paul either apologize privately and public or you're gone.
Paul pees on 2+2 with the Hitler comment, officially sealing the deal.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
The timeline is correct.

It went:
Paul criticizes Dynasty and UBB.
Mason tells Paul either apologize privately and public or you're gone.
Paul pees on 2+2 with the Hitler comment, officially sealing the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your timeline seems to be correct, but his wasn't. All I was saying is that it's obviously not possible to make a post/comment from an account that has already been banned.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
mikech:
[ QUOTE ]
so mason's pm was, in effect, the ban

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes. mason's absurd ultimatum was for him to apologize for a non-existent offense, or be banned. the first option is an impossibility, so the second option is a fait accompli.

[Exitonly]

They didnt take place after the banning, he was supposed to apologize, and instead turned it into a hitler comment. If he just told mason that he wasn't going to apologize, i doubt he'd had been banned, and he could go on being his angry/arrogant self.

[KSOT]

I think the only way to get Phillips back here is for Mason and Mat to turn the tables and apologize to him.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.