My Reason and Phillips Poll

[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.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deleted that part of my post because it's not something I want to argue about. If that's how you see things, there is little that can be said to change your mind. Just so it's clear, though, I believe a ban is when one of the moderators or admins actually bans a user from the site with the admin tools.

It's more or less just about our differing opinion on what a ban really is, so it's pretty pointless to have a long argument about it.

[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.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ 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."

that was the de facto banning. apologize, privately AND publicly, or we will ban you. obviously paulp wasn't going to apologize for anything, given that all he had done was make a simple factual observation in saying dynasty poured fuel on the fire by boasting about banning people. so mason's pm was, in effect, the ban. paulp's hitler youth comment was just a "screw you and good riddance" on his way out.