Josh. (formerly sthief09) has been banned... - Page 2

citanul · #1 11-02-2005, 05:15 PM

jesus, this is ridiculous.

when someone gets banned they have an issue with th moderator. if they want to discuss it they should do it through that moderator and or through mat. they shouldn't and their friends shouldn't start new threads all over the place talking about how lame it is that they got banned. particularly in the case of temporary bannings. if someone gets banned for 5 days or whatever, they should just be banned for 5 days and chill out unless they have a real legitimate reason for not doing so.

grassroots campaigns of this nature are sad. they're sadder when started by mods, but sad nonetheless when not.

c

AngryCola · #2 11-02-2005, 05:17 PM

ZBTHorton · #3 11-02-2005, 05:17 PM

As a fellow member of the Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity, I 100% agree with him, even though I have no idea what he did.

B Dids · #4 11-02-2005, 05:18 PM

This would be fine is the mod was the least bit reasonable. I've been somebody that's supported Dynasty, but it's getting silly.

Banning well respected posters because of one off-hand comment is retarded.

private joker · #5 11-02-2005, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Banning well respected posters because of one off-hand comment is retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it because he typed the word "black" in the Tiffany Williamson thread on WPT? If so, that's the worst banning I've seen yet.

fnord_too · #6 11-02-2005, 05:25 PM

WOW. I thought your free Josh in the other thread was a clever reference to when Sthief was banned. WTF?

sfer · #7 11-02-2005, 05:18 PM

Do you disagree with anything I've written?

astroglide · #8 11-02-2005, 05:24 PM

a mod should strive to enforce the will of the people as much as is possible while conforming to the regulations of the forum's operators. i think it's fine to yap about it if a singular incident was the cause. if it was absolutely heinous, ok, but generally speaking bans should be reserved for those who are perceived to be hopeless.

it's hard to believe that he would do something unforgivable, and it's also hard to believe that he would be unable to listen to reason if it was a non-lethal offense.

B Dids · #9 11-02-2005, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
a mod should strive to enforce the will of the people as much as is possible while conforming to the regulations of the forum's operators. i think it's fine to yap about it if a singular incident was the cause. if it was absolutely heinous, ok, but generally speaking bans should be reserved for those who are generally perceived to be hopeless.

i didn't know he was banned, and i don't know why he was banned, but it's hard to believe he did something so bad to get instantly excommunicated. i would think if it was a 'hey man you clearly shouldn't be doing that' sort of thing, he would listen to reason and not do it any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that Mat's approach, and it might be Dynasty's as well, as been to use the ban as a warning. I'm hoping that's the case here, but based on what I've been told about the situation, it seems like ever banning anybody like Josh because of something he said in the WPT forum is pointless.

The WPT forum is as big an embrassament to this forum as anything, and the vast majority of the posters there offer nothing meaningful to the forums. The fact that somebody like Vince Lepore trolled that forum for months and somebody like Josh gets dropped this quick is really [censored] goofy.

ThaSaltCracka · #10 11-02-2005, 05:31 PM

Dids, you can't simply say "we are gonna bend the rules here, cuz its the WPT forum". Same rules for every forum, or none at all, because it would really be pointless.