Love is whatever he decides it is, and everyone should accept it. Because he knows better. Just read his Blue Room thread.
You can't have it both ways. You're now either admitting that the VR was constructed clearly for the purpose of psuedo-banning gtardo, or you're saying that you just created it for all members, in which case there was no reason not to create a new rule and set it out clearly as Faceman has requested. Which is it?
It is an argument against the idea of a conspiracy, yes. But it isn't an argument for the decision. Say Alice, Bob and Carol are housemates, and Alice decides to paint the living room blue. Bob: "Alice, I liked the living room yellow like it was before. I don't think painting it blue was the right decision." Alice: "Well, Carol wanted to paint it green." The fact that Carol argued for green is completely immaterial to the question of whether Alice was right to paint it, or whether it should have remained yellow.
You know, you could try actually discussing what they have done rather than simply name call. Just a thought...
Nobody wants the lovin'. What they want is a) for the morons like gtardo out in the open where we can make fun of how badly they misinterpret the world an b)for the violet room to be 'memberberry holed as the misguided idea it is.
Bullshit. He was banned from everywhere other than a room for call out threads- which you knew he was unlikely to use since his thing is partisan soapboxing. Also, you'd know people aren't convinced by that explanation if you'd had the courtesy and balls to read the responses and fall out from your own decision. Oh, and it's funny how technical elements and pedantic arguments are suddenly important to you this time, eh?
The problem is trying to answer that as clearly as possible without it being distorted, and every answer I give has been taken and distorted by people who want to maximize as much drama as they can, and then people respond to the distortions instead of what I actually said. I've been crystal clear, on this end, about our intentions. I never hid for one moment that gturner was at the heart of this, or that we had been considering something like the Violet Room for some time. It's all in the 3 threads that have been an ongoing discussion about this. My very first post, the initial post, in the Help Desk thread was this: Post #14 in that thread, by me: Why isn't it more delineated? Because Wordforge likes to play lawyer. Someone gets banned? There are a thousand posts on how it's the worst thing to ever happen to Wordforge ever, and then you get people like @Faceman and @El Chup who want to argue it down like it's a court case. As I said before, there has always been the courtesy where the mods and Admins explain the thought process behind why they chose to take a particular action, but that's what it is: a courtesy. No one outside the actual poster who was banned/restricted is required to receive an answer. Usually, they get one because I do like to be open about things, but if all people are going to do is rail and scream about the death of liberty/Wordforge/society every time they're given an explanation, then why bother? Add to that, when you start to tighten the rules more and more, it becomes easier to get around them, again, by playing lawyer. Enterpriser did it for years, and made TBBS a miserable place to be. You remember that, right? So I've made it a personal mission to keep the legalism to a minimum, and sometimes that means overly broad rules. Even there, though, context is king. See, you get an explanation because you asked without accusing. @Mrs. Albert got an explanation because she asked without accusing. @Tuckerfan made a great suggestion, the Admins liked it, we implemented it. We are still listening, and we are responding. Faceman, Chup, Volpone, Flashlight, they don't ask, they demand, and they demand with the accusation that we're trying to fuck them over, and I don't abide by that. I'm not someone who can be intimidated into giving answers, which is one of the reasons I think some of them have a problem with me, though I'm sure they have a multitude of personal reasons. What happened when we opened up everything again for @gturner? He immediately went to the Help Desk and started shit in a thread unrelated to him. You can go see it here: http://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2908492/ Maybe @shootER is right, and we should have just up and banned him.
So basically you're saying you're being generous to the plebs by giving us which answers you pick and choose? Context is king? Bullshit. Fairness and consistency is king. Why is the question of who might be next irrelevant? It is a legitimate question, not a "demand". For me this is not about you personally so get over yourself. What's more, and the implication that it is and that I have some sort of personal problem with who you are IRL has to be one of the most insulting and cunty things you've ever said to me. You're not quite the picture of love and friendship you promote are you? This is about moderator decisions, and since you're the only one who is facing the music you are the one the questions are being put to. Deal with it. That you don't like the manner in which they are asked doesn't mean they are any less valid. He made one post, direcly in response to another poster name checking him. How is that "starting shit"? Jesus wept. Yes, you should have since you were clearly so opposed to a rule change. You should have just come out like adults, been honest and said "we don't like this guy, he's bad for the board so we're banning him even though he didn't break a rule". End of. At least then people would know where you stand, even if they thought it was a bad decision. It's this halfway banning with mystery rules that exist but don't exist, that may impact others but may not, that is making it even worse.
So, he has access to here, the HD, the other forums now (which he should have had from the start) yet not a peep on the issue. nothing. You know Enterpriser, did that too. He would post,and post, and post, and post, and stop when the Mods blocked him, and start posting again when he figured out a way around the block. But he never went into MA and complained. He just shitposted as much as he could for as long as he could. I see exactly the same pattern with gturner.
This is true. We clearly made a choice that did not conform to a binary analysis, because that would have been do nothing or do something. But we considered multiple somethings. We even asked El Chup of all people for advice, and he had no problem laying out a process that would have specifically resulted in gturner being signaled out for a ban. His version was in slow motion and involved lots of rules. But make no mistake, it was creating a rule designed to ensnare one person. We all know that such a multi-step process would have faced outrage every step of the way. There is no real option here but to let him continue to troll the shit out of the board (in the opinion of the people who pay the bills and keep things running) or to stop it cold. The hope is that we can stop it without having to ban him. But all honesty, if it doesn't work, I'll change my vote to match shootER's. We aren't required to just tolerate everybody. And we tolerate a shit load of things that would be severely sanctioned on 99% of other boards. We saw a problem for the board in his behavior, we decided to act. That's as much explanation that I have for people. Now cue the usual suspects tut tutting, tossing out demands, and trying to figure out whether they can replicate gturner's trolling.
Why did you lie about stealth bannimg him to begin with, shit stain? Why did you threaten him with more abuse if he told anyone what you had done, shit stain? Why can you STILL not point to a single rule that he broke, shit stain?
The latter - even though you told me just two days ago that a new rule wasn't necessary. But clearly there is a new rule if this applies to more than gtardo, but now you refuse to properly articulate it and put it in the written rules. If your insufferable pride wasn't such a barrier for you, you could've just done what I suggested a couple of days ago, set a new rule, given gtardo time to either play ball or fuck off and then dropped the ban hammer. But no, in your arrogance you think you're smarter and now you've caused this total clusterfuck of a mess because you're not man enough to listen to advice from people you dislike. So, now by your own admission we've pretty much got a new board wide rule that applies to everyone. Can you please tell us what the exact rule will be and when we can see added to the rest of the rules? Can you confirm that it will be on the same terms as the PM sent to gtardo?
No, no, see he did break a rule - the new secret mystery rule sent to him over PM that, for some reason, can't be articulated and added to the existing rules.
I've been offline today thanks to having to go to the ER last night and now my ID was missing in the hubbub of all that. But for all of you bending over and twisting in knots to get pissed over this, the fact that gturner is sitting on his ass lurking and saying nothing in the past day except PMs speaks volumes to me. @Dinner @Ramen and @Volone are all being played like Nintendo.
I have been irrelevant for a long time, Crybaby. Now, please show us on the doll where gturner touched you.
...because trying to reason with these Nazis once they've made a decision has worked so well in the past.
1)Don't be a shitposter. That means don't come here after T'Bonz bans you and do the same shit that got you tossed there. 2)Quit posting blatant lies and going round and round in circles when you get called out on it.
