The inevitable questions that come from the Castle banning...

This is some thin fuckin' sauce, @gul . Pretty lame.

Starguard agrees.




Lanz is right, though. This reeks of "We don't like the guy, so fuck him."

Castle needs a holiday anyway for being a wanker. As long as its not a perma then its all good. Imho

Reading the other thread it suggests gul waited for a consensus from the other owners, so you can't just heap it in him.

The other thing is, there were people on both your and Elwoods shitlist in years gone past that got no parole. (Elwood v Borgs springs to mind)

As you know better than most, sometimes the owner has to make a decision that other members dont 100%support.

Anyway, Gul can fight his own battles.

Im guessing the Castle solution is just temp and not a perma?

Technically the last one was supposed to be temp, but only in the sense that Castle was supposed to come back on bended knee and ask to come back.

Since when is calling someone out for lies playing "creepy internet stalker"? What's more, your posts suggests you haven't read the opening post.

Nope. Permanent.

Then, I echo post #61.

I expect another thread on the posting statistics both pre- and post-ban, then.

This actually undermines my confidence in you a great deal, I'm sorry to say.

I have posted a number of times that Castle was just trolling and that no one should take him seriously. He almost never posted anything that could reliably be considered his real opinion; it was almost always just a question of getting reactions.

Did you ever see me getting worked up about him? I would on very rare occasions tell him what I thought, and simply refuse to pursue a debate with him. I didn't even need the "ignore" feature, I simply ignored him.

I'll be perfectly honest here: I don't think much of Castle, but I think even less of this banning. It smells of the "let's find an excuse to do what we want to do and make it more or less legal" approach that was the reason I left TBBS staff and, eventually, TBBS.

Castle could have had no seriously deleterious effect on the board if people just ignored his childish behavior. The real problem is that there are a number of posters (he was only one of them) who just have to "get in the last word" so that any exchange goes on and on and on.

If Castle is banned for trolling regularly in the Red Room, then Wordforge is no longer Wordforge.

Save that Castle trolled outside of the Red Room as well. The timing and the reasoning of the ban may be suspect and inconsistent, which is what this thread was meant to be about, but if there's one thing that's clear it's that Castle trolled board wide and that is a breach of the rules so I think it goes beyond just a case of the Red Room no longer having the freedoms it once had. Castle is by no means innocent.

I don't pretend he is innocent. As I said, I don't think much of him. I don't believe his "experiment" claims, because as I pointed out myself, even after making that claim, he continued to post the same way -- I don't think he can post any other way.

Nevertheless, his over-the-top behaviour was mostly limited to the Red Room. Anything outside of the Red Room deserves a temporary ban, unless it is really bad and really consistent, which wasn't the case with him.

I maintain that the proper way to deal with him would have been for those handful of posters who just couldn't let him be to ignore him. No need to ban him; he was just looking for attention. He never trolled me because no matter what else he may have been, he wasn't stupid; far from it. And he knew he would be wasting his time because I had told him, several times and very explicitly, that I could see through him. But I tried exactly once to engage him in a serious discussion, saw what he was doing, and didn't bother with him from then on. He didn't even bother me particularly, because I didn't take him seriously enough for him to bother me.

If everyone had done the same, he would have either left the board himself out of sheer boredom, or started posting a different way.

Permanently banning someone for trolling, on Wordforge, is not the way to do thing, IMHO.

This place is TBBS Lite. Funny how the "tolerant" folks have the least of it.

I can't see that at all. My statement means that i did not want to ban him in spite of any personal feelings I might have had about him. So I can't quite see how you arrive at your conclusion.

Okay, if that's what you mean by "feelings" then I can see that. There are a lot of posters that any of us don't like; that's normal enough. I'm sure there are some people who would consider it a good thing if I left the board and never came back, too. But if that's all you mean, and that you didn't ban him -- or even really want to ban him -- despite not liking him personally, then I can accept that.

The way I read your statement was: "If it had just been up to me, he would have been gone the day I became one of the owners."

Oh, man, from your mouth to God's ears.



I'm a bit ambivalent. I found Castle (whether his persona was genuine or not) *extremely* tiresome and support the right of the board's owners to do as they'd like. But if we're going to ban people based on RULES, it would be better if there were some clear-cut violation. "Social experiment" (*bullshit*) or not, Castle's abrasive personality was his real offense, and banning him for that rightly raises an eyebrow.

Gotta go with this.

Extremely tiresome - guess thats a tactful non redroom response.

Not too many. I'd certainly miss you.

Re-reading, I can see how it might come across that way, but no, definitely not what I meant. I am, in fact, the only reason he wasn't banned far sooner, and am also responsible for giving him a shot at redemption after the first ban. I was the only owner who favored doing so, the others went along, but with misgivings.

So emotion had nothing to do with it. He had apparently broken enough rules and logically needed to be banned?

He consistently broke the first rule, so yes.

You mean he always worked it out so that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe wasn't constant?

Ok, then I can definitely agree that something needed to be done, before the whole universe disappeared into some great big cosmic rift of something...

I think it has something to do with robots.

Oh, that first rule!

I see WF has come full circle.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ.

I feel bad for the guy. But he does tend to go off the deep end and over react to things. I can understand him being defensive about his work, yet he will take criticism about his as an attack. Even though the criticism isn't meant as an attack. I used to take his outbursts as just being a part of him, but after he posted one if his vapor reviews on here is when I actually started to feel bad for him. In the video the bottom left part of the frames for his glasses are broken, in previous videos they're not broken. I know he has a limited income, and seeing that along with his furniture just really made me feel bad for him.

I think that his outbursts stem in part of where he is at in life, and he probably feels frustration because of it. And he takes anything that isn't supportive as an attack on him, instead of being constructive towards him.

You may be right, but if so he needs to seek help instead of hiding away online.

El Chup basically took Castle's professional life and spread out for all to see, took it apart, called it shit, and wished him luck paying rent next month.

Personally, I don't care about any of that crap. I've done worse. But let's not pretend Castle's Darth Vader or some shit.

I agree. I always had him down as Jabba the Hutt.

Going to have to read that whole "social experiment" thread, aren't I?