Why is gturner banned?

Believe me, if I wasn't on staff, I would've done exactly that.

The price you pay for being on staff.

There was no spam.

The fact is that no matter what Gul, Anna, or any other dumb leftist claims they sandbagged Gturner because they didn't like him. He was an easy target and they took it.

The majority appears to disagree.

Pro tip: You're supposed to be pretending the defense of gturner is based on more than "he's a rightie and he annoys the lefties, hurr hurr librul tears."

I have a feeling maybe John knew, but I can only base that on the actions he took and the attitude he's had on this subject. In any case, you know now, so banning him on the basis of sharing PMs or his password is pretty disingenuous, which means the basis for his ban is invalid.

The problem is that the "same thing" they've all been saying when they aren't just busy brushing everyone off amounts to admitting they banned him because they didn't like him, like I've been saying. As for being shady, probably because at least some of them actually cared about how it looked. Not that it mattered since everyone was on to them right away.

If this was simply a matter of "this was all just one big understanding," why is gturner's ban not lifted? This could potentially still be water under the bridge if people own up to their fuck-ups the way Anna did and lift the ban. This isn't like Castle where he doxxed people afterwards - there's no reason this ban can't be undone, other than stubborn pettiness.

Only "fixing" in this case was to simply ban gturner.

Because they haven't decided we're annoying enough yet? Point is that precedent is definitely set.

Don't sell yourself short, you're plenty annoying.

It wasn't one big misunderstanding. It was a mistake on @John's part, followed by deliberate disinformation on @gturner's.

We "fixed" the "glitch".....so he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore.

If you found him annoying, put him on ignore.

That would work for everyone: gturner could post, people who want to read/don't mind reading his posts could do so, and those who didn't wouldn't have to see them.



Creating the Violet Room and sequestering gturner to it was not only unprecedented, it was also mishandled. Any subsequent action he took should be viewed a little more charitably given that was the case.

I am still not sure whether or not he should be banned, but the problem he did pose can't be solved by ignoring him unless everyone else does too (and that would be effectively tantamount to a ban). He didn't post annoying stuff; he posted extremely finely crafted lies. They poison debate. The difference between the debates we have now and what we had when he was still here is like day and night.

It's not good enough that *I* ignore him, *everyone else* must also?

1. Is Wordforge a SERIOUS DEBATE ONLY zone?

2. If you believe something is a lie, then showing how it is a lie IS part of debate.

Really doesn't seem much different to me.

In order for debate to continue as if he hadn't posted his lie? Yes, because:

And while WF is by no means only there for serious debate, having some serious debates is an essential part of it.

@Paladin , where was this righteous indignation when it was Starguard getting banned? Or any other new member that started flaming and trolling right out of the gate and was banned for it?

What difference does it make? Is the argument about gturner being banned, or about me?

It undermines your argument if you're a partisan hypocrite?

Then your argument is about me, not about gturner's ban.

And I'm not a hypocrite because the situations aren't analogous.

You're absolutely a hypocrite. Show me where discussing Cleopatra is against the rules. But pure, honourable Paladin didn't resign his position and disappear then, did he?

Pointing out how they aren't analogous would certainly contribute to the debate at hand. To me, it seems that ignoring a bunch of Cleopatra posts should be much easier than ignoring lies interwoven with a specific active debate you care for.

Starguard got a warning--after repeated warnings--that triggered a temporary ban that the owner of the board was perfectly willing to reconsider. Starguard wasn't sequestered to a newly invented room, isolated through mishandling of permissions, and then perma-banned for calling attention to the mistreatment.

Like I said, not analogous.

But anyway, whether I was right or wrong about Starguard is immaterial to whether gturner's been treated fairly.

But the value, Paladin! The value! If people responded to him then his posts had value, and if people didn't it then wasn't a problem!

See, you're a hypocrite because you're demanding gturner be judged by this incredibly low bar that you've never demanded apply to anyone else. You likely don't believe a word of what you're arguing. You just want a partisan spammer back so he can keep "helping" your "side." We see through it.

Up next: Paladin demands the return of Ted! Responding to his rapiness gave that rapiness value, and his ban was similarly shady!

@gturner wasn't banned nor permabanned for calling attention to @John's mistake with the permissions.

If the banning of Starguard were the issue at hand, that would be a good argument.

I've already shown how the situations aren't analogous.

I assure you I do.

So, this is about "sides," is it? So kind of you to admit that.

And, if we're resorting to ad hominems, I can turn that back on you: you're only for banning gturner because he's not on your "side."

This is closer to the heart of the problem than you might realise. If you truly believe what you're saying, can you trace why you believe, for instance, that @gturner was

, even though all the actual data in this thread including screenshots of PMs shows that to be untrue?

Because it seems to me you're experiencing the gturneralwayslies effect. And as you'll notice, I could not continue this discussion with you simply on the basis of me ignoring his posts. You've read them or others' posts repeating those lies, and so the discussion is lost.

They always pick sides here. Does this surprise you? Did you expect them not to? It's no different here than it is/was at TBBS. Pretty ironic, but true.

It has been good watching Paladin beat John at every turn and point out how John is constantly lying and making crap up. It has been utterly and completely clear that John's position is just made up lies to try to justify his banning of a poster who never broke the rules after the foul deed was already done.

John, I say this not to troll or flame but just as a statement of fact. John, you are not a good person.

So completely and totally the only unbelievable thing here is they don't fall down on their knees and beg forgiveness. Seriously, they have no justifications for their actions other than "he disagreed with me so he must be banned."

No, John is doing what he always does. Namely, lying and making crap up after the fact to justify his own bad actions. Paladin is simply breaking down and disproving John's lies in a systematic manner. He is doing a great job of it too.