|
This thread is for discussing recent bans. Don't discuss other topics here. Take it to website feedback if you disagree with a ban or want to raise an issue. Keep it civil.NOTE: For those of you who want to find the actual ABL thread where the bans are posted. Please look in here: https://tl.net/forum/closed-threads/ |
On October 17 2012 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:54 cLAN.Anax wrote:Rulker was just temp banned for 1 week by monk..
That account was created on 2012-01-19 23:22:36 and had 1220 posts.
Reason: Maytring/faking mod text/faking mod edits/mass editing after first warning Anyone able to find his post? I searched his history but couldn't locate it; probably had all the warnings edited out? there is a delay with search. it takes awhile (i think around 15 minutes) before you can search for someone's recent posts. hahahaha its in the blogs, lol this blog http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=375889 omg hahahaha
|
On October 17 2012 06:07 BlasterCannons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 19:29 Defacer wrote:On October 15 2012 18:32 Cokefreak wrote: I've always wondered how stupid you have to be to actually get banned from TL, I mean they even give all the rules to go by when you register but then again I guess reading comprehension is not everybody's strong point. There is a learning curve to assimilating to this community. I'm a grown-ass man, but I remember getting banned in the early days for overacting. TL taught me how to argue on the internet without being an ass. So now that when I am an ass, I'm doing it on purpose! LOL. Well TL obviously didn't teach you to spell....its "overreacting" not "overacting". Also not every thing that has a learning curve is worth learning.....Only a loser would think learning how to interact with other losers on a website that facilitate losers at life is a worthwhile thing to learn.....Go learn how to be a mechanic or an engineer or something........fuck me but you guys are just beyond pathetic, implying that its an accomplishment to overcome "the learning curve" to posting properly on TL.....fuck that, I'll post how I want. "Posting properly" has no rewards and its fuckin boring. Get a life man.
Well hello again.
|
On October 17 2012 06:07 BlasterCannons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 19:29 Defacer wrote:On October 15 2012 18:32 Cokefreak wrote: I've always wondered how stupid you have to be to actually get banned from TL, I mean they even give all the rules to go by when you register but then again I guess reading comprehension is not everybody's strong point. There is a learning curve to assimilating to this community. I'm a grown-ass man, but I remember getting banned in the early days for overacting. TL taught me how to argue on the internet without being an ass. So now that when I am an ass, I'm doing it on purpose! LOL. Well TL obviously didn't teach you to spell....its "overreacting" not "overacting". Also not every thing that has a learning curve is worth learning.....Only a loser would think learning how to interact with other losers on a website that facilitate losers at life is a worthwhile thing to learn.....Go learn how to be a mechanic or an engineer or something........fuck me but you guys are just beyond pathetic, implying that its an accomplishment to overcome "the learning curve" to posting properly on TL.....fuck that, I'll post how I want. "Posting properly" has no rewards and its fuckin boring. Get a life man.
Looks like the ABL is going to have its pound of flesh. I love it when they bring their bans to us.
|
Thanks, guys.
Oh Lord. That blog and subsequent posts. That's some huge amounts of messed up. And a pretty little PBU to top it all off.
|
when you nuke someone does it nuke all of their posts, or do you have to go through each and nuke them separately?
|
On October 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:43 turdburgler wrote:On October 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Sounds remarkably similar to the post Silidon got permed for. Unless I'm hearing it poorly. I think his post is fine, but I thought Silidon's was fine as well. We all have different standards, even the mods. i still think you arent a real person, but a bot programmed to take the opinion of a GOP candidate and reply to TL threads using that personality. A GOP candidate? What the hell are you talking about? lol.
you, you flip flop harder than anyone on TV then make 'sarcastic' posts defending 'merica.
|
|
On October 17 2012 06:32 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 17 2012 05:43 turdburgler wrote:On October 17 2012 05:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:Sounds remarkably similar to the post Silidon got permed for. Unless I'm hearing it poorly. I think his post is fine, but I thought Silidon's was fine as well. We all have different standards, even the mods. i still think you arent a real person, but a bot programmed to take the opinion of a GOP candidate and reply to TL threads using that personality. A GOP candidate? What the hell are you talking about? lol. you, you flip flop harder than anyone on TV then make 'sarcastic' posts defending 'merica. I'm still a little confused, but the last time I made a sarcastic post was my list in the metric thread, so I will assume that's what you are talking about and move on. After my sarcasm bans I try to avoid sarcasm like the plague on this forum but that one was too good to pass up.
|
On October 17 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote: when you nuke someone does it nuke all of their posts, or do you have to go through each and nuke them separately? It nukes all of their posts at once.
|
On October 17 2012 07:47 Grobyc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote: when you nuke someone does it nuke all of their posts, or do you have to go through each and nuke them separately? It nukes all of their posts at once. if that is true then why wont the admins nuke people's posts when they request a permban and that their entire history be removed from the site? someone asked that in the "ask anything" thread and i recall the response was that it would screw up the site if they deleted all the posts. cant recall whether an admin/mod answered or a user since everyone feels entitled to respond in that thread.
i guess if you want to remove your history spam advertising everywhere!!!!
|
I think it's just because it's only done to malicious/spam posters. I don't think it's available upon request. If a mod wants to correct me on this feel free.
|
United States8476 Posts
On October 17 2012 07:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:47 Grobyc wrote:On October 17 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote: when you nuke someone does it nuke all of their posts, or do you have to go through each and nuke them separately? It nukes all of their posts at once. if that is true then why wont the admins nuke people's posts when they request a permban and that their entire history be removed from the site? someone asked that in the "ask anything" thread and i recall the response was that it would screw up the site if they deleted all the posts. cant recall whether an admin/mod answered or a user since everyone feels entitled to respond in that thread. i guess if you want to remove your history spam advertising everywhere!!!! Not sure if admins can do it, but regular banlings are limited to nuking low post count users.
|
On October 17 2012 07:56 monk. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 07:52 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 17 2012 07:47 Grobyc wrote:On October 17 2012 06:25 dAPhREAk wrote: when you nuke someone does it nuke all of their posts, or do you have to go through each and nuke them separately? It nukes all of their posts at once. if that is true then why wont the admins nuke people's posts when they request a permban and that their entire history be removed from the site? someone asked that in the "ask anything" thread and i recall the response was that it would screw up the site if they deleted all the posts. cant recall whether an admin/mod answered or a user since everyone feels entitled to respond in that thread. i guess if you want to remove your history spam advertising everywhere!!!! Not sure if admins can do it, but regular banlings are limited to nuking low post count users. hmmm, that might explain that samsung (?) guy who was permbanned for advertising (although it was unclear), but his posts were not nuked afterwards.
i am just weighing my potential prospects for public office. my posting history may be detrimental to such a run. ;-)
edit: thanks for the answer.
edit2: it was affinity_12
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=32696¤tpage=1275#25487
|
On October 17 2012 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:54 cLAN.Anax wrote:Rulker was just temp banned for 1 week by monk..
That account was created on 2012-01-19 23:22:36 and had 1220 posts.
Reason: Maytring/faking mod text/faking mod edits/mass editing after first warning Anyone able to find his post? I searched his history but couldn't locate it; probably had all the warnings edited out? there is a delay with search. it takes awhile (i think around 15 minutes) before you can search for someone's recent posts. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=375889#2
Note that post is the first reply to his own blog.
I was actually expecting it to be more than a week for that. I mean I'd expect a week for a first offense, but he edited his post after the mod edit at least once. I mean how can you be so idiotic...
|
On October 17 2012 09:24 Grobyc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 17 2012 05:54 cLAN.Anax wrote:Rulker was just temp banned for 1 week by monk..
That account was created on 2012-01-19 23:22:36 and had 1220 posts.
Reason: Maytring/faking mod text/faking mod edits/mass editing after first warning Anyone able to find his post? I searched his history but couldn't locate it; probably had all the warnings edited out? there is a delay with search. it takes awhile (i think around 15 minutes) before you can search for someone's recent posts. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=375889#2Note that post is the first reply to his own blog. I was actually expecting it to be more than a week for that. I mean I'd expect a week for a first offense, but he edited his post after the mod edit at least once. I mean how can you be so idiotic...
i love that its now quite the mystery trying to work out exactly what happened.
whats real? whats fake? nobody knows anymore.
|
On October 17 2012 09:58 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:24 Grobyc wrote:On October 17 2012 05:58 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 17 2012 05:54 cLAN.Anax wrote:Rulker was just temp banned for 1 week by monk..
That account was created on 2012-01-19 23:22:36 and had 1220 posts.
Reason: Maytring/faking mod text/faking mod edits/mass editing after first warning Anyone able to find his post? I searched his history but couldn't locate it; probably had all the warnings edited out? there is a delay with search. it takes awhile (i think around 15 minutes) before you can search for someone's recent posts. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=375889#2Note that post is the first reply to his own blog. I was actually expecting it to be more than a week for that. I mean I'd expect a week for a first offense, but he edited his post after the mod edit at least once. I mean how can you be so idiotic... i love that its now quite the mystery trying to work out exactly what happened. whats real? whats fake? nobody knows anymore.
I bet there's a certain investigator who can get to the bottom of this...
ahem http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=374963 ahem
Or a mod.
|
StateofReverie, the pathological liar and active blogger, but still somehow bearable self-proclaimed college burner, was temp banned today
its not rape if she agreed to it. This was posted in the troll thread about Stephano being a rapist. Now, SoR was probably on a short leash, but even in the context, the post is technically correct. It is not rape if she agrees, that's just consensual sex, right? Maybe it's just a touchy subject because the completely baseless accusation is that said fictional girl is legally too young. I browsed around a little more, but was unable to put two and two together on why SoR fell in this manner. Such a waste! You'd thing he'd have slipped up in his own blogs.
|
On October 17 2012 13:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:StateofReverie, the pathological liar and active blogger, but still somehow bearable self-proclaimed college burner, was temp banned today This was posted in the troll thread about Stephano being a rapist. Now, SoR was probably on a short leash, but even in the context, the post is technically correct. It is not rape if she agrees, that's just consensual sex, right? Maybe it's just a touchy subject because the completely baseless accusation is that said fictional girl is legally too young. I browsed around a little more, but was unable to put two and two together on why SoR fell in this manner. Such a waste! You'd thing he'd have slipped up in his own blogs. Well, you see, there is this thing called statutory rape (sexual acts with a minor). So, yes, it is rape, even if she agreed to it. So, even in context, the post is technically incorrect. And I'm not sure if someone spreading misinformation along the lines of:
its not rape if she agreed to it. is allowed on this site, in the off chance that someone might take this statement seriously.
I suppose there are a couple of TL Commandments that he may have violated too (3rd and 5th? Maybe the last line of the 1st commandment, as well). I think posting doodoo-quality one-liners would fall under these commandments.
Also, as you said, he was likely on a short leash. Perhaps someone was just looking for an opportunity.
|
lol this thread is so funny
|
On October 17 2012 15:05 wongfeihung wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 13:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:StateofReverie, the pathological liar and active blogger, but still somehow bearable self-proclaimed college burner, was temp banned today its not rape if she agreed to it. This was posted in the troll thread about Stephano being a rapist. Now, SoR was probably on a short leash, but even in the context, the post is technically correct. It is not rape if she agrees, that's just consensual sex, right? Maybe it's just a touchy subject because the completely baseless accusation is that said fictional girl is legally too young. I browsed around a little more, but was unable to put two and two together on why SoR fell in this manner. Such a waste! You'd thing he'd have slipped up in his own blogs. Well, you see, there is this thing called statutory rape (sexual acts with a minor). So, yes, it is rape, even if she agreed to it. So, even in context, the post is technically incorrect. And I'm not sure if someone spreading misinformation along the lines of: is allowed on this site, in the off chance that someone might take this statement seriously. I suppose there are a couple of TL Commandments that he may have violated too (3rd and 5th? Maybe the last line of the 1st commandment, as well). I think posting doodoo-quality one-liners would fall under these commandments. Also, as you said, he was likely on a short leash. Perhaps someone was just looking for an opportunity. Well statutory rape is an american judicial category that doesn't really exist elsewhere afaik. In France it would be "abus de mineur" (although nobody would call a Consensual 19-14 sex abus de mineur) but certainly not a "viol" (rape), which always implies that the victim is not consentant.
So depending where Stephano was, the dude might be absolutely correct.
|
|
|
|