|
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/ |
Germany25658 Posts
I don't play protoss btw, where did that come from?
I used to play Zerg, now I play Nova! 
|
About 4 weeks, apparently. However in the meanwhile, my boy has proven he can fight for himself pretty well.
|
On September 26 2015 21:25 Marcinko wrote:Show nested quote +cLutZ was just temp banned for 1 week by JBright.
That account was created on 2010-11-16 10:41:57 and had 8193 posts.
Reason: Not happening. What isn't happening?
I too am curious as to what this one was about. The listed reason is rather vague.
|
when I first saw this thought it was a swag-bro alt. I was disappointed
SwagSyndrome was just temp banned for 1 week by The_Templar.
That account was created on 2015-09-21 08:28:33 and had 9 posts.
Reason: All of your posts up to this point have done nothing but advertise your stream for an event that you haven't posted any information about.
Please don't do this.
|
Alfie01 was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2015-07-29 13:16:42 and had 5 posts.
Reason: Advertising.
KBB Hates Jude Law
|
On September 28 2015 22:10 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +Alfie01 was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2015-07-29 13:16:42 and had 5 posts.
Reason: Advertising. KBB Hates Jude Law
what was the post? It's edited out now. Normally these kind of bans are bots that spam adverts, but this guy's (4) other posts seem legit. He may have even helped with the bw small vods thread.
|
On September 29 2015 02:27 aRyuujin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2015 22:10 ThomasjServo wrote:Alfie01 was just banned by KadaverBB.
That account was created on 2015-07-29 13:16:42 and had 5 posts.
Reason: Advertising. KBB Hates Jude Law what was the post? It's edited out now. Normally these kind of bans are bots that spam adverts, but this guy's (4) other posts seem legit. He may have even helped with the bw small vods thread.
![[image loading]](http://www.gstatic.com/tv/thumb/movieposters/34949/p34949_p_v7_aa.jpg)
it was just a dumb joke on my part.
|
This Eskendereya is an interesting character. Who registers for TL to post 51 posts in the US politics thread, 1 in the EU politics thread and that's it? This really doesn't look like the prime place on the internet to discuss politics and is not very friendly - in particular if you are as republican as himself (as is the case with any topic on which KwarK happens to have a different opinion than you).
|
He's clearly a PBU with a hardon for reprimand.
|
Could be a PBU who isn't really interested in Starcraft anymore but still likes this forum.
|
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place.
|
On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place.
I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts.
|
What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently).
On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts.
I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted.
|
On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted.
You got the right idea.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted.
Do I seem like a suspicious person to you?
|
On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you?
I don't know, why don't we ask One star ninja, Horn or JohnAdams if you do anything odd or suspicious.
|
On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you?
I really don't understand why would you even ask.
On September 29 2015 05:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? I don't know, why don't we ask One star ninja, Horn or JohnAdams if you do anything odd or suspicious.
This is way too meta, but I have already lost any hope that someone will ever explain anything to me around here.
|
On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you?
Called "The_Templar". Could refer to a sect or an obscure pagan religion. Suspicious.
Put an underscore instead of a standard space in his username. Means he wants to appear as different from your average joe that knows nothing to computers. Suspicious.
From Russia. Everything that is from Russia and that is not Vodka or blonde girls is suspicious. Suspicious.
Has an history of alts. Could be the sign of personality disorders. Suspicious.
You were saying?
|
On September 29 2015 05:50 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? I really don't understand why would you even ask. Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? I don't know, why don't we ask One star ninja, Horn or JohnAdams if you do anything odd or suspicious. This is way too meta, but I have already lost any hope that someone will ever explain anything to me around here.
A long time ago in the days when Templar was a wee lad who didn't know right from wrong, he got caught using alts for the purpose of trolling and shitposting. Those were 3 of his known accounts.
On September 29 2015 06:01 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? Called "The_Templar". Could refer to a sect or an obscure pagan religion. Suspicious. Put an underscore instead of a standard space in his username. Means he wants to appear as different from your average joe that knows nothing to computers. Suspicious. From Russia. Everything that is from Russia and that is not Vodka or blonde girls is suspicious. Suspicious. Has an history of alts. Could be the sign of personality disorders. Suspicious. You were saying?
He's not even Russian, he's American, which makes him even more suspicious.
|
On September 29 2015 06:01 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 05:50 opisska wrote:On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? I really don't understand why would you even ask. On September 29 2015 05:39 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On September 29 2015 05:35 The_Templar wrote:On September 29 2015 04:47 opisska wrote:What I don't really understand is why TL lets the "allowed PBUs" come back with different names - it kinda defeats the idea of getting to know people through the forum, if you don't know that it's the same people. Well, some make it pretty clear who they are, such as our curious friend with no priveligies beyond the use of plain text, but still. And even weirder is the reluctance to say who they were if they get banned. That really seems to be done just to tease the ABL, which is a rather weak justification for a sitewide policy (on the other hand it is one of the most common ones apparently). On September 29 2015 04:42 ThomasjServo wrote:On September 29 2015 04:37 andrewlt wrote:
At this point in SC2's lifespan, it's safe to say that new posters are likely to be PBUs. And the ones who post outside the SC2 sections are even more likely to be PBUs posting in the same threads that got them banned in the first place. I'm suspicious of anyone in an LR thread with less than 100 posts. I am suspicious of anyone in a LR thread period. People who are willign to participate in this kind of things are not to be trusted. Do I seem like a suspicious person to you? I don't know, why don't we ask One star ninja, Horn or JohnAdams if you do anything odd or suspicious. This is way too meta, but I have already lost any hope that someone will ever explain anything to me around here. A long time ago in the days when Templar was a wee lad who didn't know right from wrong, he got caught using alts for the purpose of trolling and shitposting. Those were 3 of his known accounts.
Shit, I did not notice that dates on the posts! Of course I knew about Templar's alts and obviously these were alts, but I did not connect them to that far of a past, so I thought they were some people with a grudge against him as a mod, but couldn't find anything recently in either of the ABLs about that. I really suck as a detective. Thinking about it know I even vaguely remember the name JohnAdams so I could probably remembre that he was Templar ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
