|
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 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?
Every persons that can hug his brother and become a big ball of spitting energy is suspicius.
Limpingoat was just banned by Chexx.
That account was created on 2015-09-29 11:37:51 and had 0 posts.
Reason: impersonating another user.
Ok now we are talking. That's a really interesting ban
|
Limpingoat was just banned by Chexx.
That account was created on 2015-09-29 11:37:51 and had 0 posts.
Reason: impersonating another user.
Yeah, we are going to need more info on that one.
|
On September 29 2015 23:40 Marcinko wrote:Show nested quote + Limpingoat was just banned by Chexx.
That account was created on 2015-09-29 11:37:51 and had 0 posts.
Reason: impersonating another user.
Yeah, we are going to need more info on that one.
He seems to be impersonating a user known as LimpingGoat on LiquidLegends. Can someone who goes there give us context? Like who the original LimpingGoat is?
|
The original limpinggoat posts in the U.S. Politics thread and is a youngin, as far as I know.
|
Australia18228 Posts
On September 30 2015 00:49 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2015 23:40 Marcinko wrote: Limpingoat was just banned by Chexx.
That account was created on 2015-09-29 11:37:51 and had 0 posts.
Reason: impersonating another user.
Yeah, we are going to need more info on that one. He seems to be impersonating a user known as LimpingGoat on LiquidLegends. Can someone who goes there give us context? Like who the original LimpingGoat is?
LimpingGoat is a hardcore/biased/delusional fan of TSM
Imagine a PRIME fan who actually believes they are favourites against SKT if they played all-kill format because they've been good at them in the past.
|
LimpingGoat is a guy that it's really hard to tell if he's trolling or serious because he makes obscene comments but also seems fairly unintelligent so its almost impossible to discern. He also blindly fanboys one of the teams in League of Legends which leads to lots of laughs.
Not much else notable about him, some one decided to make a smurf and start making really ridiculous comments which was a bit amusing because you could barely tell it was a smurf since the comments seemed believable out of his mouth.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
damn i thought when he offered to bet that TSM would go 5-1 it was free money. another case of too good to be true.
|
It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed.
|
On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. what do you mean religion is not allowed? TL users love to bash on religion with impunity.
|
On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. There is something to be said for keeping people in 1 place. Close the US thread and you get a new thread for every major event instead
|
On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. Actually, the US politics thread has only a medium ban to post ratio compared to other "general topic" threads. Which begs the question: wouldn't it be a good idea to actually read a thread before advocating its closure?
I have no horse in this race, of course
|
On September 30 2015 07:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. what do you mean religion is not allowed? TL users love to bash on religion with impunity. You're not allowed to start topics on religion, or in general discuss religion too much. Mods will close the thread or tell you off. Unless policy has changed recently. It happened a while ago in the stupid questions thread, despite a very civilised tone from everyone.
On September 30 2015 08:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. Actually, the US politics thread has only a medium ban to post ratio compared to other "general topic" threads. Which begs the question: wouldn't it be a good idea to actually read a thread before advocating its closure? I have no horse in this race, of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" You are right I shouldn't advocate closure. I think I meant it more as an honest question. And seeing that a significant fraction of bans (not counting spammers) are from that thread (20% or so lately? taken out of the air), I simply don't believe that the bans/post ratio is lower than average TL, unless a similarly large fraction of posts on TL are in the US thread, which I also don't believe. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
But yeah, for all I know there is sparkling discussion going on in there as well. I have my doubts, but I'll never know for sure!
|
On September 30 2015 08:50 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 07:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. what do you mean religion is not allowed? TL users love to bash on religion with impunity. You're not allowed to start topics on religion, or in general discuss religion too much. Mods will close the thread or tell you off. Unless policy has changed recently. It happened a while ago in the stupid questions thread, despite a very civilised tone from everyone. Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 08:25 farvacola wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. Actually, the US politics thread has only a medium ban to post ratio compared to other "general topic" threads. Which begs the question: wouldn't it be a good idea to actually read a thread before advocating its closure? I have no horse in this race, of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" You are right I shouldn't advocate closure. I think I meant it more as an honest question. And seeing that a significant fraction of bans (not counting spammers) are from that thread (20% or so lately? taken out of the air), I simply don't believe that the bans/post ratio is lower than average TL, unless a similarly large fraction of posts on TL are in the US thread, which I also don't believe. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" But yeah, for all I know there is sparkling discussion going on in there as well. I have my doubts, but I'll never know for sure! That is because there are a couple choice posters in that thread that keep pushing the limit. One in particular believes 9/11 was in inside job. Like straight up. Another is a die hard Trump supporter that likes to compare civil rights advocated to Scientologist. There is pretty funny and good discussion going on in the thread, but some people can't handle the banter.
|
On September 30 2015 10:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 08:50 Cascade wrote:On September 30 2015 07:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. what do you mean religion is not allowed? TL users love to bash on religion with impunity. You're not allowed to start topics on religion, or in general discuss religion too much. Mods will close the thread or tell you off. Unless policy has changed recently. It happened a while ago in the stupid questions thread, despite a very civilised tone from everyone. On September 30 2015 08:25 farvacola wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. Actually, the US politics thread has only a medium ban to post ratio compared to other "general topic" threads. Which begs the question: wouldn't it be a good idea to actually read a thread before advocating its closure? I have no horse in this race, of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" You are right I shouldn't advocate closure. I think I meant it more as an honest question. And seeing that a significant fraction of bans (not counting spammers) are from that thread (20% or so lately? taken out of the air), I simply don't believe that the bans/post ratio is lower than average TL, unless a similarly large fraction of posts on TL are in the US thread, which I also don't believe. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" But yeah, for all I know there is sparkling discussion going on in there as well. I have my doubts, but I'll never know for sure! That is because there are a couple choice posters in that thread that keep pushing the limit. One in particular believes 9/11 was in inside job. Like straight up. Another is a die hard Trump supporter that likes to compare civil rights advocated to Scientologist. There is pretty funny and good discussion going on in the thread, but some people can't handle the banter.
Didn't realise this was the joke-thread. The discussion can't possibly be said to be good as every single rule of proper debate is being violated on any given page in that thread - most importantly the lack of arguing in good faith and respecting posters with divergent opinions. But at least all the shittyness is gathered in one place. Sadly it has begun to spill into the EU thread.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
can always count on ghostcom to improve any political discussion
|
On September 30 2015 17:31 Ghostcom wrote: Sadly it has begun to spill into the EU thread. CLOSE! THE! BORDERS!
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! IMMEDIATELY!!!
|
On September 30 2015 17:51 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 17:31 Ghostcom wrote: Sadly it has begun to spill into the EU thread. CLOSE! THE! BORDERS! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! IMMEDIATELY!!!
You'll have to take that up with Germany
|
On September 30 2015 17:31 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2015 10:45 Plansix wrote:On September 30 2015 08:50 Cascade wrote:On September 30 2015 07:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. what do you mean religion is not allowed? TL users love to bash on religion with impunity. You're not allowed to start topics on religion, or in general discuss religion too much. Mods will close the thread or tell you off. Unless policy has changed recently. It happened a while ago in the stupid questions thread, despite a very civilised tone from everyone. On September 30 2015 08:25 farvacola wrote:On September 30 2015 07:27 Cascade wrote: It seems like a large fraction of bans comes from the us politics thread. I've never read it (and have no intention to), but wouldn't it be a good idea to just close the thread? Similarly to how religion is not allowed. Actually, the US politics thread has only a medium ban to post ratio compared to other "general topic" threads. Which begs the question: wouldn't it be a good idea to actually read a thread before advocating its closure? I have no horse in this race, of course data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" You are right I shouldn't advocate closure. I think I meant it more as an honest question. And seeing that a significant fraction of bans (not counting spammers) are from that thread (20% or so lately? taken out of the air), I simply don't believe that the bans/post ratio is lower than average TL, unless a similarly large fraction of posts on TL are in the US thread, which I also don't believe. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" But yeah, for all I know there is sparkling discussion going on in there as well. I have my doubts, but I'll never know for sure! That is because there are a couple choice posters in that thread that keep pushing the limit. One in particular believes 9/11 was in inside job. Like straight up. Another is a die hard Trump supporter that likes to compare civil rights advocated to Scientologist. There is pretty funny and good discussion going on in the thread, but some people can't handle the banter. Didn't realise this was the joke-thread. The discussion can't possibly be said to be good as every single rule of proper debate is being violated on any given page in that thread - most importantly the lack of arguing in good faith and respecting posters with divergent opinions. But at least all the shittyness is gathered in one place. Sadly it has begun to spill into the EU thread. The quality of the discussion is directly related to the quality of politics. When reasonable discussion points are brought up, people talk about them. But all opinions are not equally worthy of debate.
|
A Dane finds US politics distasteful? Color me surprised!
|
I'm fairly certain I have said nothing about my opinion of US politics, but thank you for showcasing why discussions tend to go haywire. I also prefer to colour you surprised :p
|
|
|
|