|
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 November 11 2016 02:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:and now that I've said that people are being banned again.theres more but I have stuff to do Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote:
the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it.
User was temp banned for this post.
That post doesnt seem to be overly banworthy, dont you think?
I dont see anything obviously wrong with that. It seems to be in jest.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 11 2016 03:24 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 02:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:and now that I've said that people are being banned again.theres more but I have stuff to do On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote:
the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it.
User was temp banned for this post. That post doesnt seem to be overly banworthy, dont you think? I dont see anything obviously wrong with that. It seems to be in jest.
context as well as history play a big role in bans.
|
On November 11 2016 03:27 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:24 RoomOfMush wrote:On November 11 2016 02:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:and now that I've said that people are being banned again.theres more but I have stuff to do On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote:
the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it.
User was temp banned for this post. That post doesnt seem to be overly banworthy, dont you think? I dont see anything obviously wrong with that. It seems to be in jest. context as well as history play a big role in bans.
I get that. But you still wouldnt be banning somebody after a good and orderly post. You simply wait for the next bad post of that person and then you drop the hammer, no? I dont see how that post in particular was considered bad enough to break the camel's back.
|
Hyrule19077 Posts
US Politics rules are a lot more strict than elsewhere, and he came off a 2 day ban for bad posting just a few hours ago
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's just one of those "you suck but you keep skirting the edge of what qualifies as over the line" bans. No one post you can point to but the tendency is there.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 11 2016 05:27 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:27 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 03:24 RoomOfMush wrote:On November 11 2016 02:59 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:and now that I've said that people are being banned again.theres more but I have stuff to do On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote:
the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it.
User was temp banned for this post. That post doesnt seem to be overly banworthy, dont you think? I dont see anything obviously wrong with that. It seems to be in jest. context as well as history play a big role in bans. I get that. But you still wouldnt be banning somebody after a good and orderly post. You simply wait for the next bad post of that person and then you drop the hammer, no? I dont see how that post in particular was considered bad enough to break the camel's back.
I didn't ban him in this case but website feedback would be a better place for that question of yours.
Edit: there you go, answered above lol
|
On November 11 2016 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
nothing worse than writing out a long argument addressing the various points and then have someone respond with one line trash. well deserved ban.
Don't know about this case, but there are plenty of walls of text on TL that just doesn't make sense. Many words just means that someone spent time on it, not that the content of the post is complex. I think some walls of text can be perfectly well addressed by a sentence or two.
|
On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. Show nested quote +GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post.
Worth
Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay).
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay).
Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context.
|
On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context.
I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich? 
|
I mean we don't agree on a lot of politics GH, but I was surprised you thought that was a good idea. Then again I stay out of that thread when I start getting angry at it and take a break, so its quite possible I missed just how angry everyone was getting at each other.
|
On November 11 2016 15:01 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context. I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich?
well it seems to have died down a bit for now. I'm trying to avoid it in general. anybody know how long Kwark's gone for?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 11 2016 15:01 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context. I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich?
nope lol
On November 11 2016 15:28 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 15:01 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context. I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich? well it seems to have died down a bit for now. I'm trying to avoid it in general. anybody know how long Kwark's gone for?
he lost a ban bet, gone for 90 days.
|
On November 11 2016 15:39 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 15:01 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context. I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich? nope lol Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 15:28 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On November 11 2016 15:01 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 14:04 BigFan wrote:On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay). Welcome back. I can't say who but likely because it was really offensive. I mean sure, you meant it as a joke but I can see it being offensive considering its context. I haven't been in the US thread (and don't plan to), but seeig how polarised the discussion is, I imagine most posts in there are reported. Are there stats on that? Like fraction of posts reported last week or something? Rich? well it seems to have died down a bit for now. I'm trying to avoid it in general. anybody know how long Kwark's gone for? he lost a ban bet, gone for 90 days.
okay. thanks. least he didn't do a year like tolkein
|
On November 11 2016 12:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
nothing worse than writing out a long argument addressing the various points and then have someone respond with one line trash. well deserved ban. Don't know about this case, but there are plenty of walls of text on TL that just doesn't make sense. Many words just means that someone spent time on it, not that the content of the post is complex. I think some walls of text can be perfectly well addressed by a sentence or two.
Yeah, TL has been infested with this idea that if you write longer it's better. Particularly if you write it in a pseudo-academic style. I guess it's better than people just posting memes but I don't know how many threads I've opened, seen a wall of text, skimmed it and realized that it's just a bunch of fancy words without any deeper meaning.
|
On November 11 2016 17:06 Heartland wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 12:33 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
nothing worse than writing out a long argument addressing the various points and then have someone respond with one line trash. well deserved ban. Don't know about this case, but there are plenty of walls of text on TL that just doesn't make sense. Many words just means that someone spent time on it, not that the content of the post is complex. I think some walls of text can be perfectly well addressed by a sentence or two. Yeah, TL has been infested with this idea that if you write longer it's better. Particularly if you write it in a pseudo-academic style. I guess it's better than people just posting memes but I don't know how many threads I've opened, seen a wall of text, skimmed it and realized that it's just a bunch of fancy words without any deeper meaning.
Razzia of the Blizzsters
|
On November 11 2016 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 14:14 dAPhREAk wrote:i'll admit. i laughed. seeker did not. GreenHorizons was just temp banned for 2 days by Seeker.
That account was created on 2011-04-16 10:56:04 and had 8699 posts.
Reason: If you thought posting that was a good idea... It was not. On November 09 2016 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2016 13:32 LegalLord wrote:
32% reporting, Washington favors Trump.
Well GH, I have to say that regardless of who wins Washington in the end, even I didn't believe you this far. This general election has thoroughly vindicated you - though I'm not sure that we're all happy with what that will cost us all. Live drone shot of Kwizach's election party + Show Spoiler +User was temp banned for this post. Worth Curious who actually reported it though and whether it was because they found it overly offensive, just wanted the stats, just wanted to stick it to me, or what? No pressure, and not looking to pick a fight, just curious (I'll remove this if it's not okay).
I did. I thought it was in incredibly poor taste. Didn't actually realise it was you until after the report.
|
i feel like principal skinner wondering if it's me or the kids that are out of touch. that shit was funny af.
|
On November 11 2016 17:30 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 17:06 Heartland wrote:On November 11 2016 12:33 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
nothing worse than writing out a long argument addressing the various points and then have someone respond with one line trash. well deserved ban. Don't know about this case, but there are plenty of walls of text on TL that just doesn't make sense. Many words just means that someone spent time on it, not that the content of the post is complex. I think some walls of text can be perfectly well addressed by a sentence or two. Yeah, TL has been infested with this idea that if you write longer it's better. Particularly if you write it in a pseudo-academic style. I guess it's better than people just posting memes but I don't know how many threads I've opened, seen a wall of text, skimmed it and realized that it's just a bunch of fancy words without any deeper meaning. Razzia of the Blizzsters
Honestly I was originally against Dwf, but I do agree with him at least somewhat...Razzia was a bit fantastical though...
|
On November 11 2016 17:06 Heartland wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 12:33 Cascade wrote:On November 11 2016 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:
nothing worse than writing out a long argument addressing the various points and then have someone respond with one line trash. well deserved ban. Don't know about this case, but there are plenty of walls of text on TL that just doesn't make sense. Many words just means that someone spent time on it, not that the content of the post is complex. I think some walls of text can be perfectly well addressed by a sentence or two. Yeah, TL has been infested with this idea that if you write longer it's better. Particularly if you write it in a pseudo-academic style. I guess it's better than people just posting memes but I don't know how many threads I've opened, seen a wall of text, skimmed it and realized that it's just a bunch of fancy words without any deeper meaning.
true, but you walk away. you dont post contentless one-line drivel (or even worse, the dreaded "wat").
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i0.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Jonestown-2.jpg)
