|
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 June 06 2017 04:55 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 04:03 Seeker wrote:On June 06 2017 01:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Testie's ban seems...really lenient. Like really lenient. The reason alone sounds like, "sorry but we can't handle you right now, but don't worry, we still love you. It's not you, it's me" Oh believe me... If it had been up to me, it would have been a longer temp ban. I was in the middle of discussing what to do with KBB when BigFan just went and pulled the trigger. you should know my reasoning already for the ban length. Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 04:44 Acrofales wrote: Especially weird because kwark hadn't even said anything about anything in that thread or the UK politics thread. from my understanding, he was targeting Kwark for an older conversation that they had. I believe it was a callback to the Manchester Attack thread, testie got frustrated due to how close the london attack was in terms of time passed
|
Maybe we should applaud Testie's genius plan of getting banned for 2 days so he couldn't post anything that would get him banned for much longer?
|
why hasnt anyone posted the kwark/testie exchange from the manchester thread? am i supposed to dig it up myself?
|
I wasn't even aware there was an exchange in that thread.
|
On June 06 2017 06:38 Sent. wrote: Maybe we should applaud Testie's genius plan of getting banned for 2 days so he couldn't post anything that would get him banned for much longer?
7D chess! loses the battle so he doesn't get nuked.
|
I sort of feel like making testie's post into a meme.
|
On June 06 2017 16:05 Heartland wrote: I sort of feel like making testie's post into a meme. Only this one only, or in general? For the latter he wouldn't last long for the intensive use of meme
|
Please please please could someone ban me asap? 2 days would be plenty. Thanks in advance!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason?
|
On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason?
Didn't you just tell yourself out ... yourself? (shit, English is stupid, or am I?) If you wanna be relevant in this thread, please get banned. Sadly, todays GSL offers little balance whining opportunity, but one can always find a way, right?
|
On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? There are a few ad hominem in there that don't really add anything to his point. Otherwise usual boring "posting history" I guess.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37044 Posts
Here's the warning reason given:
You are entitled to your own opinion but please, lay off the aggressiveness! Also, statements like "I guess you must have an attention deficiency" should NOT be used in a discussion because they stifle it!
|
On June 08 2017 17:12 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? Didn't you just tell yourself out ... yourself? (shit, English is stupid, or am I?) If you wanna be relevant in this thread, please get banned. Sadly, todays GSL offers little balance whining opportunity, but one can always find a way, right?
The answer to this question is both, always both.
It was refreshing seeing that kind of passion for an argument about the game though. I haven't spent enough time watching/playing/talking/reading about SC2/BW I once was high diamond, probably couldn't even get into plat nowadays.
|
On June 08 2017 17:17 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? There are a few ad hominem in there that don't really add anything to his point. Otherwise usual boring "posting history" I guess.  I nearly have 700 posts and only 3 warnings so far. I think my posting history is fine ^^
|
Ahh history, yes, but what about the future, Mr. Alphasquad?
|
On June 08 2017 19:08 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 17:17 Cascade wrote:On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? There are a few ad hominem in there that don't really add anything to his point. Otherwise usual boring "posting history" I guess.  I nearly have 700 posts and only 3 warnings so far. I think my posting history is fine ^^
I am not sure what should be the exact exchange rate between bans and warnings to make this fair, but if we keep it simple and count everything as just one action then let this sink in: you have more mod actions per post than I do. Now you should maybe reconsider your definition of "fine"
|
On June 08 2017 19:11 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 19:08 404AlphaSquad wrote:On June 08 2017 17:17 Cascade wrote:On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? There are a few ad hominem in there that don't really add anything to his point. Otherwise usual boring "posting history" I guess.  I nearly have 700 posts and only 3 warnings so far. I think my posting history is fine ^^ I am not sure what should be the exact exchange rate between bans and warnings to make this fair, but if we keep it simple and count everything as just one action then let this sink in: you have more mod actions per post than I do. Now you should maybe reconsider your definition of "fine"  Meh, it is still fine. I dont intend to become tl's posterchild.
|
On June 08 2017 19:11 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2017 19:08 404AlphaSquad wrote:On June 08 2017 17:17 Cascade wrote:On June 08 2017 16:47 AbouSV wrote:Not a website feedback, but I don't get why this post was warned. What was the reason? There are a few ad hominem in there that don't really add anything to his point. Otherwise usual boring "posting history" I guess.  I nearly have 700 posts and only 3 warnings so far. I think my posting history is fine ^^ I am not sure what should be the exact exchange rate between bans and warnings to make this fair, but if we keep it simple and count everything as just one action then let this sink in: you have more mod actions per post than I do. Now you should maybe reconsider your definition of "fine" 
To be fair you are a warning to the rest of us.
|
My purpose in life is clear
|
Sorry, piss. There are a hell of a lot worse posters than you out there. You're not nearly as bad a boy as you portray yourself to be
|
|
|
|
|
|