Small question.

[Mustacio]

I'm gonna go out on sort of weird plea here. It involves some questioning of staff logic, but I'd be weirded out if you couldn't understand the confusion.

 

So, I log on and see that doG has been banned, the reason being, as far as I have managed to gather, that he was a formerly banned member.

 

Now comes the questioning of logic. Him being a formerly banned member, is that grounds for banning him without further hesitation? Did he actually -do- something ban-worthy recently, something that governs an auto-ban, other than being a former member who got banned, came back, didn't get himself into ban-worthy trouble since re-joining and then getting found out?

 

I know you have rules, and rules are good. But thinking is better.

 

Regardless of what the hell doG did back when he first joined, the fact is he hasn't been banned untill people found out he was a former member, which effectively means he learned a lesson.

 

Alot of people didn't like doG, because he's different and he's not afraid of people knowing. He brings up interesting questions and topics, the ones who harp on him are more often than not just harping on him for the sake of him being doG, and not because of his world-view. He's taken a lot of flak just for being different, but in my book, he's the good kind of different.

 

doG is terrible at arguing, he's good at arguing his point. But terrible at arguing. But even if you're basing his ban on that, and not the fact that he's a formerly banned member who changed his ways, then every person who doG ever argued with deserves a ban as well.

 

People here demonise doG way too much. He's really a great guy.

 

This may have been in vain, since rules are rules. You can't argue that doG broke the rule of returning, he did. But take a look at the bigger picture here.

 

Atleast give me a proper answer, instead of closing it. I took the time to ask an honest qeustion, all I want is an honest, logical answer.

[*Tristany*]

^^

agree with above why was he banned ? he was not trolling and seemed to obey site rules its a little odd

[*Tristany*]

so once your banned you can't return ?

[Zander]

I believe it was ThreeG who banned him so I can't be sure why he did it. I'm almost certain it was just because he was a banned member before. I think it was on G's to-do list for a while but he only just got round to it now.

 

Just a thought, though. He hasn't said anything regarding it yet.

 

so once your banned you can't return ?

A suspension is temporary. A ban is forever.

[PewPewPew]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

[Spyder78]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Nah just you Joedolf Hitler...You are the corrupter of the corrupted MUAUHAHAH

[The Way Of The Fist]

so once your banned you can't return ?

Precisely

[PewPewPew]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Nah just you Joedolf Hitler...You are the corrupter of the corrupted MUAUHAHAH

 

Just because I sold someone on this board cocaine doesn't mean I'm corrupted. Besides, WE BANNED DOG FOR THE ROCK...WE BANNED HIM FOR THE PEOPLE!

 

No, we banned him for having a second account despite him already having a banned one.

[PewPewPew]

WE BANNED HIM FOR HAIRGELL

 

Yeah, we couldn't let our resident guido go hairmmando for a week.

[Mustacio]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Oh, come on. No one ever said that. I just asked a simple question.

 

I understand the idea of the banned member rule fully, despite what my question might've indicated. I just think certain things need to be weighed, like that time Petchy was brought back under a new profile after being banned.

 

 

Or Zurick.

[Spyder78]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Nah just you Joedolf Hitler...You are the corrupter of the corrupted MUAUHAHAH

 

Just because I sold someone on this board cocaine doesn't mean I'm corrupted. Besides, WE BANNED DOG FOR THE ROCK...WE BANNED HIM FOR THE PEOPLE!

 

No, we banned him for having a second account despite him already having a banned one.

 

 

I know I know just busting your pomegranates but that coca-cola was da bomb btw O-o

[PewPewPew]

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Oh, come on. No one ever said that. I just asked a simple question.

 

I was being sarcastic...

 

Oh great, is this topic going to spawn the usual: "*censored* THE MODS! THEY'RE ALL CORRUPT! THEY'RE LIKE LITTLE HITLERS!" accusations again?

 

Nah just you Joedolf Hitler...You are the corrupter of the corrupted MUAUHAHAH

 

Just because I sold someone on this board cocaine doesn't mean I'm corrupted. Besides, WE BANNED DOG FOR THE ROCK...WE BANNED HIM FOR THE PEOPLE!

 

No, we banned him for having a second account despite him already having a banned one.

 

 

I know I know just busting your pomegranates but that coca-cola was da bomb btw O-o

 

Yeah, Coca Cola.

[Officer P. Awesomeness]

He has been courting more controversy than usual for a while though. TBH, some of his stuff was getting very offensive, like flippantly discussing rape, and I'm sure I'm not the only one uncomfortable with his views on sex with minors. That + being a previously banned member.

[Mustacio]

He has been courting more controversy than usual for a while though. TBH, some of his stuff was getting very offensive, like flippantly discussing rape, and I'm sure I'm not the only one uncomfortable with his views on sex with minors. That + being a previously banned member.

 

In all fairness, it's not doG's fault if some members are uncomfortable with his views. Alot of people enjoyed discussing stuff that was more thought-provoking that Rebecca Black's Friday. You can't have a member banned for his views and interests, if he's not breaking any rules.

[Zander]

True, but the way he was going (the way he talked to members, how confrontational he was, flaming, etc) he would've likely been banned for his behaviour rather than his second account.

[Mustacio]

True, but the way he was going (the way he talked to members, how confrontational he was, flaming, etc) he would've likely been banned for his behaviour rather than his second account.

 

 

Yeah, would've. That's my point, ban people when they actually deserve a ban, not preemptively. Right now it seems like doG has been banned because someone found out he had a previously banned account 2 years ago.

 

2 years, guys. doG was on this forum, not really causing more shit than anyone else (shit cannot be caused by 1 person, it takes two to tango). And he gets banned because of something that happened 2 years ago? Come on, guys. Sure, doG was hot to handle, but so were all the people he argued with. People were just as big assholes to him as he was to them.

 

We all know the story of Zurick, who in all fairness caused a heap of shit in his day. He's been un-banned so many times it's not even funny. To some extent, there's fishyness involved. That's not an accusation, it's a thing I hope we can all just agree on, cause we all know banned members aren't allowed back, right?

 

I'm trying to lay down some points here, and I hope to want to re-evaluate your banning of him. If anything, he's been taught not to *censored* around and be as hot-headed.

[Spyder78]

He did kinda rehabilitate himself thru his new account but he also made another one just to troll on at the same time, if he didn't make the troll account while using the doG one he might still be here..Maybe,lol

[unknownsold13r]

Well it took 15 posts for someone to hit the nail on the head and ironically it is the guy who posted a complaint when JLB was banned. BTW, I'm not trying to start a discussion on JLB. This doG issue is different.

 

But about doG. I had no part in his banning. Heck I mostly got along with him and found many of his posts interesting. And doG usually always treated me with a lot more respect than other people he would argue with. Why did do that? Simple because I tried to be respectful when debating with him and tried to stick to the topic at hand and not resort to personal flaming. Oh there are plenty of things I'll flame someone over. But an inquisitive debate about a social issue is not often one of them. So I feel that doG would have been more friendly to some of you if you had just shown him an ounce of respect in the first place. I'm sorry that it came to this as doG was truly a cornerstone of this section of the forums. But that level of mutual respect that dog and some of us had... never caught on between doG and most of this forum, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

Simply put, he broke the rules of the forum and he offended people. Not a winning combo... EVER.

 

Think about it like this. Lets say you are pulling into a mall parking lot and some jack wagon cuts you off in traffic, flips you off, all just to be a jerk and get to park sooner than you. Ok, well what can you do? You can try to start shit and lure them into starting a fight. Beyond that you can't attack them or get them in trouble for anything just because they are a jerk. Maybe some places you can take matters into your own hands if you dare, but not really in the modern U.S. You'll get the book thrown at ya for assault (at least in any respectable neighborhood). Ok, but what if you notice that same jerk took a handicapped spot (despite not having handicapped plates) and not being handicapped at all...he was already in the wrong, but now he unwisely did something punishable.

Now if you had just stumbled upon a random car in that spot w/out proper plates, would you call authorities? No. Why tattle tale on someone you never met? You want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if you see someone non handicapped get out of the vehicle... why cause trouble for someone that hasn't offended you? But if it's that jerk who offended you? Now you're gonna make that call and sit back and laugh as justice is served.

 

Now that's just a stretched out analogy. I'm not saying that doG is the type of person to cut people off in traffic and park in handicapped spaces. In fact I'd assume dog is definitely NOT the type of person who would do that. The point is that he offended a lot of people here and he broke a rule that while it may not have had anything to do with him offending people... It provided a justifiable reason to get lolbant.

 

It's human nature to want to silence those who take issue with us. If I ran a website (which I owned and operated) I would ban people all the time that I didn't like for no good reason. Because hey if you're the one paying to keep a website running, you don't have to be fair to the people on ur forum, because it's your lawn and u can tell folks to GTF off it.

 

But I don't own this site (collective sigh of relief I know ). Neither does anyone on the mod team. So we have to follow a protocol and be fair. But when you make posts promoting the extreme taboo and you offend a lot of people... AND... you break the forum rules, well that's just ice skating up hill man. So I fully stand behind the mod team's decision.

 

So Mustacio there is the answer you were practically begging to get. Happy now? You might not like it, but at least I had the balls to tell it like it is.

[Mustacio]

Well it took 15 posts for someone to hit the nail on the head and ironically it is the guy who posted a complaint when JLB was banned. BTW, I'm not trying to start a discussion on JLB. This doG issue is different.

 

But about doG. I had no part in his banning. Heck I mostly got along with him and found many of his posts interesting. And doG usually always treated me with a lot more respect than other people he would argue with. Why did do that? Simple because I tried to be respectful when debating with him and tried to stick to the topic at hand and not resort to personal flaming. Oh there are plenty of things I'll flame someone over. But an inquisitive debate about a social issue is not often one of them. So I feel that doG would have been more friendly to some of you if you had just shown him an ounce of respect in the first place. I'm sorry that it came to this as doG was truly a cornerstone of this section of the forums. But that level of mutual respect that dog and some of us had... never caught on between doG and most of this forum, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

Simply put, he broke the rules of the forum and he offended people. Not a winning combo... EVER.

 

Think about it like this. Lets say you are pulling into a mall parking lot and some jack wagon cuts you off in traffic, flips you off, all just to be a jerk and get to park sooner than you. Ok, well what can you do? You can try to start shit and lure them into starting a fight. Beyond that you can't attack them or get them in trouble for anything just because they are a jerk. Maybe some places you can take matters into your own hands if you dare, but not really in the modern U.S. You'll get the book thrown at ya for assault (at least in any respectable neighborhood). Ok, but what if you notice that same jerk took a handicapped spot (despite not having handicapped plates) and not being handicapped at all...he was already in the wrong, but now he unwisely did something punishable.

Now if you had just stumbled upon a random car in that spot w/out proper plates, would you call authorities? No. Why tattle tale on someone you never met? You want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if you see someone non handicapped get out of the vehicle... why cause trouble for someone that hasn't offended you? But if it's that jerk who offended you? Now you're gonna make that call and sit back and laugh as justice is served.

 

Now that's just a stretched out analogy. I'm not saying that doG is the type of person to cut people off in traffic and park in handicapped spaces. In fact I'd assume dog is definitely NOT the type of person who would do that. The point is that he offended a lot of people here and he broke a rule that while it may not have had anything to do with him offending people... It provided a justifiable reason to get lolbant.

 

It's human nature to want to silence those who take issue with us. If I ran a website (which I owned and operated) I would ban people all the time that I didn't like for no good reason. Because hey if you're the one paying to keep a website running, you don't have to be fair to the people on ur forum, because it's your lawn and u can tell folks to GTF off it.

 

But I don't own this site (collective sigh of relief I know ). Neither does anyone on the mod team. So we have to follow a protocol and be fair. But when you make posts promoting the extreme taboo and you offend a lot of people... AND... you break the forum rules, well that's just ice skating up hill man. So I fully stand behind the mod team's decision.

 

So Mustacio there is the answer you were practically begging to get. Happy now? You might not like it, but at least I had the balls to tell it like it is.

 

You sure did, and that's incredibly awesome of you. Much credit and respect.

 

I understand the reasoning behind iit, I just find that reasoning bogus. Through all his offending and taboo-topic posting, doG helped make the general section more than meme-spamming and "what color are your shoelaces" type threads. I still don't think it a fault of his, either, that people are offended by his topics, that's their burden to bear, not his. You can't tippy-toe around certain subjects your entire life, because you're afraid of people reacting badly to them. He never advocated punching a baby, he just asked our views on it. doG brought out the best in alot of people, whether they liked it or not, the best being their own beliefs and views on the world, and a sudden willingness to share them, because they had been allowed a place to do it: a doG topic.

 

Melodramatic as all hell, but I'm really bummed to see him go.

[unknownsold13r]

Ok cool.

 

Well I'm not arguing that people were justified in being offended by him. That's why I wanted to make it clear that the handicapped parking analogy was not to be taken any too literally. But whether he brought the best out in people like you said or he just trolled them (something open for debate)... Either way, the amount of complaints about him were just staggering. But again, nothing to warrant an out right ban. But it's hard to make rule exceptions for perhaps the most controversial member of the forums.

 

Believe it or not I'm not a fan of censorship, and I agree that certain topics shouldn't have to be tip toed around. But there is a difference between that and outright flame baiting. Ironically I've felt that Herb was trying to be doG in a similar post (as to the hit girl one) and that Herb was outright trolling. But that is neither here nor there and herb isn't a previously banned member to my knowledge.

 

Long story short though, usually talking about a banned member is a big No-No. But I felt this was a case much more unique than JLB's and that people concerned over doG's departure deserved a fair answer.

[Mustacio]

You are a gentleman and a scholar for giving me honest posting. The amount of complaints wouldn't have surprised me in the slightest, it's the validity of them that concerns me the most. Again, you may not have had anything to say or do with that either, but if Zurick could come back numerous times, then, yeah. I'm not gonna stick my neck out and say why I think he could, but I think people get my drift. And trust me, doG wasn't flame-baiting or trolling at all. He really just is a thinker like all hell.

 

 

But again; thanks for taking time to give a solid answer. Unless G wants to step in and drop some knowledge, then I'm Golden Meyer.

[Ewok_3000]

If I recall, he was originally banned for posting material not acceptable on this forum (not dog, his previous account). Thus, he was banned again. As for Zurick, he was originally banned for constant flaming (and what many people don't know, is that he created another account and also posted inappropriate material). But I believe the reason Zurick keeps being brought back, is because he provides CAWs for this site. And after all, this is a CAW site. But yeah, that's what I know. Though I think unknownsold13 hit it pretty well on the head.

[.Lionheart]

For a small question, that was a really big opening post.

[Big Poopy]

I personally hated doG but I think this forum benefited greatly from the topics he made.

 

Can we petition to bring him back?

[RVD 4:20]

I'm quite disappointed that doG has been banned, although I imagine some members will be cracking open the champagne and pulling the strings attached to their party poppers when they find out the news. Can't doG at least have a second chance? To me, he was actually a decent member and gave us some interesting topics and points of discussion; which not only made for a good debate, but also good reading. If no-one had the idea that he was a previously banned member, would he still be posting here today?

 

Oh, and I'd like to give kudos to unknownsold13r for actually providing a good response to the question .

 

If I recall, he was originally banned for posting material not acceptable on this forum (not dog, his previous account). Thus, he was banned again. As for Zurick, he was originally banned for constant flaming (and what many people don't know, is that he created another account and also posted inappropriate material). But I believe the reason Zurick keeps being brought back, is because he provides CAWs for this site. And after all, this is a CAW site. But yeah, that's what I know. Though I think unknownsold13 hit it pretty well on the head.

 

So if doG starts making Caws, then he can come back?