An appeal to the MODs

I feel like an armchair referee here now- I mean, I could almost throw the yellow flag on every other post here- after reading through many of the threads.

When I was personally was accused of a 12b violation and banned for two weeks, I felt like an armchair coach- and should have thrown a red flag- had I had that opportunity to do so- before I was so rudely banned for no reason.

What I have since learned is that "You are banned here sometimes for no other reason than because one of the MOD GODS got there panties in a wad because someone said something that the MOD GOD did not agree with politically!

Some of our Mod GODs are not using proper discretion when banning others- as they ban for retaliation purposes and don't even follow their own rules in their own posts!

Thank You very much!
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I feel like an armchair referee here now- I mean, I could almost throw the yellow flag on every other post here- after reading through many of the threads.

When I was personally was accused of a 12b violation and banned for two weeks, I felt like an armchair coach- and should have thrown a red flag- had I had that opportunity to do so- before I was so rudely banned for no reason.

What I have since learned is that "You are banned here sometimes for no other reason than because one of the MOD GODS got there panties in a wad because someone said something that the MOD GOD did not agree with politically!

Some of our Mod GODs are not using proper discretion when banning others- as they ban for retaliation purposes and don't even follow their own rules!

Thank You very much!
Click to expand...

Stop whining, bitch.
 
CFM said:
Who's trolling? That's another claim by a whining bitch.

You're constantly blaming your failures on someone else then wonder why people laugh in your face.
Click to expand...

My failures have nothing to do with the topic of this thread!

And there is no one- laughing at me- there are just people like you who may not always agree with me!

That's perfectly OK- and I have no problem if people should laugh at me!

Hell, I tried to be a comedian once- and everyone just laughed at me!
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
My failures have nothing to do with the topic of this thread!

And there is no one- laughing at me- there are just people like you who may not always agree with me!

That's perfectly OK- and I have no problem if people should laugh at me!

Hell, I tried to be a comedian once- and everyone just laughed at me!
Click to expand...

You obviously failed by posting something that was a 12b violation. Isn't that the topic of the thread?

I'm laughing at you now because you're whining and crying.

You're not being laughed at because you're a comedian. They're funny. You're a crying, whining little bitch.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I feel like an armchair referee here now- I mean, I could almost throw the yellow flag on every other post here- after reading through many of the threads.

When I was personally was accused of a 12b violation and banned for two weeks, I felt like an armchair coach- and should have thrown a red flag- had I had that opportunity to do so- before I was so rudely banned for no reason.

What I have since learned is that "You are banned here sometimes for no other reason than because one of the MOD GODS got there panties in a wad because someone said something that the MOD GOD did not agree with politically!

Some of our Mod GODs are not using proper discretion when banning others- as they ban for retaliation purposes and don't even follow their own rules in their own posts!

Thank You very much!
Click to expand...

Here's why you got banned, so stop whining:

The MAP movement aims to mainstream sex with children

Post #8 - Sir, you obviously know more about Pedophilia than any of us!

You must be an expert on the subject! LOL!
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I feel like an armchair referee here now- I mean, I could almost throw the yellow flag on every other post here- after reading through many of the threads.

When I was personally was accused of a 12b violation and banned for two weeks, I felt like an armchair coach- and should have thrown a red flag- had I had that opportunity to do so- before I was so rudely banned for no reason.

What I have since learned is that "You are banned here sometimes for no other reason than because one of the MOD GODS got there panties in a wad because someone said something that the MOD GOD did not agree with politically!

Some of our Mod GODs are not using proper discretion when banning others- as they ban for retaliation purposes and don't even follow their own rules in their own posts!

Thank You very much!
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!
 
The Anonymous said:
Here's why you got banned, so stop whining:

The MAP movement aims to mainstream sex with children

Post #8 - Sir, you obviously know more about Pedophilia than any of us!

You must be an expert on the subject! LOL!
Click to expand...

Your post is totally of the bat-shit-crazy variety!

I have no idea what you are trying to say here- nor do I really give a flying FUCK!

So save your breath- because you may want to blow up your love doll a little later or something!
 
FartCatcher said:
what part of it do you find the hardest to understand?
Click to expand...

There is something that I think could use clarifying.

Does the prohibition against calling someone a pedophile or insinuating they are attracted to minors apply only to saying such things about other JPP members, or does it include politicians, celebrities and public figures?

I ask because in the "Legion thread" that was linked earlier in this thread, someone quoted 12b and it sounded like the rule applies to all humans everywhere.

If that's the case, how would someone be able to comment on say... Michael Jackson or a particular Catholic priest, or some other garden variety perv?

It seems to me it would be a very slippery slope to prohibit insinuations against public figures.
 
Nomad said:
There is something that I think could use clarifying.

Does the prohibition against calling someone a pedophile or insinuating they are attracted to minors apply only to saying such things about other JPP members, or does it include politicians, celebrities and public figures?

I ask because in the "Legion thread" that was linked earlier in this thread, someone quoted 12b and it sounded like the rule applies to all humans everywhere.

If that's the case, how would someone be able to comment on say... Michael Jackson or a particular Catholic priest, or some other garden variety perv?

It seems to me it would be a very slippery slope to prohibit insinuations against public figures.
Click to expand...

We allow topical/current/relevant discussion especially as it pertains to public figures

"with the exception of news articles or a mature discussion involving stats, how it effects people etc,"

All of that is fine.

the inflection point is all about whether the discussion is mature, on topic, relevant, etc.

However, even concerning public figures there could be exceptions. Is the poster just using a random public figure to write out their perverse fantasies? Are people trying to shock troll?

There is a difference between "har har public figure likes kids" and "trump did ______ to his daughter and he _____ all over her ____ before he _____ and then did _____on her ____ and she was totally into it" <-- this would be an unnecessary graphic description just to shock and be perverted on here. That would not be allowed even if it were a public figure.

Some more background:

The reason we have the rule this way is because people always try to find a loophole. It used to just be as simple as "don't talk about adults fucking kids" but then we had a poster talk about how another posters kid might really like to eat some guys "popsicle" (paraphrased) and how said kid really would enjoy some creamy white ice cream and might even get a bunch of "ice cream" all over his face and mouth. This was a poster with a history of saying sick shit like this that was far more blatant and obvious. So that guy got banned. Now, we aren't going to make a rule saying "don't joke about people eating desserts" - that wouldn't make sense. But we can look at context and we can also declare, if you wink and nod at this stuff, or try to see what you can get away with, you'll be banned. If people want to joke about this stuff or be cavlier about it, they will likely be in trouble.

Context matters, and poster history matters. But if one generally wants to stay out of trouble, the best course of action is to not joke about this stuff at all and stick to on topic, relevant, serious discussion. If you deviate from that, us mods may take it under consideration.

Rule 12b is subjective in many ways. Sometimes when a post gets reported one mod might want 30 days, another wants 7 and we split the difference at 14. Sometimes one mod wants a ban and 2-3 other mods say no and the issue dies. So many are right this is not black or white, but people open themselves up to being judged in this subjective way by playing with pandoras box, so we offer a fair warning to everyone that if you play with fire, you might get burned.

The point isn't that anyone that posts some plausible utterance WILL be banned. There have been times where a post is reported and one mod wants someone banned but we ultimately defer on that action. Sometimes we'll report a post and discuss it among ourselves and decide against action collectively. (to be clear us mods agree the vast majority of the time)

The point is if one starts getting into this area, they open themselves UP to being banned (and 90% of the time they probably do get punted)

Even in the event of being banned, usually first offense is 7, then 30, then usually a 60 day ban, then perhaps another one, then we will usually perma. So if someone truly innocently fucks up, then it's a usually a warning for something that is nebulous, or 7 days for first offense. So even worse case scenario most people get multiple chances to correct their behavior, so in the end there really is no excuse.
 
Last edited:
Adolf_Twitler said:
Your post is totally of the bat-shit-crazy variety!

I have no idea what you are trying to say here- nor do I really give a flying FUCK!

So save your breath- because you may want to blow up your love doll a little later or something!
Click to expand...

They're your words and you were lying about why you got banned.
 
FartCatcher said:
We allow topical/current/relevant discussion especially as it pertains to public figures

"with the exception of news articles or a mature discussion involving stats, how it effects people etc,"

All of that is fine.

the inflection point is all about whether the discussion is mature, on topic, relevant, etc.

However, even concerning public figures there could be exceptions. Is the poster just using a random public figure to write out their perverse fantasies? Are people trying to shock troll?

There is a difference between "har har public figure likes kids" and "trump did ______ to his daughter and he _____ all over her ____ before he _____ and then did _____on her ____ and she was totally into it" <-- this would be an unnecessary graphic description just to shock and be perverted on here. That would not be allowed even if it were a public figure.

Some more background:

The reason we have the rule this way is because people always try to find a loophole. It used to just be as simple as "don't talk about adults fucking kids" but then we had a poster talk about how another posters kid might really like to eat some guys "popsicle" (paraphrased) and how said kid really would enjoy some creamy white ice cream and might even get a bunch of "ice cream" all over his face and mouth. This was a poster with a history of saying sick shit like this that was far more blatant and obvious. So that guy got banned. Now, we aren't going to make a rule saying "don't joke about people eating desserts" - that wouldn't make sense. But we can look at context and we can also declare, if you wink and nod at this stuff, or try to see what you can get away with, you'll be banned. If people want to joke about this stuff or be cavlier about it, they will likely be in trouble.

Context matters, and poster history matters. But if one generally wants to stay out of trouble, the best course of action is to not joke about this stuff at all and stick to on topic, relevant, serious discussion. If you deviate from that, us mods may take it under consideration.

Rule 12b is subjective in many ways. Sometimes when a post gets reported one mod might want 30 days, another wants 7 and we split the difference at 14. Sometimes one mod wants a ban and 2-3 other mods say no and the issue dies. So many are right this is not black or white, but people open themselves up to being judged in this subjective way by playing with pandoras box, so we offer a fair warning to everyone that if you play with fire, you might get burned.

The point isn't that anyone that posts some plausible utterance WILL be banned. There have been times where a post is reported and one mod wants someone banned but we ultimately defer on that action. Sometimes we'll report a post and discuss it among ourselves and decide against action collectively. (to be clear us mods agree the vast majority of the time)

The point is if one starts getting into this area, they open themselves UP to being banned (and 90% of the time they probably do get punted)

Even in the event of being banned, usually first offense is 7, then 30, then usually a 60 day ban, then perhaps another one, then we will usually perma. So if someone truly innocently fucks up, then it's a usually a warning for something that is nebulous, or 7 days for first offense. So even worse case scenario most people get multiple chances to correct their behavior, so in the end there really is no excuse.
Click to expand...

:thumbsupgirl:
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
No! I was not!

And just because you say something does not make it true!

Now if you have proof of me violating 12b- Quote me and prove it to the others!
Click to expand...

adolf_twitler banned - 12b

tenor.gif
 
FartCatcher said:
gross acts is obviously within the context of the rule. If I said I puked in your mouth and you enjoyed it, some might find that gross but that doesn't violate rule 12b. try not to be stupid.
Click to expand...

Except Lesion didn't refer to you puking in my mouth,

He clearly stated Kamala Harris liked to imagine American CHILDREN being forcibly raped.

And you're fine with that.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Except Lesion didn't refer to you puking in my mouth,

He clearly stated Kamala Harris liked to imagine American CHILDREN being forcibly raped.

And you're fine with that.
Click to expand...

yes I am fine with that. As are the rest of the mods, it's our judgement call, not yours. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Now because you are such a strong champion of the rules I am going to have to remind you about rule 16. Normally it's not something we enforce very often but because you truly are a paragon of being the ultimate rules champion I thought it would be prudent for me to point that out to you. cheers.
 
FartCatcher said:
We allow topical/current/relevant discussion especially as it pertains to public figures

"with the exception of news articles or a mature discussion involving stats, how it effects people etc,"

All of that is fine.

the inflection point is all about whether the discussion is mature, on topic, relevant, etc.

However, even concerning public figures there could be exceptions. Is the poster just using a random public figure to write out their perverse fantasies? Are people trying to shock troll?

There is a difference between "har har public figure likes kids" and "trump did ______ to his daughter and he _____ all over her ____ before he _____ and then did _____on her ____ and she was totally into it" <-- this would be an unnecessary graphic description just to shock and be perverted on here. That would not be allowed even if it were a public figure.

Some more background:

The reason we have the rule this way is because people always try to find a loophole. It used to just be as simple as "don't talk about adults fucking kids" but then we had a poster talk about how another posters kid might really like to eat some guys "popsicle" (paraphrased) and how said kid really would enjoy some creamy white ice cream and might even get a bunch of "ice cream" all over his face and mouth. This was a poster with a history of saying sick shit like this that was far more blatant and obvious. So that guy got banned. Now, we aren't going to make a rule saying "don't joke about people eating desserts" - that wouldn't make sense. But we can look at context and we can also declare, if you wink and nod at this stuff, or try to see what you can get away with, you'll be banned. If people want to joke about this stuff or be cavlier about it, they will likely be in trouble.

Context matters, and poster history matters. But if one generally wants to stay out of trouble, the best course of action is to not joke about this stuff at all and stick to on topic, relevant, serious discussion. If you deviate from that, us mods may take it under consideration.

Rule 12b is subjective in many ways. Sometimes when a post gets reported one mod might want 30 days, another wants 7 and we split the difference at 14. Sometimes one mod wants a ban and 2-3 other mods say no and the issue dies. So many are right this is not black or white, but people open themselves up to being judged in this subjective way by playing with pandoras box, so we offer a fair warning to everyone that if you play with fire, you might get burned.

The point isn't that anyone that posts some plausible utterance WILL be banned. There have been times where a post is reported and one mod wants someone banned but we ultimately defer on that action. Sometimes we'll report a post and discuss it among ourselves and decide against action collectively. (to be clear us mods agree the vast majority of the time)

The point is if one starts getting into this area, they open themselves UP to being banned (and 90% of the time they probably do get punted)

Even in the event of being banned, usually first offense is 7, then 30, then usually a 60 day ban, then perhaps another one, then we will usually perma. So if someone truly innocently fucks up, then it's a usually a warning for something that is nebulous, or 7 days for first offense. So even worse case scenario most people get multiple chances to correct their behavior, so in the end there really is no excuse.
Click to expand...

Paragraph after paragraph from Grind trying to justify his sickening hypocrisy.

He excuses vile comments from Lesion that would get another poster banned.

THAT is the rankest hypocrisy.
 
FartCatcher said:
yes I am fine with that. As are the rest of the mods, it's our judgement call, not yours. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Now because you are such a strong champion of the rules I am going to have to remind you about rule 16. Normally it's not something we enforce very often but because you truly are a paragon of being the ultimate rules champion I thought it would be prudent for me to point that out to you. cheers.
Click to expand...

:woot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top