GunZ' banning by Jack.

[semper]

speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...

Then, as an Admin, change the forum rules accordingly and give the mods the right to ban users for a short period of time in order for them to cool down.

As it stands now, the rules do not permit this.

In this light, Jack's actions were the only way to stop GunZ from trolling the forum and posting aggressively in the Temple with the SOLE intention to stir up trouble.

That's naughty. You're making the presumptions that Gunz was trolling intentionally to stir up trouble. We live in sophisticated western civilisation where one is innocent until proven guilty. Gunz stands by the fact, as too do Jedi tank and myself that these are family forums and a thread of that nature is wrong. That's far from a sole intention to stir up trouble... and in fact in light of the point that Gunz is at war and theoretically an enemy of JT he would be more likely to act in favour of Jack and those opposed to JT logically thinking, something which he was not.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

[deni]

speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...

Then, as an Admin, change the forum rules accordingly and give the mods the right to ban users for a short period of time in order for them to cool down.

As it stands now, the rules do not permit this.

In this light, Jack's actions were the only way to stop GunZ from trolling the forum and posting aggressively in the Temple with the SOLE intention to stir up trouble.

That's naughty. You're making the presumptions that Gunz was trolling intentionally to stir up trouble. We live in sophisticated western civilisation where one is innocent until proven guilty. Gunz stands by the fact, as too do Jedi tank and myself that these are family forums and a thread of that nature is wrong. That's far from a sole intention to stir up trouble... and in fact in light of the point that Gunz is at war and theoretically an enemy of JT he would be more likely to act in favour of Jack and those opposed to JT logically thinking, something which he was not.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

You just do not realize how funny your argument about who GunZ is at war with is.

[semper]

speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...

Then, as an Admin, change the forum rules accordingly and give the mods the right to ban users for a short period of time in order for them to cool down.

As it stands now, the rules do not permit this.

In this light, Jack's actions were the only way to stop GunZ from trolling the forum and posting aggressively in the Temple with the SOLE intention to stir up trouble.

That's naughty. You're making the presumptions that Gunz was trolling intentionally to stir up trouble. We live in sophisticated western civilisation where one is innocent until proven guilty. Gunz stands by the fact, as too do Jedi tank and myself that these are family forums and a thread of that nature is wrong. That's far from a sole intention to stir up trouble... and in fact in light of the point that Gunz is at war and theoretically an enemy of JT he would be more likely to act in favour of Jack and those opposed to JT logically thinking, something which he was not.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

You just do not realize how funny your argument about who GunZ is at war with is.

I am sorry.. was that meant to offend me?

Look.. if you cannot counter the points made Deni... you can go and sit out and let the big boys and girls discuss the issue..but otherwise I think that comment has no real place in this thread...as it makes no meaningful contribution... *cough* spam *cough*

allow me to give you a 'citizens' verbal warning not to spam the thread.

[Jack]

1 - Most of which were rude and uncompromising however the point stands that in the SPAM temple.. there, by definition, are no rules in regards to keeping on topic and I have seen many occasions where many have opposed a certain type of post (such as thaleks pointless post's with just a smiley in it) however this has been allowed to continue.

That, Semper, is because, while Thaltek's posts are annoying, they are not disruptive.

2 - I would have too until such a thread was locked or I had at least been given the same respect by which I had approached the issue.. something Gunz did very impersonally and fairly considering his beliefs on the issue and there'd have been hell to pay should I have been warned once, let a lone 3 times and banned.

What are you, insane? Gunz entered the thread screaming, carrying on and insulting/berating the users for informing him of the no Temple group and asking him to use it. It was not until after like ten posts by Gunz later, that the users and mods started to get confrontational and that was only because Gunz had already been insulting everyone else. I would hope, Semper, that you are smart enough to know where and how to address your issues. But if you were not and were to do the same as Gunz, you'd be banned as well.

The first line of the mod dealing with Gunz opened with "shut up now" and was followed with a statement that shares sentiments with "it's my way or the highway because this is my forums".

Yes, I told Gunz to shut up, because he was insulting my mods and spammers. I will not tolerate people doing such in my Temple. As the section head for Misc, I make the rules in the misc. Think of the forum like a country. The main forum rules are like federal laws, each section is like a state or province or whatever, with each section head acting as the Governor/judge/cop. The section mods are like the state police. The section head, or "Governor" makes the rules and watches over the section mods or "state police" whom enforce the rules along with the section head.

3 - The first warnings and even some of the basis for the later warnings are questionable due to the fact Jack changed and edited spam section policy during the incident and he did so without an admins approval something which he is not allowed to do (and I can get a quote from an admin to prove that and unless an admin is directly willing to testify contrary to the point I don't think jack had the permissions to make and change such rules at his own discretion).

That is a downright lie, and Psi will even testify to that. The Temple rule thread had not been edited in months, I think the last time it was edited was by Squishie when he was the supermod(though I could be wrong). The thread I made, was merely for clarification, there was no need to edit the rules, since it was already part of them.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

I will not bend to terrorists. Gunz going in there, insulting everyone, threatening people and disturbing the peace in order to get his way is the definition of a terrorist. I'm disappointed that you support terrorism, Semper.

[Mordack]

First thing:

I do not believe that bringing someone's RL children into an argument, even if the statement in question was intended as a joke, is ever an appropriate thing to do. Not for a user, and doubly not for a global moderator. I hope Jack will consider apologizing for that, because regardless of whatever else has been argued about I think a line was crossed then.

Second thing:

This is a terrible thread. Historic in terms of the forums, but terrible nonetheless. Honestly, I think there is fault on both sides. Jack for repeatedly baiting a user and getting overexcited with warning distribution, and Gunz for repeatedly taking that bait and going overboard himself. If someone is acting like that then you should calmly explain to them that they're going to get themselves into trouble and should just calm down or go for a walk. Relishing the oppourtunity to hand out warnings like candy is a frankly quite prickish thing to do, and so is continuing to dig yourself into a hole.

But there we go. If either of you had been a little calmer, or used your head a bit more, then this whole pallava could have been prevented. The comms admin wouldn't have gone all Norman Bates and I wouldn't be having to make posts like this one instead of nursing my hangover.

[deni]

speaking as user: a few hours of ban is better than 3 warnings and a ban...

Then, as an Admin, change the forum rules accordingly and give the mods the right to ban users for a short period of time in order for them to cool down.

As it stands now, the rules do not permit this.

In this light, Jack's actions were the only way to stop GunZ from trolling the forum and posting aggressively in the Temple with the SOLE intention to stir up trouble.

That's naughty. You're making the presumptions that Gunz was trolling intentionally to stir up trouble. We live in sophisticated western civilisation where one is innocent until proven guilty. Gunz stands by the fact, as too do Jedi tank and myself that these are family forums and a thread of that nature is wrong. That's far from a sole intention to stir up trouble... and in fact in light of the point that Gunz is at war and theoretically an enemy of JT he would be more likely to act in favour of Jack and those opposed to JT logically thinking, something which he was not.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

You just do not realize how funny your argument about who GunZ is at war with is.

I am sorry.. was that meant to offend me?

Look.. if you cannot counter the points made Deni... you can go and sit out and let the big boys and girls discuss the issue..but otherwise I think that comment has no real place in this thread...as it makes no meaningful contribution... *cough* spam *cough*

allow me to give you a 'citizens' verbal warning not to spam the thread.

Differently from you, I do not intend to offend or provoke with every post I make.

It is just that your argument about who GunZ is at war with is laughable.

Now if you have nothing to add besides your frustration of saying something stupid, the refrain from posting please

[Jack]

First thing:

I do not believe that bringing someone's RL children into an argument, even if the statement in question was intended as a joke, is ever an appropriate thing to do. Not for a user, and doubly not for a global moderator. I hope Jack will consider apologizing for that, because regardless of whatever else has been argued about I think a line was crossed then.

I will not do so, that comment was made on MSN, not the forums. I also do not believe that you have seen the entire conversation, so I shall post it here for you.

(18:41) GunZ has been added to the conversation.
(18:41) [BoT] Jack: Hey cupcake
(18:41) GunZ: yes
(18:42) GunZ: i want your id
(18:42) bmmj13@hotmail.c: lol
you and like half of sgw
(18:42) bmmj13@hotmail.c: me included >_.
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: I want to eat your childrenz.
(18:42) GunZ: i will find him
or her
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: Sure you will
(18:42) GunZ: **Filtered** you man
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: Because you're sooooo intelligent, right?
(18:43) [BoT] Jack:
(18:43) GunZ: do not invite me in here and speak of my children
(18:43) [BoT] Jack: And I must refuse
I am not gay
You know what
(18:43) GunZ has left the conversation.
(18:43) GunZ has been added to the conversation.
(18:43) [BoT] Jack: I'll do you that much and not talk about you kids.
your*
(18:44) [BoT] Jack: Because as much of an **Filtered** I'm not that big an ass
(18:44) bmmj13@hotmail.c: yes you are
(18:44) [BoT] Jack: as I am, I'm not*
(18:45) [BoT] Jack: Well, I am a huge **Filtered**, there's certainly no denying that. But really, I mean he did ask.
(18:45) GunZ: no time or patience for this...bmm...you are better than this huy
guy
ignore him
(18:45) mark: lmao
bj? pfft
(18:45) [BoT] Jack: Do you not wonder why I call him JB, Gunz?

(18:46) GunZ has left the conversation.

There were like ten or so in that conversation that can verify that the copypasta is legit. \

[Mordack]

First thing:

I do not believe that bringing someone's RL children into an argument, even if the statement in question was intended as a joke, is ever an appropriate thing to do. Not for a user, and doubly not for a global moderator. I hope Jack will consider apologizing for that, because regardless of whatever else has been argued about I think a line was crossed then.

I will not do so, that comment was made on MSN, not the forums. I also do not believe that you have seen the entire conversation, so I shall post it here for you.

(18:41) GunZ has been added to the conversation.
(18:41) [BoT] Jack: Hey cupcake
(18:41) GunZ: yes
(18:42) GunZ: i want your id
(18:42) bmmj13@hotmail.c: lol
you and like half of sgw
(18:42) bmmj13@hotmail.c: me included >_.
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: I want to eat your childrenz.
(18:42) GunZ: i will find him
or her
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: Sure you will
(18:42) GunZ: **Filtered** you man
(18:42) [BoT] Jack: Because you're sooooo intelligent, right?
(18:43) [BoT] Jack:
(18:43) GunZ: do not invite me in here and speak of my children
(18:43) [BoT] Jack: And I must refuse
I am not gay
You know what
(18:43) GunZ has left the conversation.
(18:43) GunZ has been added to the conversation.
(18:43) [BoT] Jack: I'll do you that much and not talk about you kids.
your*
(18:44) [BoT] Jack: Because as much of an **Filtered** I'm not that big an ass
(18:44) bmmj13@hotmail.c: yes you are
(18:44) [BoT] Jack: as I am, I'm not*
(18:45) [BoT] Jack: Well, I am a huge **Filtered**, there's certainly no denying that. But really, I mean he did ask.
(18:45) GunZ: no time or patience for this...bmm...you are better than this huy
guy
ignore him
(18:45) mark: lmao
bj? pfft
(18:45) [BoT] Jack: Do you not wonder why I call him JB, Gunz?

(18:46) GunZ has left the conversation.

There were like ten or so in that conversation that can verify that the copypasta is legit. \

I still don't think it's something which should have been mentioned, to be honest. Obviously I have no power or influence over things which happen over MSN, but if it was me I'd probaby apologize. *shrug*

[semper]

1 - Most of which were rude and uncompromising however the point stands that in the SPAM temple.. there, by definition, are no rules in regards to keeping on topic and I have seen many occasions where many have opposed a certain type of post (such as thaleks pointless post's with just a smiley in it) however this has been allowed to continue.

That, Semper, is because, while Thaltek's posts are annoying, they are not disruptive.

That is a subjective point. Thaltek's post's are capable of being ignored as easily as Gunz's are. They're also in a lot of cases as equally as disruptive and annoying.

2 - I would have too until such a thread was locked or I had at least been given the same respect by which I had approached the issue.. something Gunz did very impersonally and fairly considering his beliefs on the issue and there'd have been hell to pay should I have been warned once, let a lone 3 times and banned.

What are you, insane? Gunz entered the thread screaming, carrying on and insulting/berating the users for informing him of the no Temple group and asking him to use it. It was not until after like ten posts by Gunz later, that the users and mods started to get confrontational and that was only because Gunz had already been insulting everyone else. I would hope, Semper, that you are smart enough to know where and how to address your issues. But if you were not and were to do the same as Gunz, you'd be banned as well.

I know how and where to address my issues? Jack I would hope you are knowledgeable enough to know I don't care and say what I want where I want in what manner I want to say it..that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be until I get perma banned.

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

The first line of the mod dealing with Gunz opened with "shut up now" and was followed with a statement that shares sentiments with "it's my way or the highway because this is my forums".

Yes, I told Gunz to shut up, because he was insulting my mods and spammers. I will not tolerate people doing such in my Temple. As the section head for Misc, I make the rules in the misc. Think of the forum like a country. The main forum rules are like federal laws, each section is like a state or province or whatever, with each section head acting as the Governor/judge/cop. The section mods are like the state police. The section head, or "Governor" makes the rules and watches over the section mods or "state police" whom enforce the rules along with the section head.

But, in the hypothetical situation what you're saying (now the thread has gone...) that Gunz apparently did do..(which I am fairly certain he did not do..) you're allowed to do it to Gunz? Slightly inappropriate coming from a mod.

Oh... it's not your temple. You may write up the rules in misc but you need an admins permission.. and I have that on authority from the admin themselves and you also have no authority within the debate section without my or an admins permission (whether you want to go there/people post in there or not).

it seems you've learn't nothing from this entire incident if you're still so quick to refer to it as 'your temple' and yourself as governor and beyond. You're a glorified peace keeper and the sooner you learn your place the better for all of us.

3 - The first warnings and even some of the basis for the later warnings are questionable due to the fact Jack changed and edited spam section policy during the incident and he did so without an admins approval something which he is not allowed to do (and I can get a quote from an admin to prove that and unless an admin is directly willing to testify contrary to the point I don't think jack had the permissions to make and change such rules at his own discretion).

That is a downright lie, and Psi will even testify to that. The Temple rule thread had not been edited in months, I think the last time it was edited was by Squishie when he was the supermod(though I could be wrong). The thread I made, was merely for clarification, there was no need to edit the rules, since it was already part of them.

The one you made is the one to which I refer.. so there was NO lying of any sort.. and the second thread that you refer to with Psi has no bearing on this because none of the rules mentioned in it directly referred to what Gunz did and any way you could have drawn them to what he did could have been drawn to dozens.. probably hundreds of post's within the section.

In light of everything.. I assure you and assert that there were plenty of ways to appease Gunz and the actions taken were one of them.. but far far from the best way to do so.

I will not bend to terrorists. Gunz going in there, insulting everyone, threatening people and disturbing the peace in order to get his way is the definition of a terrorist. I'm disappointed that you support terrorism, Semper.

The fact you would compare Gunz in a serious manner to people who commit genocide is absolutely abhorrent! It does nothing to help you jack and you may just have made your grave deeper.

I am a troller.. but that does not negate I know differently to a life of trolling.. unfortunately for your defensive argument the world does not survive on absolutes. Gunz did not enter the temple and insult everyone, Gunz did not disturb peace in a forum that is chaotic by it's very nature and Gunz is in no way a terrorist.

That entire point is absolutely unbelievable.. it's devoid of intelligence and full of lies to the point where I don't know whether to ignore it, laugh or perhaps even be angry?

I mean...should we compare you to a terrorist here too jack? Abusing your powers that are there for a noble reason to further your own egocentric pleasures? You bully and abuse people hiding behind that green name...

If anyone is to be compared to a terrorist from this incident.. it's not Gunz.

@ Mordack. Love the post.

@ Deni... I'll post what I want dear. You're the one who deviated first...


OH! and Jack and Deni.. I've read enough of these Ombudsman threads to know how it goes... you two can try all you want to wind me up and get me to make the mistake of getting banned or warned.. but no. This game won't work on old Semps... good attempt at starting it though.. I nearly did fall for it there.

[deni]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

[semper]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

and what? Should we believe or even trust that statement? We all know you and Jack support each other through it...and that statement is clearly a load of rubbish and fabricated to support Jack. Up until the poitn where Clarkey deleted the thread.. plenty of people have been defending Gunz.. do you think we all did it knowing he had intentionally ran into the thread looking for a fight?

Oh come on Deni... you'll have to do better than that.

Gunz clearly entered that thread looking to make a sensible and intelligent point in opposition to the threads existence, made in a reasonable manner as he is entitled to do and which he DID do. Aggressive attacks were made on him and he reacted as such.

On top of that.. when has Gunz ever posted like that unprovoked? Do you have good proof to answer my question in favour of you argument? I would like to see it.. (sincerely so..)

otherwise.. you are entitled to your opinion.. no matter how transparent it's purpose is.

[deni]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

and what? Should we believe or even trust that statement? We all know you and Jack support each other through it...and that statement is clearly a load of rubbish and fabricated to support Jack. Up until the poitn where Clarkey deleted the thread.. plenty of people have been defending Gunz.. do you think we all did it knowing he had intentionally ran into the thread looking for a fight?

Oh come on Deni... you'll have to do better than that.

Gunz clearly entered that thread looking to make a sensible and intelligent point in opposition to the threads existence, made in a reasonable manner as he is entitled to do and which he DID do. Aggressive attacks were made on him and he reacted as such.

On top of that.. when has Gunz ever posted like that unprovoked? Do you have good proof to answer my question in favour of you argument? I would like to see it.. (sincerely so..)

otherwise.. you are entitled to your opinion.. no matter how transparent it's purpose is.

Nice try.

But I still prefer to rely on my own memory.

[semper]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

and what? Should we believe or even trust that statement? We all know you and Jack support each other through it...and that statement is clearly a load of rubbish and fabricated to support Jack. Up until the poitn where Clarkey deleted the thread.. plenty of people have been defending Gunz.. do you think we all did it knowing he had intentionally ran into the thread looking for a fight?

Oh come on Deni... you'll have to do better than that.

Gunz clearly entered that thread looking to make a sensible and intelligent point in opposition to the threads existence, made in a reasonable manner as he is entitled to do and which he DID do. Aggressive attacks were made on him and he reacted as such.

On top of that.. when has Gunz ever posted like that unprovoked? Do you have good proof to answer my question in favour of you argument? I would like to see it.. (sincerely so..)

otherwise.. you are entitled to your opinion.. no matter how transparent it's purpose is.

Nice try.

But I still prefer to rely on my own memory.

Well I am sure I speak for most when I say.... you do that...

like I said.. you're entitled to your opinion..

[deni]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

and what? Should we believe or even trust that statement? We all know you and Jack support each other through it...and that statement is clearly a load of rubbish and fabricated to support Jack. Up until the poitn where Clarkey deleted the thread.. plenty of people have been defending Gunz.. do you think we all did it knowing he had intentionally ran into the thread looking for a fight?

Oh come on Deni... you'll have to do better than that.

Gunz clearly entered that thread looking to make a sensible and intelligent point in opposition to the threads existence, made in a reasonable manner as he is entitled to do and which he DID do. Aggressive attacks were made on him and he reacted as such.

On top of that.. when has Gunz ever posted like that unprovoked? Do you have good proof to answer my question in favour of you argument? I would like to see it.. (sincerely so..)

otherwise.. you are entitled to your opinion.. no matter how transparent it's purpose is.

Nice try.

But I still prefer to rely on my own memory.

Well I am sure I speak for most when I say.... you do that...

like I said.. you're entitled to your opinion.. no matter its corrupt purpose and therefore obvious transparency.

Just as you are free to post everything your imagination comes up with

[semper]

Gunz's opening post (as far as I remember.. though I admit I am going off memory here) was in no way similar of tone and personal level that he was replied to with. His later comments were antagonised by yourself and others in the thread and he responded enkind.. whether he was right to respond to it in that way or not depends on whether you agree with the way you handled it as being right or wrong.

I disagree.

GunZ came to the thread like someone entering a pub and looking for a brawl. His posts and demeanor in that thread were aggressive in my perception.

and what? Should we believe or even trust that statement? We all know you and Jack support each other through it...and that statement is clearly a load of rubbish and fabricated to support Jack. Up until the poitn where Clarkey deleted the thread.. plenty of people have been defending Gunz.. do you think we all did it knowing he had intentionally ran into the thread looking for a fight?

Oh come on Deni... you'll have to do better than that.

Gunz clearly entered that thread looking to make a sensible and intelligent point in opposition to the threads existence, made in a reasonable manner as he is entitled to do and which he DID do. Aggressive attacks were made on him and he reacted as such.

On top of that.. when has Gunz ever posted like that unprovoked? Do you have good proof to answer my question in favour of you argument? I would like to see it.. (sincerely so..)

otherwise.. you are entitled to your opinion.. no matter how transparent it's purpose is.

Nice try.

But I still prefer to rely on my own memory.

Well I am sure I speak for most when I say.... you do that...

like I said.. you're entitled to your opinion.. no matter its corrupt purpose and therefore obvious transparency.

Just as you are free to post everything your imagination comes up with

Well thank you. When I do.. i'll make sure to put it in a different colour so you can pick it out.

But now, can we get back on topic please? When you want to throw reasonable doubt.. or even disprove my points.. I look forward to it.