Don Karnage wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:On page 9 of the thread GunZ expressed his thoughts about the thread but made sure to stay within all forum rules.
Gunz was stirring trouble in the Temple, that is against the rules in the Temple as explained
here.
Stirring trouble? Is not the abuse of your banning power also stirring trouble Jacky poo? How many times in the past have you abused your power to ban someone? I have seen the mod logs in the past.. and I know the admins are aware of it. How many times did you get away with stirring trouble as explicitly stated as being against the rules?
AND! Need I point out that the thread you've linked us too was posted AFTER the incident occurred. In fact you changed the rules during the incident was occurring... which is definitely questionable.
I am sure if we could all act with the knowledge generally gained in hindsight our actions would be different. Ergo.. I point to this part of your defence being a null issue.
Jack wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:GunZ and JT both are fathers and the reason they both got angry about it is because they were concerned about their children coming to play on a game and seeing lots of pictures of half naked women in interesting positions.
There are
NO photos of
naked women in the thread, if there are then you should report it and they will be removed immediately. Nudes will not be tolerated in the thread, most photos are of women simply simply kissing, while fully clothed, thus making them far less of an issue than quite a few sigs that have been worn by users for years.
Do we need to really start going to as much detail as distinctions of soft and hardcore porn? The former generally just consisting of seductive/suggestive photos or the bare minimums of contact?
They have been in sigs for years and to my knowledge they've generally been removed or asked to be removed.... but! *raises finger*... we shall return to THIS point in a few quotes.. so hold the attention...
jack wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:Then Jack came in {End of page 10} and the first thing out his mouth "Gunz I am going to tell you to shut up." Jack the stated that it was his spam temple and that GunZ could not post that type of message in his forum.
I really love this part of your argument. Why is that? Well, let's take a look at my entire post, shall we?
Don Karnage wrote:[spoiler]Gunz I am going to tell you to shut up. I am also going to tell you to get out of my Temple
if you are just going to come here to cause trouble. I am also going to tell you where you can take your complaints. I expect you to listen and do as I say, but if you choose not to, know this, I will warn you.
Now.
Gunz STHU and GTHO of my Temple
if all you're going to do is insult my mods and cause trouble. If you have a problem with threads in the Temple, you have two options, 1. you can join the no Temple group or 2. you can file a complaint in the forum issues section. If you do not cease and desist your behavior, you will be warned. Thank you and have a nice day.
[/spoiler]
I want you to pay special attention to the parts in red, as they are very important. Now let's take a second look at your argument, shall we?
~Vixion~ wrote:Jack the stated that it was his spam temple and that GunZ could not post that type of message in his forum. GunZ's message stating his opinion, and as i said, breaking NO forum rules.
With this argument, you are essentially stating that Gunz should be allowed to cause trouble and insult mods. Now, for whatever reason do you believe he should be allowed to do that?
no.. no.. no... what he's suggesting is that your tone and your language are a mod is horribly out of order. Added to that he's suggesting (and if he's not... then I am) that it's the spam temple.. so there's no rules about keeping things on topic.. or there wasn't until you invented them during this tincy snafoo... so Gunz was more than entitled to post what he did.. and then to further disagree with you... when you disrespected him.
With your argument you're stating that mods should be able to insult and cause trouble unpunished?
You cannot hide behind this righteousness Jack.. when you disrespected him first. Out right telling someone to 'shut up', followed by STHU and GTHO IS just that and it's even worse when he was objecting to something that undermines the forums rules.
He's also pointing out.. that's it's dam well NOT your temple..which again is completely right.. its Buck's temple and it shall be for the entirety of it's existence and if you don't accept that.. then it's everyones.
jack wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:GunZ said "Warn away hero, you cannot warm me for stating my opinion." Then, {page 11 now} Jack warned him.
Damn straight I did, I issued him a verbal warning, he failed to heed the verbal warning, so I warned him.
[/quote]
Your verbal warning would most definitely have been misconstrued as a joke considering the tone surrounding it..
jack wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:GunZ then posted "Umm...exactly HOW is it possible to spam a spam thread ? . Think on it, a wee bit paradoxical or at best silly don't ya think ?" For that... a warning.
There is only one section appropriate for discussing mod actions, and that's not the Temple. And whether or not people realize it, the Temple does have limits on the spam allowed. Again, I refer to
this thread, but also I point you to
this thread.
Gunz's point still stands... the existence of the spam temple is to spam. Gunz was spamming... if you're going to warn him.. then I suggest you do it to everyone who's posted in there.
The first topic you linked us too has been nulled earlier in this post as it was created during the incident and is questionably subjective... in the essence that it was created by yourself to cover your ass.
The second topic mentions nothing that directly refers to this case and I am sure anyone of the ones you will attempt to tie it to.. can be found many times over during the spam temples lengthy history or since those rules creation.
jack wrote:~Vixion~ wrote:The next message from GunZ shows a small part of his convo with JT where they agree on the thread, GunZ also says that he backs JT 1000% and that he will do his best to get him removed as a mod after Jack made a comment involving GunZ's children on MSN. That was the 3rd warning and thus, banned.
The first two warnings should have been enough to tell him that he was causing a fuss in the wrong section, that is entirely he is own fault.
The first two warnings were wrongly handed down so the third should never have occurred.
jack wrote:Semper wrote:threads about lesbians? You tell me how in any way that is acceptable and swearing is not?
That's a bit homophobic, isn't it? There is nothing in that thread that violates any rules(asides from Gunz' and JT's posts, ironic no?), there are no images that contain any nudity, it just happens to be about lesbians. Are you saying that talk of homosexuality should be banned from the forums? Because if so, I must say that that is fairly homophobic.
You should know better than to try and purposefully misconstrue my post's jack poo.. and you know very well what I was saying.
By your own admission there are post's within the topic that contain two women kissing.... and ultimately homosexuality is STILL a taboo topic despite any and all individual differences... we don't continually post heterosexual sexually suggestive pictures around the forums, nor are they in post's... the point is (and we're also partially returning to the one I promised to come back to earlier)...
That thread exists for a sexual orientated purpose, no one for one second would believe it existed for the sheer sake of exploring the different poses open to two women kissing or some other innocent reason. Sex.. or porn..is banned from these forums. Soft porn and suggestive images are insidious in nature... and no different when used in a sophisticated conversation to using a swear word.
Swear words are as much a part of everyday life as the notion of gay, sex, blow job and the other more interesting terms are... the point being (and I am going to mask for the sake of an example here.. edit and remove it.. or even warn me if you wish.. I don't care).. if a common a word as b*stard or B*tch cannot be used when they have more sophisticated meanings.. then I see no difference to make any further discretion with a thread about potentially sexually suggestive images and ideas as in general they too can be used as insults...but we don't ban them or hinder them.. however we do with swear words which is why these threads with such images should not exist. We don't ban or warn for the minor swear words the same as we don't for using the terms Lesbian or gay etc etc... because there be nothing wrong with it. However.. when people go to far with swear words... or avoid that filter.. we act. The same should apply when sexually explicit or suggestive things are posted in such an excessive way.
I'm here for GunZ.