Get yours here.

A'ight, what did Bit/Byte do to get banned *before I jump on the 'you guys are too friggin' strict' wagon.

Oh please. A temporary ban for Napsterbater and now a ban for Bit/Byte and this constitutes a "banning spree." Don't be ridiculous.

Don't look at me.

*looks at Little e*

O wait...


*looks away*

Don't forget Angeldust, Evak.

Who?

O yeah, the anger filled woman hater who thinks it's ok to hit them. Don't forget him, Ev.

Don't forget Angeldust, Evak.
I don't care if useless posters get banned.

Get yours here.

A'ight, what did Bit/Byte do to get banned *before I jump on the 'you guys are too friggin' strict' wagon.

It was I who banned Bit/Byte.

Alas Imp, in this particular case I'm not at liberty to discuss the reason Bit/Byte was banned, since I promised him I would not do so. I can assure you that the reason was sound, and that he agreed with the reason, more or less. Further, the other mods are aware of the reason and have agreed not to disclose it in deference to the wishes of the banned. I can also assure you that the timing of this is strictly coincidental, and is not indicative of a trend of any sort.

He just wanted to catch up with me!

Who?

O yeah, the anger filled woman hater who thinks it's ok to hit them. Don't forget him, Ev.
i'm not a woman hater. it's stupid bitches like you talking shit like that who deserve to get knocked out.

He just wanted to catch up with me!
i bet he called somone a cunt.

It was I who banned Bit/Byte.
I kinda figured it was you.


Alas Imp, in this particular case I'm not at liberty to discuss the reason Bit/Byte was banned, since I promised him I would not do so. I can assure you that the reason was sound, and that he agreed with the reason, more or less.
Riiight, of course your not.

More or less? but not quite, huh?



I can also assure you that the timing of this is strictly coincidental, and is not indicative of a trend of any sort.
That's ironic. Looking pretty trendy to me.

i'm not a woman hater. it's stupid bitches like you talking shit like that who deserve to get knocked out.
:(
What's sad is you don't even realize how contradicting your post is...or how stupid it makes you look to others when you talk about hitting a woman.

I kinda figured it was you.

I kinda figured you'd figure it was me. :)


Riiight, of course your not.

I gave you the reason why...was it not clear?


More or less? but not quite, huh?

I'm sure B/B would have preferred not to be banned, but I think he understood why it was neccessary.


That's ironic. Looking pretty trendy to me.

Appearances can be deceiving Imp. The problem here is that you are basing your conclusions on sparse information out of neccessity, and you are putting too much stock in those conclusions. I don't blame you for not having more information to go on, but the fact that you resort to innuendo and not-so-subtle jabs at me because you don't know everything about why B/B was banned says more about you than it does about me. For the most part, the mods try to do things as transparently as possible here, but in this case the person banned asked for the reason to remain private, and I see no reason to go back on my word just to satisfy the idle curiosity of another member.

Imp, it is not within the capacity of most men to hate women. A willingness to hit or even beat them is not the same thing as hatred.

A love-hate relationship on the other hand, is very much within that capacity.

I trust Vile to tell the truth when he said Bit/Byte wanted the reason for his ban to remain private. To try to drag this out is helping no one. Should Bit/Byte want to discuss it, he can hop back over here after his ban expires and speak for himself.

I understand the mods are using email to communicate with banned members now? When I got banned, all I got was a PM I couldn't read until after the ban expired.

That said, banning anyone who contributes to the forum in any other than a mechanical fashion (excluding DefectiveMachin!) hurts only the forum. It is irresponsible and the only reason can be a human failing on the part of the mods.

I trust Vile to tell the truth when he said Bit/Byte wanted the reason for his ban to remain private.

Thank you Napster.


To try to drag this out is helping no one.

Thank you again.


Should Bit/Byte want to discuss it, he can hop back over here after his ban expires and speak for himself.

Bit/Byte has been banned permanently.


I understand the mods are using email to communicate with banned members now? When I got banned, all I got was a PM I couldn't read until after the ban expired.

You didn't even get the lousy "I got banned at allforums" tee shirt? ;-)

I don't think there's a set policy for communicating with banned members...the next time it happens to you Napster, I can always be found on AIM under the SN, Vilepagan44. :D


That said, banning anyone who contributes to the forum in any other than a mechanical fashion (excluding DefectiveMachin!) hurts only the forum. It is irresponsible and the only reason can be a human failing on the part of the mods.

I wish it were that easy Napster. There are many reasons that a poster might be banned, and if this instance is any indication, there are reasons yet to be encountered.

A willingness to hit or even beat them is not the same thing as hatred.



Nap, you are promoting physical violence. I do not believe there is EVER a reason to strike another.
I can't wrap my head around 'beating' someone you 'love'.

Nap, you are promoting physical violence. I do not believe there is EVER a reason to strike another.
I can't wrap my head around 'beating' someone you 'love'.
"Remember: never take shit from your kids. You make payments on the house, utilities, their clothes, school, and their food. You own them. If they don't like it, they can move out. If you love your kids, love them enough to beat them so that they don't grow up to be idiots." -Maddox

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg

"Remember: never take shit from your kids. You make payments on the house, utilities, their clothes, school, and their food. You own them. If they don't like it, they can move out. If you love your kids, love them enough to beat them so that they don't grow up to be idiots." -Maddox

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/beatkid4.jpg

ROFL. Good one Evak. :D

Nap, you are promoting physical violence.

I most certainly am not. I am describing, not promoting. You are mistaking my failure to denounce his actions as promoting them. I would not hit women. I would not suggest to anyone that they do. But I can understand why they would.

I wish it were that easy Napster. There are many reasons that a poster might be banned, and if this instance is any indication, there are reasons yet to be encountered.

I'm thinking the reason might be something he's doing in private messaging and such, that isn't visible to the rest of the forum. This is acceptable, to me at least.

You didn't even get the lousy "I got banned at allforums" tee shirt? ;-)


I checked the mail every day, but I never got one. Are you holding out on me, Vile?

Bit/Byte has been banned permanently.

I wish it were that easy Napster. There are many reasons that a poster might be banned, and if this instance is any indication, there are reasons yet to be encountered.

Ok, Vile, you'll get no more heat from me about Bit/Byte. There must be good enough reason and it's really not my business. If you went to the max and he's permanently banned, then yes, he musta had it coming.

Buh-Buh, Bit/Byte.

:D Smartass, Ev.

I most certainly am not. I am describing, not promoting. You are mistaking my failure to denounce his actions as promoting them.
Ok, you're right. I was doing that, my bad.


I would not hit women. I would not suggest to anyone that they do.
I'm glad to hear that.


But I can understand why they would.
I don't. I can see reasons for anger with them, I can even see being overwhelmed and feeling the need to punch something to release some of that tension. But I just can't see how they would justifiably strike the one they are supposed to care for.
Maybe I am over sensitive, I mean, I hate it when friends punch me in jest. I just don't see the sense in it.

Being male is like holding a tiger by the tail, constantly, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Each of us men have to deal with it in our own way. You should check out some of the diaries written by females who decide to become men, what testosterone does to their state of mind. It's real hell, trying to hold your own masculinity in and to channel it into avenues society deems acceptable.

As the old saying goes, before you judge a person, try to walk a mile in his shoes.

I mean, I hate it when friends punch me in jest.

I hate it when females hit me in jest, assuming they aren't flirting with me. If a guy hits me, I don't mind, but when women do it, it's usually out of some gross sense of superiority over me. I hit them back, without even thinking about it. It gets me into a lot of drama, but I refuse to allow that double standard to apply to me. Women see me hitting back as some ugly lack of respect for me. I see their hitting me as a lack of respect for me. One even uglier. When I hit them back, they are actually getting off easy. They always want to start shit, but I refuse to cow to stupid women.

Nap, you are promoting physical violence. I do not believe there is EVER a reason to strike another.
I can't wrap my head around 'beating' someone you 'love'.
I agree. There is no room for physical violence in any relationship, ever. One does not ever lower oneself to strike another out of frustration or anger.
Having said that in all honesty sometimes, some people are sooooooooooooooooooooo stupid that I can actually understand "how" someone would get hit. There are some women I want to bitch slap. And when they complain about their relationship and how bad it is, I turn off after the second listening. Move on or shut up.

Also, like draws like. Damaged draws damaged. I think it is the human attempt to heal itself. A truly healthy person (mentally and emotionally) does not endure an unhealthy relationship, they leave.

As for the banning, I like Napster figured it was some private interaction that occurred during a PM. It matters little to me.

I trust the integrity of Vile in this case and any of the other mods to do what is best for the forum and us as a community.

I trust the integrity of Vile in this case and any of the other mods to do what is best for the forum and us as a community.

I wouldn't go that far, I just don't think they'd outright lie to us in order to protect their own interests.

There is no room for physical violence in any relationship, ever.

Some people just have to get out aggression somehow. There are lots of people who beat the shit out of each other during sex. Not as part of any strange S&M thing, just as lovers they want to smack each other around. Lots of people, both male and female, just don't find their true sexual expression unless there is quite a bit of violence present.

I think maybe Sal should give it a shot, and really get into some hairy, no-holds-barred sex. Then maybe you'll change your tune.

i'm not a woman hater. it's stupid bitches like you talking shit like that who deserve to get knocked out.


I'm sorry for attacking you, Angeldust. It was uncalled for.

Bannings without a reason given in open forum are scarey. They allow the moderators to ban for personal rather than forum reasons. There should be a site that list who has been banned, how long the banning is for and the reason for the banning. If a person has committed a crime so heinous as to warrant banning that person deserves no consideration of not having the reason mentioned.

Like Imp, I see a trend beginning. No bannings for other than spam for the longest time and now what seems like a mini spurt of bannings.

In bannings as in all else that goes on here there should be transparency. No bannings for ungiven reasons.

If a person has committed a crime so heinous as to warrant banning that person deserves no consideration of not having the reason mentioned.

A week ago I might have agreed with you. The circustances of this case are somewhat unusual.


Like Imp, I see a trend beginning. No bannings for other than spam for the longest time and now what seems like a mini spurt of bannings.

Things are not always what they seem.


In bannings as in all else that goes on here there should be transparency. No bannings for ungiven reasons.

In most instances that would be the way we do things here, but this case is different.

His banning must have been for something done in open forum. If it is done in open forum it is not something that should be protected as private.

Either Bit/Byte did something openly that was worthy of banning or he did not. If it was done openly it should be public knowledge. If it was done privately it does not warrant banning.

I belong to another forum where there are no reasons given for bannings and the major moderator there has taken to banning people for personal reasons. I am not accusing you of that but when reasons for bannings are not given there is the appearance that that is happening.

His banning must have been for something done in open forum.

It was.


If it is done in open forum it is not something that should be protected as private.

Again, a week ago I might have agreed with you in principle, but this is an unusual case.


Either Bit/Byte did something openly that was worthy of banning or he did not.

He did.


If it was done openly it should be public knowledge.

You'd think so.


If it was done privately it does not warrant banning.

Once again, I would normally agree, but not in this case.


I belong to another forum where there are no reasons given for bannings and the major moderator there has taken to banning people for personal reasons. I am not accusing you of that but when reasons for bannings are not given there is the appearance that that is happening.

I can assure you that I have nothing against Bit/Byte personally, nor did any personal feelings intrude into the decision of any of the moderators in this case. I understand that appearances in this case might be a bit disturbing, but as I said before, appearances can be deceiving.

I told Bit/Byte that I would honor his request for privacy in this matter, and I also told him that I would probably receive a little heat for not disclosing the reason for his banning. I know it's at least mildly annoying to the other posters, and I apologize for that, but B/B was given assurances of privacy, and the moderators here have agreed to uphold those assurances. I'm fully prepared to take any criticisms any of the posters may feel are warranted, although I do believe that if the circumstances were to be made public, there would be no criticisms of the actions of the mods in this matter.

Criminals, even very minor internet criminals like Bit/Byte, don't get the choice of keeping their crimes anonymous. If something you did is so embarrasing that you don't want it disclosed, don't do it. If it is severe enough to warrant banning it is severe enough to be publicly acknowledged.

Having said my piece I will now drop the subject.

I'm sorry for attacking you, Angeldust. It was uncalled for.
you're right. it was.

Guys, mods that is.
Is there a procedure thats gone thru when banning,ie,is the member giving a warning in a PM.That his posting is unacceptable, you know what I mean.

Guys, mods that is.
Is there a procedure thats gone thru when banning,ie,is the member giving a warning in a PM.That his posting is unacceptable, you know what I mean.

Yes. Except in the case of spammers who are summarily banned and their effluent relegated to the hall of shame.

Warnings are usually sent before any other actions are taken.

I am against bannings for one reason and one reason only. It hurts the forum and destroys the sense of community that grows up by allowing every member to say his peace in a welcoming atmosphere. For most cases, the disruption caused by the moderators stepping in is far worse than the disruptions caused by the posters in question.

There has been no loud, public disruption in this case, so there can be no chance of the moderators doing it in order to protect their fragile egos. There is nothing real at stake here, so there is no reason to suggest subterfuge. It's not like there's lots of money to be had running this place. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything other than what Vile is telling us, and because there's no reason to disbelieve it, the fact that Bit/Byte wanted his banning to remain under wraps should be respected. He's not a criminal, he has done nothing *wrong* any more than I did anything *wrong* to get banned. His wishes should be respected, and Vile should be commended for sticking to his guns. It is sheer foolishness to relate this little forum on the web to real life.

I am against bannings for one reason and one reason only. It hurts the forum and destroys the sense of community that grows up by allowing every member to say his peace in a welcoming atmosphere.

I would agree if the moderators were banning people who were not themselves disrupting the community in some way.


For most cases, the disruption caused by the moderators stepping in is far worse than the disruptions caused by the posters in question.

Well, from my perspective I don't see it that way, but perhaps perspective plays a role there.


There has been no loud, public disruption in this case, so there can be no chance of the moderators doing it in order to protect their fragile egos.

*smiles*...not to worry Napster, my ego's intact.


There is nothing real at stake here, so there is no reason to suggest subterfuge.

Indeed.


It's not like there's lots of money to be had running this place.

Umm, none even. Notice there aren't any ads.


There is absolutely no reason to believe anything other than what Vile is telling us, and because there's no reason to disbelieve it, the fact that Bit/Byte wanted his banning to remain under wraps should be respected.

Yes it should.


It is sheer foolishness to relate this little forum on the web to real life.

Why? Isn't your participation, and the participation of all the other posters part of your "real life", and theirs?

Take a look around Napster. There's a lot of nice people to meet here and some very intelligent ones at that. Young and old, some are liberals, some conservative, some religious, some not. This sense of community you speak of frequently is thriving quite nicely, and it's made up of real people, who talk about real things in their lives, and some I think, like me, would miss this place a great deal if it were gone. That's real enough for me, and I do hope you appreciate the community we have here before you try to change it too much, after all, whether you like it or not, you're part of it now. :)

Why?

It is very simple. People do not go onto the internet to live life as they would normally. People go on the internet for entertainment. That's the only reason, aside from the few and far between that use it to commit sex crimes on minors.

Different rules apply. It's not that it isn't a community. It's not that the interactions aren't real. The simple fact is that it is not the same. The difference isn't like, the difference between white schools and black schools. More as the difference between role-playing games and first person shooters. It makes no sense to ban camping spawn points in a role-playing game.

People do not go onto the internet to live life as they would normally. People go on the internet for entertainment. That's the only reason, aside from the few and far between that use it to commit sex crimes on minors.

I don't share your rather limited view of what motivates people to browse the internet. I can think of a dozen other reasons without even trying.


Different rules apply. It's not that it isn't a community. It's not that the interactions aren't real. The simple fact is that it is not the same.

I never said it was the "same" as any other form of human interaction, although it's not all that different either.

You said: "It is sheer foolishness to relate this little forum on the web to real life." Now the interactions are real apparently. It's hard to have a debate with someone whose stance is unclear. What did you mean exactly by your statement?


The difference isn't like, the difference between white schools and black schools. More as the difference between role-playing games and first person shooters. It makes no sense to ban camping spawn points in a role-playing game.

I'm afraid you're using terminology with which I'm unfamiliar.

The longer we don't have an answer, the longer we're going to question why a loyal member of the Allforums community was banned. He did something, the mods banned him, I trust that it was because of a legitimate and logical reason; and there's a reason why there are rules of the road for the forums. End of story.

I have been a member here for quite a while now and have witnessed very few people being banned.
I am glad that the mods take the time out of their days to actually help keep the forum a good place to visit.

It attracted my interest when Nap mentioned roll-playing. I cannot speak for others but when I speak on the forum it is as if we were face-to-face. I have never considered roll-playing as an option.
I am honest with my views, which have changed after some discussions, and try to give replys that express my personal experiences. Many discussions I may not enter into because I do not have, I believe, anything to contribute.

Why would someone roll-play other than to anounce that they will assume the advisary in order to bring out points of view?

Does roll-playing satisfy some deep lacking in a persons real life?

I suppose I am lucky to have lived such an interesting and fulfilling life to leave no room for roll-playing.

Thanks again to the mods, I believe you do a good job.

Dan! Haven't seen you here in a while. Perhaps I missed your recent posts.

Good post, Dan. I wholeheartedly agree.

:)
SMW

Does roll-playing satisfy some deep lacking in a persons real life?
I role play as an adversary to my views on often instances. I come here to amuse myself, and since I find debate invigorating, I may support views I find repugnant in order to get a rise out of people. Try it sometime Dan, it will bring out your creativity.

I role play as an adversary to my views on often instances. I come here to amuse myself, and since I find debate invigorating, I may support views I find repugnant in order to get a rise out of people. Try it sometime Dan, it will bring out your creativity.
Not me... I'm not flexible enough to role play as an adversary to myself. Probably end up telling myself to GO TO HELL!

On Yahell, the 'players' liked to post with multiple IDs... sometimes as a man, sometimes a woman. I could always spot the men posing as women -- like the guy who went by Ms. Mellons and was forever talking about 'his' boobs. Dead giveaway... real women aren't fascinated with our own chests.

:)
SMW

Not me... I'm not flexible enough to role play as an adversary to myself. Probably end up telling myself to GO TO HELL!

On Yahell, the 'players' liked to post with multiple IDs... sometimes as a man, sometimes a woman. I could always spot the men posing as women -- like the guy who went by Ms. Mellons and was forever talking about 'his' boobs. Dead giveaway... real women aren't fascinated with our own chests.

:)
SMW
There are some strange people out there. I find that supporting different political or religious views in debates strengthens your own commitments to the one's you have. But playing the opposite sex on a chat site, is just bizarre.

You said: "It is sheer foolishness to relate this little forum on the web to real life." Now the interactions are real apparently. It's hard to have a debate with someone whose stance is unclear. What did you mean exactly by your statement?

It means that while people interact here, and often, the interactions can be quite meaningful, we have to keep in mind that it just isn't the same thing as interacting in real life. There's a lot of information we miss because we don't have access to like ninety percent of the person's communication, due to the fact that we cannot read their body language, tone of voice, personal intentions, and a zillion other things.

We can't just say, "Oh, if he did that in real life..." because we have no idea what it is he really did. All we have to go on is words down on a screen. Everything else is imagination. Yes, if he had done what we imagined he did, well, we can manufacture any imaginary punishment to his imaginary crime we want.

Why did Bit/Byte get banned? first I ever heard about it (I think). Obviously for good reason no doubt, but if somebody gets banned the reasons shouldn't be kept a secret from the rest of the posters here (of course I say that without currently knowing the secret reason - it may well be too heinous to share)

Why did Bit/Byte get banned? first I ever heard about it (I think). Obviously for good reason no doubt, but if somebody gets banned the reasons shouldn't be kept a secret from the rest of the posters here (of course I say that without currently knowing the secret reason - it may well be too heinous to share)

After exchanging a PM with Drew, he told me he'd leave the decision up to me, but he also recommended that the forum as a whole might be better served if the reason Bit/Byte was banned would be revealed, at least partially. In deference to his opinion, which was well stated, I've come to the conclusion that he's probably right.

The reason Bit/Byte was banned is because "Bit/Byte" was one of two screen names being used by the same person. That person shall remain anonymous unless they choose otherwise.

In reality, no poster was harmed in the making of this banning. ;-)

That's all? I thought he posted kiddie porn. This is the biggest letdown of the century.

There are some strange people out there. I find that supporting different political or religious views in debates strengthens your own commitments to the one's you have. But playing the opposite sex on a chat site, is just bizarre.
I agree. In high school one of our teachers would set up the debate question and ask which side you were on... you would always argue against yours stated position. It's an excellent way to learn how to defend yourself. Sometimes it actually can enlighten one to the other's side.

That's all? I thought he posted kiddie porn. This is the biggest letdown of the century.

No kidding.

Drew, can you turn the codes to make the forum pink. It's getting gayer by the day.

In reality, no poster was harmed in the making of this banning. ;-)

Baaaaaaaaahahaha...all this bullshit over someone who still posts here. Now that is beautifully ironic.

Drew, can you turn the codes to make the forum pink. It's getting gayer by the day.
You're the one who started this sorry thread.

I thought it was at least half way important, like kiddie porn or something. Not something retarded like this.

Baaaaaaaaahahaha...all this bullshit over someone who still posts here. Now that is beautifully ironic.

It was that. :)

I thought it was at least half way important, like kiddie porn or something. Not something retarded like this.

What's the matter Imp, not juicy enough for ya? ;-)

'Stay tuned next week when posters will be banned if they post less then 3 sentences per post.'

'Stay tuned next week when posters will be banned if they post less then 3 sentences per post.'

I'm sure I have no idea what you're trying to say here Imp, but just to be sure you're clear on what happened, a SN was banned, not a poster.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're trying to say here Imp, but just to be sure you're clear on what happened, a SN was banned, not a poster.
I am clear on what happened. Someone had an alt and wanted you to ban it. Whoever the real poster is, is an idiot. If you have an alt, just stop friggin' using it. jeez. It's really retarded for them to even ask in the first place, and even more so for you to follow thru with it and ban it.

I am clear on what happened.

Not exactly.


Someone had an alt and wanted you to ban it. Whoever the real poster is, is an idiot. If you have an alt, just stop friggin' using it. jeez. It's really retarded for them to even ask in the first place, and even more so for you to follow thru with it and ban it.

The poster did not request the banning of one of his SN's. We allow only one active SN here. The poster was told to choose the victim.

The poster did not request the banning of one of his SN's. We allow only one active SN here. The poster was told to choose the victim.

It was astrapol!!!

It was astrapol!!!
Funny enough, is that I guessed the same thing.

It was astrapol!!!
Nope, and let's not start a guessing spree, please. ;)

But you've narrowed it down already.

Quick Lionel! Guess faster so me can beat and molest the person who caused this trouble!

I bet it was Decka. Get the clubs and torches!

Bit/Byte posted a lot in the Sports forum.

Hmmm ... rendova?

Thread closed, excellent job everyone. :)