Mods? Seriously... Moneyman has no interest in even posting a contrary opinion.

[billeau2]

I seldom request someone is banned and am willing to tolerate any opinions. What about when someone is simply operating to disrupt? This idiot Moneyman did not just dredge up old threads... something other posters have done, and which is not necessarily bad. He trolled to the point where he used the same cryptic post in all the threads he dredged.

This is clearly an attempt to fck up a section and not the desire to share even the most outlandish opinion. He should be banned from this section in my opinion. Where do we draw the line? When someone comes here just to cause chaos it is not respectful or fair to other posters who genuinely share opinions.

I do not care about the opinions... But everybody that posts here should have at least a base amount of respect for the section and it is disrespectful to let such an obvious attempt to create dischord and nothing else be allowed.

I hope banning this idiot will be considered under those circumstances.

[Willie Pep 229]

Repeating/posting the same response to multiple threads is boorish. A real waste of our time. I would like to see Bat forbidding him from doing that.

Otherwise his posts are just silly and harmless.

[Slugfester]

Repeating/posting the same response to multiple threads is boorish. A real waste of our time. I would like to see Bat forbidding him from doing that.

Otherwise his posts are just silly and harmless.

Best idea, Willie! I am not for barring anyone I know on here. Monkeyman is sickening, but who cares? I don't even put anyone on ignore. If anything, just bar him from the section for a few weeks with a stern warning for the future about these nonsense repetitions.

[billeau2]

I generally am not a fan of bannings. I also do not mind ****** posts... what I fear is some idiot pulling up multiple poste en masse, and cut/pasting one ****** response, things like that... which are not posts so much as a deliberate sabatoge effort... just to be clear here.

[Marchegiano]

**** him

[billeau2]

**** him

Ridiculous... I mean why do such a thing? lol. In my infinitely limited knowledge and wisdom the only thing that comes to mind is "gee let me take a shiat on this board (he also posted the same drek in the general section). Of course I am also burned up because they turn around on some unfounded rumor and ban people... You gonna do that? and not ban someone who is showing contempt for the site? Sheesh.

[Slugfester]

Give him a stern warning. If he doesn't heed it, bar him. Simple and fair.

[QueensburyRules]

I seldom request someone is banned and am willing to tolerate any opinions. What about when someone is simply operating to disrupt? This idiot Moneyman did not just dredge up old threads... something other posters have done, and which is not necessarily bad. He trolled to the point where he used the same cryptic post in all the threads he dredged.

This is clearly an attempt to fck up a section and not the desire to share even the most outlandish opinion. He should be banned from this section in my opinion. Where do we draw the line? When someone comes here just to cause chaos it is not respectful or fair to other posters who genuinely share opinions.

I do not care about the opinions... But everybody that posts here should have at least a base amount of respect for the section and it is disrespectful to let such an obvious attempt to create dischord and nothing else be allowed.

I hope banning this idiot will be considered under those circumstances.

- - What if he punch drunk Charlie Z in disguise? Where your humanity?

[billeau2]

Oh trust me, I get it. Every time I log in I see users and acts and think but my real account though, that's banned.

So much good historical work, doesn't matter. Absolutely useless user, doesn't matter. Rules? I'm here. I've been under the Marche name more than a month now. They don't care. Someone cries in their DMs everyday, okay, they'll shut that user up.

No offense to Bats. I know he's very limited. I don't really understand why the others are even in the positions they're in. Not like I think they should be fired, I don't really care that much and quite like MEGA and jaded actually, but, I am puzzled as to why they even want to be mods given they don't actually give a **** unless cried to.

I don't really advocate banning myself. Silencing, okay. I'm a mod on a piracy forum, I put people in time-out all the time. They can still log, read, like, get links, download ****, etc. just no posting for them until they stop being a ****. But since this place saw fit to ban me, some three or four times now, despite my being useful and my **** posting hardly being the worst sort here ... as evident by my lack of any true hater or hate squad, yeah, idgaf, ban this prick.



I mean, goddamn, yeah, I might piss off an individual here and there, and no one is safe including my friends, sure, but how is it possible I am as disruptive as say Ghost vs Trav? Ivich vs Z? those dudes go at it every chance they get. I'm not even trying to demonize those bros. Sometimes I am on team Z, sometimes Ivich, sometimes trav, sometimes ghost, I appreciate their game and their sides for what they are but really how is it me chiming in now and then to basically say "I'm team Bil on this one" in a hilarious(IMO) way more disruptive than the rivalries themselves?






I'll tell you how. No one is safe from Marchegiano, including staff. I gave Pump a smack and he returned a ban hammer. Ain't that about a *****? Do not give a flying **** about who posts what or why or even how ... I am here ... but cry directly to them. Step directly at them. Oh now they give a ****. Don't include them in it and you can stalk a man to his death and no one gives any ****s.





I dunno, I'd @ one of them to get them to take account of themselves but all that happens is they pretend like they ain't notice the avatar and username bouncing all over this forum in all the sections and all the hot threads until I @'d them and then ban me again.

I am a believer in intent. When posters accept the views of others, even when perverted by ignorance... It has the effect of reinforcing free speech... And it all goes back to the famous illustration of the first *********. If I share views that are distasteful, and otherwise inflammatory, the process of dialogue will bring these views to the light, and as Brandeis said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," on the other hand yelling 'FIRE!!' when none exists in a crowded movie theater is not beneficial to this process and immanently harmful to all concerned, and therefore not free speech. When a poster shiats up the boards it is analogous to yelling "fire" in a public place, and when people are harmed, claiming "hey just exercising free speech."

One may well ask: "what is the harm?" The harm is plentiful, it involves how new threads are seen and responded to, how guests view the community of users, and puts a kabash on the process of exchanging opinions in a way that works effectively.

[billeau2]

- - What if he punch drunk Charlie Z in disguise? Where your humanity?

Could well be!