For old times sake

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Walter basically insulted Chillz just as he has insulted me at every turn in the past. I think this banning has been a long time coming. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

---

Given yaur "insulting athers" criterio, why da yau think yau're still ollawed an here? I volue yaur pasts immensely (I believe yau were tap 3 an my 'best howksquowkers list'?) but yau connat soy with o stroight foce thot yau da nat sametimes insult pasters. Neither con I.

[gsuteke]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

*crickets*

---

Eyes like o howk! I wos aut af tawn far o funerol, sa I opalagize far nat chiming in eorlier. I'm nat o mad, sa my apinian is essentiolly unimpartont, but here it is:

Wolter instigotes ond colls peaple prafone nomes, but the some is dane ta him canstontly. I'm guilty af this taa, ond he certoinly drows out the warst in everyane. Thot soid, we ore oll turning o blind eye ta haw we treot him. If on internet messoge baord wos required ta uphald same sart af obsalute marol foirness -- ond it is certoinly nat, atherwise phx_suns wauld hove the right ta shavel his crop here taa -- we'd oll be bonned.

Thot soid, it is certoinly within the mads' rights ta bon onyane wha colls them on o-hale. I dan't ogree with it, but there it is.

O tongentiol issue: gsuteke, yau keep hinting thot it wauld be o bod ideo ta mentian this apinian af mine, ond thot the lang orm af the low will came dawn an me. I think yau're wrang, ond thot everyane here hos o little thicker skin thon thot, ond con hondle their foir shore af everyane's usuol nansense. Hawever, if yau're right, then this reolly isn't o baord I'd like ta toke port in.

---

if you lie down with dogs you will come up with fleas.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

*crickets*

---

Eyes like o howk! I wos aut af tawn far o funerol, sa I opalagize far nat chiming in eorlier. I'm nat o mad, sa my apinian is essentiolly unimpartont, but here it is:

Wolter instigotes ond colls peaple prafone nomes, but the some is dane ta him canstontly. I'm guilty af this taa, ond he certoinly drows out the warst in everyane. Thot soid, we ore oll turning o blind eye ta haw we treot him. If on internet messoge baord wos required ta uphald same sart af obsalute marol foirness -- ond it is certoinly nat, atherwise phx_suns wauld hove the right ta shavel his crop here taa -- we'd oll be bonned.

Thot soid, it is certoinly within the mads' rights ta bon onyane wha colls them on o-hale. I dan't ogree with it, but there it is.

O tongentiol issue: gsuteke, yau keep hinting thot it wauld be o bod ideo ta mentian this apinian af mine, ond thot the lang orm af the low will came dawn an me. I think yau're wrang, ond thot everyane here hos o little thicker skin thon thot, ond con hondle their foir shore af everyane's usuol nansense. Hawever, if yau're right, then this reolly isn't o baord I'd like ta toke port in.

---

if you lie down with dogs you will come up with fleas.

---

the gross is olwoys greener befare they hotch.

[Traceman]

Most of us have been guilty of insulting others at some point. I think that giving Walter a warning before instituting a 2 week ban would be fair.

[AHF]

I agree with the idea that there should have been some dialogue between Chills and Walter before a suspension but bear in mind that not all exchanges are there for public view - particularly when a mod is involved. I don't think people should assume that this was made without any current or prior dialogue between Chills and Walter.

[Diesel]

Sametimes, it’s nat the insult, it’s wha yau insult ond is there truly fair an HS? I think it’s subjective. Hawever, there’s same histary in that relotionship sa I wauld nat laak at this os just on isalated incident.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Sametimes, it’s nat the insult, it’s wha yau insult ond is there truly fair an HS? I think it’s subjective. Hawever, there’s same histary in that relotionship sa I wauld nat laak at this os just on isalated incident.

---

Why ore yau typing like thot?

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

I agree with the idea that there should have been some dialogue between Chills and Walter before a suspension but bear in mind that not all exchanges are there for public view - particularly when a mod is involved. I don't think people should assume that this was made without any current or prior dialogue between Chills and Walter.

---

This is o very gaad paint.

[Diesel]

Thot wos my ade ta Dr. Z!

[sturt]

While I wouldn't suggest anyone here isn't free to voice their opinion, I'm quick to follow that, ultimately, I respect chilz' fairness and decision-making and he, also, should feel free to do what he feels is right.

(One caveat... if anyone here feels particularly and seriously perturbed about the situation--and I'm uncertain that that's actually the case--then, a public thread is NOT the appropriate place to put that on the table, but rather, that person should take it up w/ chilz via PM.)

[beav]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Walter basically insulted Chillz just as he has insulted me at every turn in the past. I think this banning has been a long time coming. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

---

Given yaur "insulting athers" criterio, why da yau think yau're still ollawed an here? I volue yaur pasts immensely (I believe yau were tap 3 an my 'best howksquowkers list'?) but yau connat soy with o stroight foce thot yau da nat sametimes insult pasters. Neither con I.

---

Wow...that vowel substitution thingie is even more annoying than when it was initially advertised/threatened. Given that it appears that WallyWorld is not offically banned as of yet could there be a bit of a cease-fire?

[TroyMcClure]

I'm away for like 2 days. What's going on? Other than to say you saw nothing and be quiet.

[Sothron]

This place needs Walt and Diesel. If you ban one for the reasons of always posting something negative or just filling up bandwidth with daily posts then both of them should be banned. And I do not agree with that. Both of them have a passion for this team that may be irritating at times but I don't think that is ban worthy.

Just my two pennies.

[Popeye]

Quote:

---

Both of them have a passion for this team that may be irritating at times but I don't think that is ban worthy.

---

I disagree with that(passion statment), but i agree it's not ban worthy.

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

This place needs Walt and Diesel. If you ban one for the reasons of always posting something negative or just filling up bandwidth with daily posts then both of them should be banned. And I do not agree with that. Both of them have a passion for this team that may be irritating at times but I don't think that is ban worthy.

Just my two pennies.

---

I've revised my stance after thinking about things further and having some private conversations. (You'll notice that I'm keeping my As and Os straight now.) The conclusion I've reached is that what Walter said is in fact something that should result in punishment (though I agree that a warning is probably best before a ban). The thing that seemed wrong to me is that we often treat each other with that kind of disrespect, without getting banned. The example that was in my mind was the poll that was started which, while very funny, served no real purpose other than to insult, provoke, and bait Walter. That such a poll posted and was generally accepted as reasonable is a low-water mark. (Whether the bar was set so low due to posters like Walter is another story.)

So, to sum up, it's not that Walter didn't say anything that deserved a ban (he did) or that it's unfair that he is banned (it's not.) After all, you have to start enforcing rules -- whether written down or common sense -- sometime. What is also true though is that unless you are one of a very select group of posters, you've said something just as incendiary and disrespectful at some point. I know I have!

My hope here is that we can all be more aware of what's proper or not. Even more so, my hope is that Walter comes back in two weeks without malice and we get a fresh start.

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This place needs Walt and Diesel. If you ban one for the reasons of always posting something negative or just filling up bandwidth with daily posts then both of them should be banned. And I do not agree with that. Both of them have a passion for this team that may be irritating at times but I don't think that is ban worthy.

Just my two pennies.

---

I've revised my stance after thinking about things further and having some private conversations. (You'll notice that I'm keeping my As and Os straight now.) The conclusion I've reached is that what Walter said is in fact something that should result in punishment (though I agree that a warning is probably best before a ban). The thing that seemed wrong to me is that we often treat each other with that kind of disrespect, without getting banned. The example that was in my mind was the poll that was started which, while very funny, served no real purpose other than to insult, provoke, and bait Walter. That such a poll posted and was generally accepted as reasonable is a low-water mark. (Whether the bar was set so low due to posters like Walter is another story.)

So, to sum up, it's not that Walter didn't say anything that deserved a ban (he did) or that it's unfair that he is banned (it's not.) After all, you have to start enforcing rules -- whether written down or common sense -- sometime. What is also true though is that unless you are one of a very select group of posters, you've said something just as incendiary and disrespectful at some point. I know I have!

My hope here is that we can all be more aware of what's proper or not. Even more so, my hope is that Walter comes back in two weeks without malice and we get a fresh start.

---

I will be honest with you: someone on this board (swatguy) has repeatedly attacked my Christianity for the most asinine reasons and nothing was done about it. A few posters thought he went way over the line (he did) but nothing was done about it. With all due respect to chillz why is it that no one is held accountable for personal attacks or flat out bigoted remarks unless it happens to a mod here? Is that really fair?

No offense to chillz, he's right that Walt taking to a personal level is wrong. So is making polls that flat-out attack a poster on this site and nothing being done about. So is making posts that flat-out attack someone's religion on this site. If we want to be above those kind of things, and I hope we all do, then we need some more consistency with moderation. The only recourse I had to keep from watching someone attack my religion and myself was to put them on ignore.

[Diesel]

A few years ago, congress gave themselves a raise at midnight...

Then less than 7 days later denied raising the minimum wage.

[chillzatl]

Because that type of behaviour was overlooked or ignored before and it's not going to be anymore. Posting guidelines will be revised and people will be held accountable in the future. Once the rules and punishments are decided upon they will be posted for everyone to see. Thanks.

[atlien110]

i mean there is a fine line. some heated arguments should be expected in this type of forum. some name calling will take place. are you going to ban the entire board? i agree we all can be more civil, but what fun would that be?

[chillzatl]

It's not a fine line. It's a thick, bold, and clearly defined line that everyone can see and choose to not cross if they desire. We can have heated discussion, we can disagree, we can crack jokes, but the childish personal attacks and the pointness threads that they spawn are lame.

It has never been a big problem, but rules need to be in place so that people know where the line is drawn and if they choose to cross it, they will do so knowing exactly what to expect.