permanent banned erosquefurl,vettegrourand six months to malikom This is what I did the first two spammers the second one nasty comment to a lady with a pic posted. This is for those that say I put up Pimps name only. Freedom of speech does not include saying a woman in a pic is nasty and black men will fuck anything. So Malikom you have six months and if you come back and say one thing out of line you are history.
Click on our Live Sex section and watch sexy ladies act out your fantasies in real time. It's amazing. Just try it. You'll like it!
UPGRADE to get lifetime access to dig420's video section, the Meet Up! forums, AD FREE surfing and much, much more!
banning
- Thread startermuleman
- Start date
I predict that most of the people Pimp argued with will eventually be banned which is sort of ironic really. It will be interesting to see if he returns but he continues to pop up in loads of threads by proxy. I agree that, with Will and Muleman monitoring it has become a more civilised place to be and I hope when/if he returns he will contribute but I really don't think he will return which I am sorry for. I will comment no more unless he does return as we need to move on and wait and see. It's a quieter place which is not always a good thing
mhall said:
A quick comment here... Banning of posters for 'inflaming and hateful rhetoric' is of course, necessary. The comment that 'it's a quieter place, which is not always a good thing,' is also very accurate, and can be cause for concern.
Dialogue and discourse (even disagreement and give and take) between posters is one of the reasons many people post to Forums. Administration needs to be very careful that, in dampening down some of the more 'colorful' posts, it doesn't completely 'dry out the place.' That would be unfortunate, indeed
Civilized people need a means to engage others with differing thoughts, as long as the discussions don't spiral downward into chaos. Posters shouldn't have to fear banishment because they engage inspirited discussions. Hateful rhetoric, inflaming conversations, and 'trolling others posts' should always be cause for banishment, to some (maybe varying degrees).
Just my opinion.
Hateful rhetoric, inflaming conversations, and 'trolling others posts' should always be cause for banishment, to some (maybe varying degrees).These or the things that I will ban for. People can feel free to argue in a way that does not involve all of this. I would never ban a person for disagreeing or having a arguements with a member as long as it didn't end up in name calling and nasty remarks to a person. People have to be tolerant of everyone no one is 100% right and should expect people to think their way or they are wrong. We are adults arguements are one thing and bickering and trolling is a whole seperate issue with me.
SaltandPepper98 said:
I don't know if Pimp will come back, but I'm pretty sure he's been watching the posts, pro and con, about him. I am sure that he's aware that he's going to be a magnet for controversy here, if he comes back.
I hope that upon our own reflection on the circumstances that caused him to be banned, we'll realize that many of us who've posted about him since he left, had a part to play in that action. Some of us goaded him unnecessarily, played into the 'last word war games' with him. Even if we didn't initiate incidents, we certainly knew the type of person we were dealing with, and didn't have to perpetuate that kind of behavior.
I'm not accusing, or continuing an argument here; I'm simply suggesting that we give it a chance to work upon his return. The Administration will do their part to keep him in line; the rest of us don't have to persecute, or prosecute the gentleman. He also knows he's gonna be on thin ice; it shouldn't be the other posters who help to push him through the ice.
Let's do our collective parts to give Pimpology a chance to 'fit in' with the rest of us, by helping to keep the rhetoric toned down. Eliminate the name-calling, and minimize the need to 'win at all costs.' We help the overall Cavern, in that respect, also.
Victoria and Dan said:
We had talked about that idea over at NW about a year ago. My own opinion was why not try it?
One of the problems was how do you get people to fight, oops I mean debate in it. Say a thread starts to have a strenuous debate, goes off topic and starts to get, shall we say, "flamie"? How do you get the antagonists over there? They won't go on there own and if a mod picks up their posts and delivers them to the "ring", they won't continue as the "heat of the moment" is over. During a discussion one person doesn't say to another, "hey lets go to the fight site and really get this discussion going."
They never tried it at NW but it caused quite a thread of pros and cons.
Thanks for bringing it up Vicky and Dan
Norm
Last edited by a moderator:
I am against all banning except commercial spam. I know as a moderator you feel the need to flex your authority. This is common and is often called power tripping. The very topic this site is centered on is highly offensive, taboo and for many against God.
Those people offend me more than twirps arguing. I am against all censorship unless it is a safty issue against all banning.
Lets not become a group of politically correct people with taboo fetishes
I don't like many posts and some offend. I use the next button to remedy the situation.
Those people offend me more than twirps arguing. I am against all censorship unless it is a safty issue against all banning.
Lets not become a group of politically correct people with taboo fetishes
I don't like many posts and some offend. I use the next button to remedy the situation.
