Hey PLX…

  • Thread starter Thread starter WEF Chairman
  • Start date Start date
tenor.gif
 
Thanks, Donnie?

You’re all class, Dude.

I guess any traffic is good traffic?‍:dunno:
Look, I've seen the innuendo lately; I'm not blind and TBH it's insulting.

If you can prove 100% that a member is Donnie he'll be bant.

2 Caveats:
Has to be 100%. Not 99%. 100.
You stop accusing us of artificial inflation.

I know he'll be back for his monthly reappearances; it's obvious to me when it happens. I called him out on day 1 last time.

It's the "sock puppets" that aren't 100%. Even 99% isn't good-enough; nobody wants to ban an "innocent", if you'll forgive my use of the term.
 
How about banning the people who do nothing but insult others ? Instead of needing to prove who people are which I was already told is impossible why not just ban people who contribute nothing other than insults .

Don't confuse the people who defend themselves from the insults as the people initiating them . Just an idea
 
do nothing but insult others
Define that please.

See the problem? What percentage of Picasso and JTB's posts are insulting towards other members? How does that percentage compare with the so-called Donnie alts?

The difference might surprise you.

You made the suggestion as if Occam's razor wasn't considered in the first place.
 
Added for context after member deleted post:
SR said to ccn, "You would be bant quicker than shit! I was being civil for a long time while you were hurling insults at me."

You two haven't been bad percentage-wise.

I know they mean well, but Picasso and JTB's percentages might actually put them ahead of those they accuse of trolling. Ironic, and not a basis for which either would therefore support banning.

As I said earlier, if it can be proven 100% I'm prepared to ban any member. Short of that, you guys will just have to live with it.

IMHO more effort could be made to get along. It's a characteristic of adulthood (for most), the ability to get along in spite of differing political persuasions and so on.
 
Hey Dave,

The phrase, "nothing but insult others" means 100% of the time.

No member I'm aware of in the history of Rig Talk has done this, so there's that.

As I said, some of "the good guys" have ratios they ought not be proud of in this regard (worse, actually) and it'd therefore be hypocritical of me to ban someone on this basis, the only distinguishing feature's being that he's "not liked" by the other side.

Besides all that, how would it be an FoS sub-forum if peeps were to be bant because someone didn't like what they said or found their personalities objectionable? That'd be exactly the behaviour half the board complains that occurs in the outside world.
 
How about banning the people who do nothing but insult others ? Instead of needing to prove who people are which I was already told is impossible why not just ban people who contribute nothing other than insults .

Don't confuse the people who defend themselves from the insults as the people initiating them . Just an idea
How about banning anyone that doesn’t contribute in the gear sections and ONLY hang here ? I can see quite a few this would apply to.
 
How about banning anyone that doesn’t contribute in the gear sections and ONLY hang here ? I can see quite a few this would apply to.
How about you get over being angry because your dad showed up for career day and started pulling copper out of the classroom walls ?

?‍♂️
 

Similar threads

Back
Top