~~~ WHO Was Banned Today??? ~~~

[Expat]

G'nite fellers.

 

[1911ly]

 

[bradmedic04]

G'nite fellers.

Night. For the record, you were here.

 

[chezuki]

WhoCares

If any of you guys remember "Whocares's" real name, I reccomend you look him up on mycase.in.gov, he's not been a good boy since Wallet Thread. I doubt he'll be a legal gun owner any time soon.

 

[bradmedic04]

Emile something? Time to hunt.

That might explain his disappearance from ingo.

 

[Sylvain]

If any of you guys remember "Whocares's" real name, I reccomend you look him up on mycase.in.gov, he's not been a good boy since Wallet Thread. I doubt he'll be a legal gun owner any time soon.

I guess he will have to CC.

 

[chezuki]

Emile something? Time to hunt.

That might explain his disappearance from ingo.

I don't recall Mr. Humbert's first name.

 

[churchmouse]

If any of you guys remember "Whocares's" real name, I reccomend you look him up on mycase.in.gov, he's not been a good boy since Wallet Thread. I doubt he'll be a legal gun owner any time soon.

So he is a "Habitual Douche"

Poor Wallet never had a chance.

 

[1911ly]

Someday someone will have to share the wallet story for those of us that missed it. Oh, He has a Facebook page and would appear to be recovering from something.

 

[churchmouse]

Someday someone will have to share the wallet story for those of us that missed it. Oh, He has a Facebook page and would appear to be recovering from something.

Yeah.....loosing his ​"WALLET"

 

[bradmedic04]

Judging from Wallet OP's latest cases...he likes to smoke pot and drive.

Perhaps Wallet's decision to leave was a conscious effort to turn things around.

 

[Sylvain]

I don't recall Mr. Humbert's first name.

Oh boy ...

 

[bradmedic04]

His FB pic looks exactly how I expected it would.

 

[chezuki]

Oh, He has a Facebook page and would appear to be recovering from something.

Saw that. Hopefully he's getting his **** together for real.

 

[bradmedic04]

Do you think Wallet fled to Mexico and lives under the name Moleto?

 

[1911ly]

Looks like he has/had quite the party life!!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Would you care to provide more detail, perhaps actually answer my question?

As it stands this is just another of your snarky, pointless comments.

I can find example after example of these comments from you. Always directed at the staff, always snarky, never helpful as to how to actually address any specific issue. Believe it or not complaining about an issue is not the same as helping to solve it. What, exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Do you have anything constructive to add? Are you only interested in digging at the mod staff?

I'll ask again...straight up: From your perspective, what is the proper course of action for the moderator staff to take in this situation? If you are not willing to help the staff, why the continued comments? If you are treated so unfairly here why do you continue to post on INGO?

Interesting thoughts. I would argue that anyone denying a sudden shift in the standards of enforcement of the rule in question is, at the most charitable I can be, not making an honest argument. One wonders why there is a sudden hypersensitivity about the rule coupled with refusal to comment on the standard being enforced aside from the process of elimination derived from bans in the event we read the posts before deletion. Apparently the standard du jour is sanctions for acknowledging the existence of organized religion. The refusal to admit that there has been a sudden and significant change in interpretation and/or enforcement of the rule in question also leaves me with questions.

As for the last three questions you directed at 88GT, I can't say with certainty how she would answer, but my answers would be that when there is a significant shift in the standard of defining or enforcing a rule, be up front about it rather than simply starting to ban people while leaving the remainder to guess what the standard actually is. In my case, I have offered a constructive thought or two, and heard crickets. About that last question, I have been pondering it. I have participated a lot as evidenced by my post count. I am feeling disinclined to continue doing so. I anticipate limiting myself to forums where truth is not yet a rule violation which are most likely to be more technical in nature, and probably not a whole lot of that.

 

[chezuki]

be up front about it rather than simply starting to ban people while leaving the remainder to guess what the standard actually is.

Like this?

Posting about religion will get you banned from INGO. Period.

Ignoring (or arguing with) a moderator's warning will also get you banned from INGO. Period.

Here's a really simple procedure to follow if you want to avoid the Banhammer:
1) Don't post anything religious in nature to INGO.
2) See step 1.

I have issued enough warnings about religion to people with post counts in the thousands to see that this isn't ignorance of the rules, these are intentional violations of the rules. The FIVE rules we have here.

So, in short...no more warnings, no wiggle room, no "benefit of the doubt". Post religious content of any type to INGO and risk being banned...without additional warning, even for your "first offense".

We are not kidding about this.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Like this?

I believe that came after about the second round of bans. It also fails to address the issue of whether it refers to actual discussion of religion, acknowledgement of the fact that certain groups self-identify according to religion with little or no other uniform commonality among members, including groups causing issues of significant world significance, or so little as declaring that a traffic accident happened in front of [house of worship].

You also completely sidestepped the issue of a sudden shift in application of this rule.

 

[chezuki]

You also completely sidestepped the issue of a sudden shift in application of this rule.

I can't really speak for the mods, but I would assume it is in direct response to the recent crying and outrage by those claiming inconsistency in how the rules are enforced.