giogio
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - abusive fl
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Location
- cyber space
Let's assume he is someone who has been banned once..do you want him to be banned again? does he/she bothers you?
A Meditation On Being Anti-Casino
- Thread starter TheLastCylon
- Start date
Let's assume he is someone who has been banned once..do you want him to be banned again? does he/she bothers you?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Banned means banned. Period. Not welcome. Not required. A change of username doesn't make them less unwelcome.
Interesting comment though. Very interesting. Do you know the member concerned?
giogio
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - abusive fl
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Location
- cyber space
unwelcome by who? You?
I used to like some (not all)of people whom are now banned and I would very much welcome back some of em.
oh and btw, no i don't know Cylon...but I do like what he/she writes and the way he/she does it.
Is he possibly "too good" for your taste??
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
I didn't ban them. Bryan did.....so the answer is "Unwelcome by Bryan". If you have a problem with that, contact Bryan.
So you've been here a few months (or have you..??) and you "used to like most of the people who are now banned". So, who were you previously? Who are you referring to when you say "banned members".
Is he "too good" for my taste? No. I think he makes some valid points...if we were all living in Utopia. It's the same old anti-casino/anti-bonus/anti-industry line I've heard a million times, just with thousands more words than usual.....and all from someone who continues to play (which kind of takes the wind out of his sails is he doesn't have the courage of his own convictions IMO). It's like saying "this soup is absolute crap and I hate it.....can you bring me another bowl please?"
giogio
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - abusive fl
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Location
- cyber space
I wish I knew who I was previously...lol
If I'm very hungry and that's the only available soup....can you bring me another bowl please?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
A very flawed argument......well, not an argument actually, but an excuse for not practising what one preaches.
If there was only one kind of soup, I might empathize. However, some soups are much tastier and satisfying than others and use well-respected recipes.....and the amount of "crap" soup you eat is totally down to your choice of restaurant.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2011
- Location
- Israel
Banned by Casinomeister, I'd assume the meaning is here.
Despite what people MIGHT believe, I'm pretty sure Nifty does NOT have the Ban-Hammer hidden behind his back.
Don't you think a lot more people would be banned if Nifty had access to that button?
Quite a few people don't seem to get on with Nifty- the opposite is true as well.
I'm not sure why that is- but one would hope all of us could be adult about it and not get all pouty and upset when-ever someone questions us.
I feel the need to say that Nifty, in my experience, will take a step back and examine a cogent argument and revise himself should there be a reasonable alternative.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
It's not about whether so-and-so bothers him, it's about respecting Bryan's decision that the person was banned in the first place.
Being banned basically means "please leave, you are not welcome here".
It does not mean "feel free to ignore our decision that you are unwelcome here".
Imagine that it is your home and you've asked someone to leave. You almost certainly had your reasons for doing so and you expect your decision to be respected. If you walk into your kitchen only to find that person back again, helping themselves to the left-over pizza, drinking your cool ones and letting the dog help himself to whatever he likes then you'd be rightly pissed off. Same thing here: "go" means "go" not "try again".
If someone wants back on the site after being banned the proper procedure is to email Bryan and request a second/third/fourth/whatever chance. FWIW Bryan often grants such requests. If he chooses not to it's usually because he has very good reasons.
Strangely those who have been banned usually don't ask for re-admittance. They often prefer to sneak back in by creating a new login name. They're basically saying "F-you, this is what I want and I'll do it regardless of what you think." This tells you something about how much they respect the site and Bryan's management decisions thereof. And it also tells you that the original ban was exactly the right thing to have done in the first place and that it should probably be re-enforced with extreme prejudice.
Nifty was perfectly right to ask Cylon's previous history on the site. It's up to Bryan to decide if the guy should be back on the site or not. If Cylon ignored that and took it upon himself to weasel back in then he deserves to be dragged out into the open and face the consequences.
Good observations, Nifty...he does make some valid, albeit largely idealistic points and argues them well, but there's too little balance in his posts for me to find them entirely credible.
And like Nifty I suspect that Cylon may have been here before and ended up on the wrong end of an ejection order.
However, Bryan has proved very adept at tracking down those that try to sneak back in, and I expect that if our suspicions are correct that we will soon know for sure.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
I had to read it twice, but I'm happy to report it does say EJECTION order......
You had me worried jetset...thought you had lost the plot.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
Well I'd hate to see Cylon banned, although I respect the fact that this is Bryan's house as it were so we play by his rules.
At the end of the day anyone who doesn't want to read Cylon's posts is under no obligation to do so, and certainly I haven't seen him post anything that's abusive, libellous, derogatory etc.
At the end of the day anyone who doesn't want to read Cylon's posts is under no obligation to do so, and certainly I haven't seen him post anything that's abusive, libellous, derogatory etc.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Nobody said he was abusive, libelous or derogatory.....least of all me.
The point is that once you're banned it is for life, regardless of what you call yourself.
Banned members who feel the need to sneak back in are pathetic IMO. Very sad individuals. Be an adult and request reinstatement, and leave peacefully if you are denied.
Anyway, nothing is proven thus far so its all a little premature.....and the last thing we need is a premature ejection.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Location
- Bexhill on sea, England
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Okay, putting this thread on 24 hour notice:
Cylon needs to answer the "were you banned" question ASAP.
If yes, then his account, and possibly this thread, will be suspended until Bryan has a chance to review the case.
If no, no problem, but things are drifting rather far afield from the original topic and perhaps a re-focus would be in order. Otherwise this one will have pretty much petered out -- -- and it may be time to get out the fork.
@Cylon: So, an answer within 24 hours or I'm closing this one down.
That's not at all the issue here, see above: post #83.
Cylon needs to answer the "were you banned" question ASAP.
If yes, then his account, and possibly this thread, will be suspended until Bryan has a chance to review the case.
If no, no problem, but things are drifting rather far afield from the original topic and perhaps a re-focus would be in order. Otherwise this one will have pretty much petered out --
-- and it may be time to get out the fork.@Cylon: So, an answer within 24 hours or I'm closing this one down.
That's not at all the issue here, see above: post #83.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
.......which is why Max is giving him the opportunity to answer the question.
Don't you think it is odd for someone who spends hours composing posts as long as my arm to suddenly fall silent when a simple question has been asked? Or ignore that one question when they pretty much pick apart other's posts sentence-by-sentence and respond to each one?
A simple yes or no is all that is required. Given Bryan can and will discover the truth either way, let us hope that, if it comes, that its an honest one.
You haven't been a member previously yourself have you chopley?
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2012
- Location
- IOM
You haven't been a member previously yourself have you chopley?
I can say with 100% certainty that I have never been a member at CM before
Have been reading the site for years though, just sorry I didn't join in on the forums earlier really.
And for the record, I don't want to fall out with anyone here, I do appreciate that if Cylon has been banned in an earlier incarnation it is the host's absolute right to uphold that ban to later accounts - but I'd still prefer he not be required to incriminate himself and/or prove his innocence
giogio
Banned User - multiple forum accounts - abusive fl
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Location
- cyber space
I've been reading for years too.
for the rest."ditto"
for the rest."ditto"
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
You were Kakata, and you've opened up a number of other ass-clown accounts. This is the latest. Bye.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Ehay owhay oderatesmay isway ometimessay equiredray otay askway uchsay ingsthay.
AFAIC we're being respectful of the guy by asking him to simply answer the question. Nobody has demanded that he prove anything, I'll be happy to take him at his word. Let's not make this out to be something it clearly isn't.
Last edited:
TheLastCylon
Banned User - violation of rule 1.19
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
Regarding the question "were you banned?": no.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
How about the question "Were you ever a member under a different username?"
I'm assuming the answer is "yes" since you would have outright denied ever being a member when answering the above question.
So who were you?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Fair enough, thank you for responding. Time to move on then.
To the others: if anyone has further questions on this please ask them via PM or whatever, the point being to not derail the thread any further with such things. Let's get back on topic here shall we?
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
For those without legal pretensions:
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat is a Latin phrase which means "the burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies".
Similar threads
