Should timsatt1 be banned?

This topic is empty.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 139 total)

1 2 3 … 8 9 10 →

Author

Posts
12/14/2007 at 3:08 am #733049

luv
Member

Up
0
Down
::
Vote. You can state your reasoning below. This is ultimately up to Coach and the mods to decide, but let’s see what the people have to say.

12/14/2007 at 3:11 am #809414

timsatt1
Member

Up
0
Down
::
here is a little secret….I am a liberal…

….if every single one of you regulars put me on ignore, then i’d be talking to myself!!!!

12/14/2007 at 3:44 am #809429

rbedgood
Member

Up
0
Down
::
I would suggest that a suspension would be a more appropriate measure than a ban. I vote “yes” on the premise that some of his posts shouldn’t be accepted, but I do think a permanent ban is overboard.

12/14/2007 at 3:47 am #809431

timsatt1
Member

Up
0
Down
::
problem is, in the day of proxy servers, banning is impossible. But I love me a good caning.

12/14/2007 at 3:49 am #809433

anaeelbackwards
Member

Up
0
Down
::
IMO no one should ever be banned from a site unless they do something that is well-deserving of a ban. I think he has the right to his own opinion as do everyone else.

12/14/2007 at 4:29 am #809445

tammietailgator
Member

Up
0
Down
::
@timsatt1 55067 wrote:

here is a little secret….and it works like a democratic process…

….if every single one of you regulars put me on ignore, then i’d be talking to myself!!!!

I think I already mentioned that. Not sure… you did say that you would tone it down…. how many times have you been warned?

12/14/2007 at 4:37 am #809453

stlchief
Member

Up
0
Down
::
Banning him is too conservative of a step. Liberals believe in free speech, even if people are saying what you don’t like.

Not that I’m saying I’m a liberal (or that I’m not), but I say let the conservative stay because liberals say he should….

12/14/2007 at 4:40 am #809458

rbedgood
Member

Up
0
Down
::
Very diplomatic STLCHIEF. I would agree that banning is overboard. I do believe at the least a warning should be issued from the “powers that be” and at most some type of suspension. I’ve been on other sites that have the capability of suspending a user for a time.

12/14/2007 at 4:46 am #809460

chief31
Member

Up
0
Down
::

timsatt1;55067 wrote:

here is a little secret….I am a liberal…

….if every single one of you regulars put me on ignore, then i’d be talking to myself!!!!

That would be considered cruel punishment. I don’t think that anyone should have to you. Not even you. J/K

😆

rbedgood;55112 wrote:

Very diplomatic STLCHIEF. I would agree that banning is overboard. I do believe at the least a warning should be issued from the “powers that be” and at most some type of suspension. I’ve been on other sites that have the capability of suspending a user for a time.

I’m not sure yet, what he may have done today, but he has been warned several times about cursing and personal insults. Including a few infractions.

12/14/2007 at 4:49 am #809461

hermhater
Member

Up
0
Down
::
Suspending someone is absurd, because they will just come back and cause more trouble.

The kid is annoying, obnoxious, and ignorant but I don’t believe a suspension or banning is in order.

I don’t think he was personally attacking prough because he has been saying stuff like this since before prough got back to the site.

Perhaps he will learn something from us.

If not he will at least have gotten something to think about.

12/14/2007 at 4:51 am #809463

rbedgood
Member

Up
0
Down
::
Actually I’ve found on other sites that suspensions (1-2 weeks typically) have curtailed the behavior of problem members.

Whether he personally insulted others or not in the past or not is somewhat irrelevant. If it is against the rules, it is against the rules. Whether he is right or wrong, discussing topics by the rules of the community would seem to be the kind and appropriate manner to conduct himself.

12/14/2007 at 4:51 am #809464

chief31
Member

Up
0
Down
::

hermhater;55115 wrote:

Suspending someone is absurd, because they will just come back and cause more trouble.

The kid is annoying, obnoxious, and ignorant but I don’t believe a suspension or banning is in order.

I don’t think he was personally attacking prough because he has been saying stuff like this since before prough got back to the site.

Perhaps he will learn something from us.

If not he will at least have gotten something to think about.

I must have missed the attack on prough91. Can anyone guide me to it?

12/14/2007 at 4:55 am #809469

timsatt1
Member

Up
0
Down
::
whenever i made the hypothetical statement that i should not feel guilty that my dad worked hard while your dad fiddled around or whatever, and he thought i was talking about HIS dad. not “a” dad. so he personal messaged me and said it wouldnt be hard to find a tim satterfield in wichita kansas blah blah blah.

that is what he considers me attacking his family.

12/14/2007 at 4:56 am #809470

hermhater
Member

Up
0
Down
::

rbedgood;55117 wrote:

Actually I’ve found on other sites that suspensions (1-2 weeks typically) have curtailed the behavior of problem members.

Whether he personally insulted others or not in the past or not is somewhat irrelevant. If it is against the rules, it is against the rules. Whether he is right or wrong, discussing topics by the rules of the community would seem to be the kind and appropriate manner to conduct himself.

chief31;55118 wrote:

I must have missed the attack on prough91. Can anyone guide me to it?

I don’t know about his infractions in the past, only that prough took timsatt talking about others parents personally, when timsatt was being insensitive to millions of people, not just prough.

I don’t know that it was just one post in particular, but during an entire thread timsatt decided that the reason poor people are poor is because their parents did drugs, had premarital sex, and didn’t care enough about their kids to have been born with money.

Typical timsatt insensitivity.

12/14/2007 at 4:58 am #809471

timsatt1
Member

Up
0
Down
::

hermhater;55124 wrote:

I don’t know about his infractions in the past, only that prough took timsatt talking about others parents personally, when timsatt was being insensitive to millions of people, not just prough.

I don’t know that it was just one post in particular, but during an entire thread timsatt decided that the reason poor people are poor is because their parents did drugs, had premarital sex, and didn’t care enough about their kids to have been born with money.

Typical timsatt insensitivity.

i gave a hypothetical about a person who did the right things at a young age and reaps the benefits and a person who screws off in life at a young age and suffers the consequence and that it isnt right or moral that the one who did wrong and is now reaping for it is owed by the government. that was a hypothetical about one case of poverty…not every case. i know i didnt clarify, that was my fault.
Author

Posts