What about a weekly ban announcement thread?

[Bunnykid68]

Should Sylvain be banned from INGO:

• Yes
• No
• Yes and Bacon

Yes and Bacon

 

[Expat]

Should Sylvain be banned from INGO:

• Yes
• No
• Yes and Bacon

Ummmm bacon... sorry Sylvain, you have to go...

 

[Birds Away]

Well Paul kinda summed that one up nicely for us.

Violation of rule 5 will result in an immediate 48-hour ban. Repeat violations will result in permanent bans.

Well, it appears that he banned four people and then issued the in-thread warning.

 

[KLB]

At least in that thread we were told why they were banned.

 

[KLB]

Should Sylvain be banned from INGO:

• Yes
• No
• Yes and Bacon

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Sylvain]

Yes and Bacon

Ummmm bacon... sorry Sylvain, you have to go...

 

[Birds Away]

I vote we keep Sylvain but we get a bacon kickback for our support.

 

[Sylvain]

I vote we keep Sylvain

 

[Birds Away]

You left out the kickback part. That's how us 'muricans do things.

 

[SEIndSAM]

So if we let Sylvain stay, he is buying us all Bacon???

 

[Sylvain]

So if we let Sylvain stay, he is buying us all Bacon???

 

[OneBadV8]

So if we let Sylvain stay, he is buying us all Bacon???

 

[88GT]

Huh. I guess they could ban just about everyone that posted in the Ferguson thread.

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

Wow, lots of new "shooters" overnight.

 

[Birds Away]

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

Yes, the pot stirrers seem to be immune to punishment. Maybe there is a mandatory troll quota?

 

[OneBadV8]

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

We all interpret posts differently. I'm not sure of the ones you're talking about specifically but just make sure to report the post and it'll at least get looked at that way.

 

[88GT]

We all interpret posts differently.

Clearly.

 

[Stschil]

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

Yes, the pot stirrers seem to be immune to punishment. Maybe there is a mandatory troll quota?

We all interpret posts differently. I'm not sure of the ones you're talking about specifically but just make sure to report the post and it'll at least get looked at that way.

 

[bmbutch]

No ****.

Meanwhile, someone regularly makes a disparaging remark about fairy tales, make believe, ect. And nothing happens. So statement of fact is ban-able, but insulting someone for his belief is perfectly okay.

^^^^THIS^^^^