Do it now. My post was a perfectly acceptable response given that for all we know Llywelyn did "determine" that Bob was superdude using the same method which I desribed. If people aren't allowed to give Website Feedback, you ought to get rid of that section.

What is Esq. short for?

AH is correct, in any case.

Esquire.

I'm sure this will be fudged into constituting ban evasion.

as it well should be.

More Likely Llywelyn will claim that I am Veil of Fire or superdude. No evidence required, of course.

I concur with the general sentiment of this thread. Hamilton should be unbanned.

Correct. However, our opinions do not matter.

Incorrect. As posting in this forum does not require registration, there is no reason to limit certain banned persons from it.

HA! Enjoy your ban, Hamilton. With Muztard and yourself being gone and extended period of time, I have found posting here quite enjoyable.

AH has been unbanned what, twice already? Why should be be unbanned? The comment he made in WF was clearly a flame and therefore, by the terms of his parole, resulted in his re-banning.

If he wanted to give feedback on the website or on Llywelyn's administrative capabilities, there were many acceptable ways to do so, such as posting something like "Llywelyn, please give a reason for believing that Bob is superdude. I feel that your current explanation is unacceptable."

Seeing as he did not choose an acceptable way, and instead went with a sarcastic flame, it must be concluded that AH is either socially incompetent (which he isn't) or was aware that the post he made was warn-worthy.

At any rate, you flamed in Feedback. You knew that if you flamed, you were banned for good. Now suck it up.

It wasn't a flame. It was a comment related to the moderation policies here.

A deliberately insulting e-mail message or post to a USENET newsgroup, usually containing personal attack on the writer of an earlier post.

A flame is usually a message that is extremely critical, and often irrational, of someone or something.

[F]lame has come to refer to any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude.

A negative response to an email message or newsgroup posting.

How dare you use logic!
And how dare you misquote me!
You know I said I like all things Dick!

I bet Smudge won't get a warning for spamming WF. Funny how that works. I get banned for making a comparison related to the moderation policies while people who contribute nothing to the political discourse are free to spam WF freely.

LOL.

Anyway...
There any way to be sure that this is AH? Maybe it's someone else trying to get him banned for longer...

Hes been permabanned. It is def AH, no one else is that smug yet that stupid at the same time.

Yeah he has been "permabanned", but that's not going to be forever if he gets support to be let back in. If someone else were to act like a prick and pretend to be AH, his chances of beign let back would be smaller.

I'm not behaving like a prick. I am stating simple facts. Nobody else would have even received a warning for posting what I posted. Llywelyn can not take criticism well. This is evidenced by the fact that any question about a ruling is called a flame, spam, or rules lawyering. Discussion about forum policy aside from which banner people want has essentially been outlawed.

I never said you were behaving like a prick. I'm just making sure that you're good name can't be sucessfully tarnished by an imposter.

That is not true. You can make the argument about whether or not the banning was fair or not (I'm not weighing in on that), but the warning was fairly given.

I think it would help your case a lot more if you'd just fess up that you fucked up and said something very inappropriate. Otherwise, you put your credibility on the line with it.

I got upset and posted something which I probably should have toned down a bit. Still, it was a fair commentary on the pisspoor handling of the moderation around here.

http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...showtopic=10712

I refer you to post 29 in this thread. I have reported it multiple times. Remember when the oversights said flaming would not be tolerated in the voting threads? Apparently the moderators and oversights decided not to enforce that.

Excellent. Continue to piss off those with power. Its the quickest way towards atonement and eventual forgiveness. I know if I were them, I would definitely let you in after that incredible show of logic and understanding.

I'm guessing that Lillie won't get a warning for spamming and flaming in WF either.

Your best line of defense is to pick a post from three months ago that wasn't moderated the way you thought it should be?

No. But it does show a clear double standard. I'm not allowed to actually defend myself, remember? Even what I am doing now is considered ban evasion by you. And if I was arguing on someone else's behalf, you would call it either...

a. spamming
b. flaming
c. rules lawyering
d. some combination of the above

Of course, I shouldn't have to defend myself as my post was clearly satirical in nature.

I thought rule lawyering was forbbiden?

Some of us actually thought that spamming was banned from WF for awhile.

AH is already permabanned, and it looks like there is no way he can come back. He has nothing to lose by rule lawyering.

I'm not rules-lawyering anyway. I expressed my concern about the moderation and got banned for it.

Your saying that you were simply expressing concern is similar to saying that the Ted Kozinski just wanted to "make a statement."

I seriously doubt that my post caused physical harm to come to anyone or anyone's property.

Jesus, I though you could hold out a bit longer AH. You could have been a bit more subtle when testing the limits

I wasn't testing the limits.

Oh, so you admit that you knew where the limit was and voluntarily crossed it?

I don't believe that he crossed a line, Smudge, and at lest he didn't cross the line into libellous accusations.

There was nothing deserving of a warning in that post, Dragonspirit even stated that he enforced the rules more strictly on Alex due to his status and thus far has provided little to support his actions.

The only line I crossed was in questioning the moderation policies which I should have already known was not tolerated.

I am still improperly banned and it was not a flame. Questioning a moderator is not a flame.

You don't seem to get that it can be questioning a moderator and still be a flame.

It wasn't though. I was simply expressing that for all we know, you may have used the nethod I described.

And for all we know, everything in flame wars MIGHT be true, and MIGHT just be expressing that for all we know, someone MIGHT be homosexual, or someone MIGHT have his problems accountable to sexual relations within his family.

Doesn't mean flame wars contains no flames.

There is a big difference between flaming someone and making a legitimate comparison about the moderation 'round here.

You're absolutely correct about that. Unfortunately for you, the post that got you banned was the former rather than the latter.

Now it remains to be seen whether the current staff believes it was a "slip" at the end of your probation that can be forgiven/forgotten, or a sign of things to come and a basis for reinstatement of your permaban.

QWOT, it wasn't even a flame.

I like pie and nachos

I think the general conclusion is that it is a sign of things to come, and the ruling stands. His behavior in this thread didn't improve his chances.

Goodbye AH.

Hopefully not together... unless it is a nacho pie

ohh lolicon, guns and cyborgs, kinky kinky mista oversight