Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quick note from me -

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 3:50:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Random IP checks won't be made so much anymore (at least for now), but suspected multis can be checked out, so If you have a suspicion send me a PM.

Secondly, I appreciate the report work that people do, but when sending a report on a post please be specific about both the offense and the desired action to be taken.

If there is a spammer, don't just report the spam thread, post or debate, report the originator of the thread, post or debate.

Finally, if anyone has asked for an identity confirmation, but not received it, please either post it on my wall, or PM me.

Thanks,

President innomen.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I smell an Izbo return.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 11:14:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

TS has nothing to do with me.

Stop linking us.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe it was just because he wanted to drop us a quick note?

Lulz.

It just so happens to be relevant, but it's probably often relevant, making it necessary to present it as a general note in the first place.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.

I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:01:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jimtimmy has single-handedly ruined the word "absurd" for me. I may never use it again lol
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.

Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:14:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Most individuals said the same for izbo . . . .
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.

So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:19:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Apparently not to many members of this site, as Izbo was banned for freely exchanging ideas.

I heard nothing about him harassing people in PMs, hacking anyone's account, committing federal crimes by determining their personal information, or starting threads based on hate.

I'm not suggesting that you're guilty for all of those things, but you are guilty of some of them and Izbo is not guilty of any.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:20:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's a very fine line between respect and slobbering obsession. Anyone that starts several 100+ threads because "Mr. President, der almighty fuhrer, considered banning me" has clearly crossed that threshold into lunacy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?

Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?

Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?


Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

Pfft. I asked you to provide a single ban that was "unjust" and you go into the land of 'ifs'. As I said before, I ban people a lot, and I want you to name one that was unjust.

If you were tried, I'm pretty sure you'd get off. In fact if Izbo had a brain in his head he could have gotten off if he took advantage of all the offers I made for him. You cannot base a legitimate case on 'ifs'.

Put me on trial if you deem me to be a tyrant. Do something that might muster some sort of legitmate challenge other than whining.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:50:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

You almost rose a decent point, but fell by the wayside into egocentrism.

You should pay attention to what Innomen is saying. There's a distinct, logical reason why I support him, but reject the Izbo banning.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:53:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:50:26 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?


Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

Pfft. I asked you to provide a single ban that was "unjust" and you go into the land of 'ifs'. As I said before, I ban people a lot, and I want you to name one that was unjust.

If you were tried, I'm pretty sure you'd get off. In fact if Izbo had a brain in his head he could have gotten off if he took advantage of all the offers I made for him. You cannot base a legitimate case on 'ifs'.

Put me on trial if you deem me to be a tyrant. Do something that might muster some sort of legitmate challenge other than whining.

I do not believe you to be a tyrant, but I do think that banning izbo was unfair.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:54:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:53:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:50:26 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?


Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

Pfft. I asked you to provide a single ban that was "unjust" and you go into the land of 'ifs'. As I said before, I ban people a lot, and I want you to name one that was unjust.

If you were tried, I'm pretty sure you'd get off. In fact if Izbo had a brain in his head he could have gotten off if he took advantage of all the offers I made for him. You cannot base a legitimate case on 'ifs'.

Put me on trial if you deem me to be a tyrant. Do something that might muster some sort of legitmate challenge other than whining.

I do not believe you to be a tyrant, but I do think that banning izbo was unfair.

What specifically was "unfair" about it?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:50:26 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?


Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

Pfft. I asked you to provide a single ban that was "unjust" and you go into the land of 'ifs'. As I said before, I ban people a lot, and I want you to name one that was unjust.

If you were tried, I'm pretty sure you'd get off. In fact if Izbo had a brain in his head he could have gotten off if he took advantage of all the offers I made for him. You cannot base a legitimate case on 'ifs'.

Put me on trial if you deem me to be a tyrant. Do something that might muster some sort of legitmate challenge other than whining.

Well, I plan on mounting another run for president in 5 months. Are there term limits on DDO?
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:54:33 PM, innomen wrote:

What specifically was "unfair" about it?

The public outcry against Izbo and his initial treatment upon appearing on the site, vis a vis tolerance of similar behavior, because that behavior is in favor of an idea they are not inclined to reject.

However, if I were in your position given all things considered, I would have likewise banned Izbo.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 2:58:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 2:54:33 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:53:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:50:26 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:36:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:33:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:25:06 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:20:55 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:16:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:13:57 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:11:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 2:03:03 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:57:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:43:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:36:32 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:34:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 1:32:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:54:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/21/2012 10:50:57 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
I smell an Izbo return.

I think that this is about the TinaShaniqua/jimtimmy nonsense.

no, it isn't. Innomen made this thread one day ago. TinaShaniqua was conceived about 18 hours ago.

Ah, I see. Ok then. It was probably about the Jimtimmy/Ron-Paul nonsense.

That also turned out not to be true... more than a day ago. This has nothing to do with me.

This thread has nothing to do with you. This is rather the result of an email from Julia who said to me that they aren't going to run the random IP checks like they used to, but would rather respond to suspicions. I didn't send her your ID to be checked for what it's worth.

Jimmy, I honestly have nothing against you personally. It is true that I don't respect your underlying motives for some things you believe, but that is not a requirement for anything of me. I don't respect a lot of people's underlying motives, and still manage some decent relationships with them.


I don't think you understand the motives for what I believe. I know my motives far better than you do.

And, I don't have anything against you, but I was upset when I saw you entertaining putting me on trial, an idea that is simply absurd.

It is far from "absurd" (ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous) perhaps you need to understand the word better, there is precedent, and there was some allegation that warranted attention that resembled the original cause for the original trial.


Absurd is the correct word. The idea that a trial should be held for me is absurd.

Even Nonentity has said she doesn't want me banned.

So have a lot the other folks that hate me.

There was nothing that could've justified a trial.

Yes there is. If the site had as a whole demanded it, then there is something that could have justified it. I thew the idea out to the site, as I am want to do, and it didn't catch fire, so the justification was nullified, but had it gone otherwise there would indeed have been justification.


So, you would've done a trial just because a bunch of people wanted it?

I guess that whole free exchange of ideas things means nothing to you.

Above all things i am pragmatic. If the net cost of your presence outweighed your being here, and there was a subjectively based accusation of you causing harm to the community, I would have little problem in creating another trial, with all the same considerations that I gave Izbo (which were considerable).

If the harm incurred is greater than the asset of keeping you here, why should I maintain your presence? There are trolls that i summarily remove from the site and there is never a word said, in fact few even notice the ban. Do you think I should alter that process?


Innomen, this site is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. So, if someone who is willing to defend their views and is attacked as much and harshly as he attacks others gets banned, then that is a net harm to this site.

Any suppressing of this free exchange, the kind of which you seem very willing to do, would be a net cost to this site.

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Dare I say it is "unjust banning". Perhaps we shouldn't have one guy with the power to ban anyone, especially if he's going to abuse that power like this.

As I had suggested in a different thread, you are welcome to have me removed, or impeached, that's up to you.

Who do you say was unjustly banned? Consider the word "unjustly".

This is a community. It is a private website. The site is not subject to any objective or external conditions or requirements beyond that of Juggle. I was overwhelmingly elected to work on behalf of the community and promote and nurture the sense of community and relations within the site.

This one guy with the ban has done lots of bans, would you undo them? Do you think that my protective nature with regard to the community is unreasonably applied to the site?


Well, if I were to have a trial, as you entertained, I would have possibly been banned had I lost. If this happened, that would've been an unjust ban.

The fact that you even mentioned this shows that you are dangerously close to unjust bannings.

If I were president, I would never even entertain absurd ideas about members like me having to have a trial to justify our existence on this website. That, Mr. Innomen, us unjust.

Pfft. I asked you to provide a single ban that was "unjust" and you go into the land of 'ifs'. As I said before, I ban people a lot, and I want you to name one that was unjust.

If you were tried, I'm pretty sure you'd get off. In fact if Izbo had a brain in his head he could have gotten off if he took advantage of all the offers I made for him. You cannot base a legitimate case on 'ifs'.

Put me on trial if you deem me to be a tyrant. Do something that might muster some sort of legitmate challenge other than whining.

I do not believe you to be a tyrant, but I do think that banning izbo was unfair.

What specifically was "unfair" about it?

1. The people who accused him of votebombing, trolling, etc. did exactly the same thing to him. View any of his debates or any of the comments on his profile
2. He did not retaliate against members who were respectful in their arguments with him. As Ren notes, people did not understand how to attack his ideas, so they attacked him and used semantics to attempt to dejustify his theories. Izbo thus lashed back at him. For example, he was definitely respectful in his dealings with me.
3. Insults are traded on almost every thread of this site without repercussion, so the "insults" justification is not proper.
4. There are plenty of people who off