What is my frequency? You speak about it but you don't actually know it. Nor do you know if those bans were actually warranted (some were not) nor do you know the situation. Which is why I said it's not a matter of quantity.
Anybody can see the frequency you are banned and whether it was justified or not (it usually was). You have gotten justifiably and reasonably banned more than any member here by a long shot. You are banned probably at least 25% of the time.
Fully agree. The rules should be the same for all and applied swiftly and fairly. So I got banned and the other person didn't? Why not? Was he being protected or was it due to the abstraction of his statement vs the concreteness of mine?
I agree. The rules should be the same for all, whether industry member, player, friend, foe, or just Joe Schmo. I think the concreteness of yours made the difference. Also your history may not have helped. I am speculating here, but someone that has a long history of forum rule breaking and instigating such as yourself may not get the latitude for certain offenses that another might, and this isn't unreasonable. Don't know if that is the case here, but it is possible. I can guarantee you get ALL the latitude when it comes to how you are punished though, even if you don't on what things are allowed to slide. Like I said, there is nobody else that would get the 88th chance like you have. You literally have free reign to do and say what you please and just get your week to month slap on the wrist time out before you get to return, and you know it too. That is why you continue, because you are banking on that never changing and them never doing anything more meaningful about it. It is worth it to you to take your little meaningless time outs.
If someone breaks the rules and gets caught then let them do their time without worrying about it. No need for you or anyone else to pile on calling for lifetime bans.
I haven't called for any lifetime bans, nor am I worried about it beyond wanting to see consistency, just as you do. And we both know a non industry member would receive far less latitude than you have.
Breaking the rules doesn't always show disregard for them.
I agree with this after you break the rules the first time. Even after the second time. Maybe even after the third. But after the tenth time this argument no longer holds water. Such a pervasive disregard for the rules over such a long period of time shows just that, a total disregard for them. You don't care what they are. John is going to do what John wants to do and to hell with the rules. Actions speak louder than words, and there is no question what your actions say. They say total disregard.
Again though it's NOT your forum. Not your rules, not your place to determine what posters are ultimately good for the forum and which have zero positive value at all. That's the ambiguous realm of the owners to decide that.
I never said I want to determine who stays or who goes. I would like to see consistency though, which I think is reasonable. And I happen to think you do have value for the forum. It is largely offset but a bunch of other nonsense though. You have the ability to on net be a huge asset and value though, and I would love to see you do it (that means stop looking for fights, and always having to have the last word, and instigating with people, etc).
So when someone says I use slave labor, I use child labor, I buy my interiors from others, or insinuates I am pedophile how would you classify that? As TRUTHFUL experiences?
I don't think people should be saying things that they don't have a reasonable reason to believe unless they are clear in that they are speculating with zero evidence or reason to believe or suspect.
Because that's what defamation is, not just an opinion but an accusation. Most people don't know the difference which is part of the reason it's rampant.
Defamation is not just an accusation. It is an accusation with no facts to support it and no reason to believe it. Essentially it a lie for the purpose of harming someone. Most of what you call defamation is not actually defamation. It is people's true opinions or beliefs that even if untrue they had a reason for believing that way. Intentional lies shouldn't be allowed though, I absolutely agree with you there.
Please post one single quote from me where I have said that anyone should be free of scrutiny.
Well of course you don't say it in those exact words, but you definitely say it in so many words. A big part of it is how you loosely define "attack" and "defamation" and the like when it comes to industry members. Almost all legitimate scrutiny of industry members is defined as "attack" and "defamation" in your world, thereby making it off limits in your opinion.
I have said that they should be free of defamation. Defamation is LYING about others in order to impugn their character and cause them harm. That should be eradicated on all moderated forums in my opinion.
Agreed. But flat out lying about someone in an attempt to harm them is actually pretty rare here.
You know this for a fact? You were in on the discussions about the threads and you have proof that Mike or Jerry or Wilson specifically said they would remove a thread from view to PROTECT an industry member?
I know this for a fact. It would not be appropriate for me to provide the proof so don't bother asking. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist for anyone to be able to know. All it takes is some eye balls. As soon as an industry member takes enough heat for something or gets questioned hard enough about something the thread gets pulled.
I disagree. I think that threads like this one should be deleted moments after it is created. It serves no positive purpose at all.
Why not leave it in the public record? A lot of good material and discussion is in this and almost every other thread. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be removed. Leave it in the public record and let each person make the judgment for their own selves what is useful information and what is not.
I don't mind people reporting their TRUTHFUL experiences. I mind all the defamation that comes with it often through the MOB mentality.
And here is another example of your loose definitions. Your definition of MOB mentality is "two or more people sharing an opinion I don't like or don't agree with". When it comes to forums I'm not even sure there is even such a thing as mob mentality. Just because a lot of people agree on something does not by default make it a bad thing.
IF it turns out that the person who reported the theft was totally lying then that person should be banned and then the thread deleted because it was NOT a truthful account of events.
Agreed. When a poster knowingly lies to cause harm to someone they should be banned for at least a significant period of time if not permanently depending on the exact circumstances.
Again I have NEVER said that industry members don't deserve scrutiny. Of course they do, they don't deserve being maliciously attacked with false or even shitty speculative accusations.
There is zero problem with speculation as long as it is clear that it is speculation.
Hardly, I am held to an even higher standard as evidenced by the fact that people are allowed to call me names and don't get banned and I get banned for things that are really mild in comparison. Your speculation that it's because I am in the industry is just not true.
John, no regular nobody Joe Schmo would still be around after all you have done. They would have been lifetime banned 18 times over. It is possible that they sometimes don't let things slide with you that they would let slide with others but that is because of your history and is certainly understandable and reasonable. But when it comes to what they do about it, this is where you get ALL the special treatment. You have carte blanche to do whatever you like for life. Just take your little slap on the wrist and then you can come back shortly and do it again. Nobody else would get that kind of latitude for such a prolonged period. Nobody.
If so then Mike Janis should be allowed on AZB. He definitely was a bigger industry player than I will ever be.
I don't think Mike was as big of a player as you either in the impact or in how many people know of and about him. But in any case, Mike was the one guy that might, and I say might, have given you a run for the money in how much they pushed it around here. Dude had a flagrant disregard for the rules and for the ownership's wishes that was equal to and possibly even surpassing yours. They had no choice but to get rid of him. Plus he didn't beg and sweet talk as much as you do to try to be allowed back on after he was banned. You are just defiant in between bannings and then kiss butt and try to smooth it over while you are banned. He was defiant all the time...lol.
Should Mike have held himself to a higher standard and ignored them? Well he should have definitely NOT have gone off and gotten himself banned but no, he should not have even HAD to ignore the trolls because the trolls should have been cut off when it was apparent that they were not merely scrutinizing.
Give me a break. Like yourself, Mike created his own problems. He was relentless in his spam, instigated most of his issues, and couldn't have cared less about the ownership's wishes or rules. He only cared about himself and doing what he wanted to do. He instigated and created what you call his trolls. Trolls weren't the problem, Mike was the problem. I know you don't see it but you create your own problems as well and the similarities are striking.
Anyway, I didn't want to go round and round with you and will probably leave it at this. I was only curious to know if you realized how much special treatment you got, and true to form you turned it into something much bigger than it needed to be. I know you absolutely positively must have the last word always and forever 100% of the time (which is a big part of how you cause all the problems for yourself), so have at it and have the last word. I wish you the best, truly.
