kickycan wrote:
I am sorry if my annoying bluntness put you off though. I do appreciate your hard work, even if I am more prone to whining and bitching than showing that appreciation. So I sincerely want you to know that I appreciate the site and all you do. Thank you.
Bah, I like you more when you complain.
Cycloptichorn wrote:As one who has gotten a week's vacation in the past, I don't understand why you can't just ban this clown, Craven.
I haven't banned anyone in several years. I don't moderate this site. All I have done in the last few years is pull spam.
Quote:He is the worst, seriously. He adds nothing of substance to any thread that he's in, he is constantly crude, never amusing, and generally has lowered the level of debate considerably.
Your qualms with him boil down to having politics you don't like and for not contributing much. Those aren't objective rules to use to ban people.
Simply put, there just can't be a "not enough contribution" ban rule and never will be.
Quote:It wouldn't even take a minute for you to do it.
It wouldn't take me much time to delete the whole site database either but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Quote:I really don't understand. If I were to assemble a 'greatest hits' list of this guy's posts, it would be appalling.
So? What you find appalling has nothing to do with what the site will censor.
Quote:If we're going to switch to a new system soon, great. Until that happens, why can he not be banned under the old system?
I'm sure he could be, but it won't be because of a partisan witch hunt.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Btw, I don't believe this counts as 'answered.' This isn't an answer.
I didn't mark it answered. It was marked that way before I even posted. In any case, I am going to exercise my right to ignore you now.
Quote:It isn't good enough to say 'just pretend the **** isn't there.' People can't really do that.
Well, I will do my level best. You are being ridiculous and I'd rather read something else. Why not go bother the moderators or something?
(sorry moderators)
)
