| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alex Polimeni wrote:
| |
Well, Hop-Frog, we may be enemys on the .Castle front, but--
Wow. Incredible speach. Bravo, thrice over!
|
Hop Frog cannot answer you because he has been banned.
BTW, about the ban... what I would have suggested is a blanket ban with a
definite time frame. He obviously posted knowing full well he was in violation
of the TOS so a ban is in order. But having all these ridiculous stipulations
as conditions of his return is... well, ridiculous. The ones suggested by Larry
were arbitrary and capricious-- Lar, you may as well have asked him to wipe your
behind for you. Frankly I don’t see how he could possibly have met your
conditions and remained an honest person. If he had done it, not only would
he have gotten away with deliberate TOS violations with no consequences, but he
would have been rewarded for lying. (Lar, you know him well enough to know he
could never have agreed to those conditions without compromising his own
integrity. Perhaps that is why you suggested them?)
Anyway, my belief is that such a flagrant violation of the TOS deserves a ban.
And that is without any way to grovel/weasel/tush-kiss your way back on. But I
would argue against a permanent ban, at least at this point. After a set period
of time I think he should have another chance. If it were up to me it would be
a three month ban, and then say around the end of February allow him back on.
And let him know that if he lets loose with obscenities like that again in a
post the ban will be permanent. I only lurk in ot.debate, but even to me it sure
seems dead without him. And he is one of the more colorful people on Lugnet.
Maggie C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
