Topic: I am making a very drunk executive decision to unban our three beloved shitposters.
tteh !MemesToDNA started this discussion 6 years ago #96,511
Discuss.
(Edited 27 minutes later.)
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 56 seconds later[^] [v] #1,089,135
Make syntax's unban conditional on providing proof of his written permission to evade bans plz
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,137
Yay!!!!
Anonymous C double-posted this 6 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,138
Smart man
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,141
Poor decision
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,143
Keep syntax and grover banned plz
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,144
How bout sober up
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,147
Please at least keep grover banned.
tteh !MemesToDNA (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,150
@1,089,143 (E)
@previous (G)
I'll keep him banned. Eco, too.
I also want a strict set of rules for Matt, Syntax and Bert (no mentions of family, no dox, etc.). If they don't follow the rules, bans will be longer and then genuinely permanent.
@previous (G)
I'll keep him banned. Eco, too.
I also want a strict set of rules for Matt, Syntax and Bert (no mentions of family, no dox, etc.). If they don't follow the rules, bans will be longer and then genuinely permanent.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,151
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,156
I'm not sure if it's much of an executive decision of you're inviting discussion. ?
Anyway, I've already stated my opinion. They've been starting so much shit across the board lately that it feels right to do some bans, at least long-term ones. A good compromise might be to unban the most popular one (Matt) to meet the users who like the shitposting halfway.
Anyway, I've already stated my opinion. They've been starting so much shit across the board lately that it feels right to do some bans, at least long-term ones. A good compromise might be to unban the most popular one (Matt) to meet the users who like the shitposting halfway.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 6 years ago, 52 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,157
@1,089,150 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
That sounds fair but I doubt it will work. I suppose it's an admirable thing to try.
That sounds fair but I doubt it will work. I suppose it's an admirable thing to try.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,158
@1,089,135 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> Make syntax's unban conditional on providing proof of his written permission to evade bans plz
> Make syntax's unban conditional on providing proof of his written permission to evade bans plz
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,160
Will Syntax be rebanned for dropping dox on becky and her career?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 23 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,161
tteh !MemesToDNA (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,162
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 19 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,164
@1,089,161 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
--Name and location, with a story about her being disbarred as a paralegal--
I am a big dumb liar and this never happened. I owe everyone an apology.
--Name and location, with a story about her being disbarred as a paralegal--
I am a big dumb liar and this never happened. I owe everyone an apology.
(Edited 21 minutes later by a moderator.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,165
@1,089,161 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
https://tinychan.org/trivia_for_topic/55298
The actual information was deleted, but the perpetrator actually paid to get a certain individual’s dox.
When you pay to dox somebody on an obscure Internet forum, you have reached rock bottom.
https://tinychan.org/trivia_for_topic/55298
The actual information was deleted, but the perpetrator actually paid to get a certain individual’s dox.
When you pay to dox somebody on an obscure Internet forum, you have reached rock bottom.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,166
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,167
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
I’m just letting you know that the drama has migrated to another site. None of the banned individuals has learned his lesson.
I’m just letting you know that the drama has migrated to another site. None of the banned individuals has learned his lesson.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,168
@1,089,165 (L)
I know he dropped bert's dox (grounds for a permaban imo), but did he drop becky's too?
@1,089,164 (K)
See PM
I know he dropped bert's dox (grounds for a permaban imo), but did he drop becky's too?
@1,089,164 (K)
See PM
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,169
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 43 seconds later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,170
@1,089,168 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Syntax posted Bert’s real name. Bert responded by buying a public record search online and posted screen shots of the info.
Syntax posted Bert’s real name. Bert responded by buying a public record search online and posted screen shots of the info.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 44 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,171
@1,089,165 (L)
I think it is hilarious that he is targeting becky, despite the fact that it was Snake Anon's decision to ban them.
I think it is hilarious that he is targeting becky, despite the fact that it was Snake Anon's decision to ban them.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 46 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,172
@1,089,169 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
@1,089,170 (L)
God what a shitfest. Just bring back matt. The other two are too fucking toxic.
@1,089,170 (L)
God what a shitfest. Just bring back matt. The other two are too fucking toxic.
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,173
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Matt brought them here. Two of the Three Stooges didn’t just materialize from thin air.
Matt brought them here. Two of the Three Stooges didn’t just materialize from thin air.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 13 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,174
@1,089,171 (H)
I'm not so sure he did! Only one user has posted that syntax did and he is a known shitposter who is being evasive in pms.
I'm not so sure he did! Only one user has posted that syntax did and he is a known shitposter who is being evasive in pms.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 6 years ago, 42 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,175
@1,089,173 (L)
Matt has been here for years. There was a long time when Matt was here and Bert/Syntax weren't.
Matt has been here for years. There was a long time when Matt was here and Bert/Syntax weren't.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 5 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,176
@1,089,172 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> God what a shitfest. Just bring back matt. The other two are too fucking toxic.
American politics in a nutshell
> God what a shitfest. Just bring back matt. The other two are too fucking toxic.
American politics in a nutshell
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 25 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,177
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,178
@1,089,176 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Not really!
@previous (L)
I mean, ban evading isn't hard. The most we can do is make it mildly inconvenient.
Not really!
@previous (L)
I mean, ban evading isn't hard. The most we can do is make it mildly inconvenient.
Anonymous L replied with this 6 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,179
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,180
Excellent decision!
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,181
@1,089,174 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I see. Fair enough, but I hope he is furious at becky over nothing.
I see. Fair enough, but I hope he is furious at becky over nothing.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,183
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,184
@1,089,178 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You mean both sides don't usually have a shit candidate, and then we get stuck with the "least shitty" one?
You mean both sides don't usually have a shit candidate, and then we get stuck with the "least shitty" one?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,185
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Oh I think it's much more common that we get stuck with the most shitty one.
Oh I think it's much more common that we get stuck with the most shitty one.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,187
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,188
@1,089,174 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I'm not so sure he did! Only one user has posted that syntax did and he is a known shitposter who is being evasive in pms.
For what it's worth I've been following the TC drama and I didn't see him dox Becky in any way. He's posted some seriously out-of-line stuff about Bert and his personal details, but I saw nothing about Becky.
> I'm not so sure he did! Only one user has posted that syntax did and he is a known shitposter who is being evasive in pms.
For what it's worth I've been following the TC drama and I didn't see him dox Becky in any way. He's posted some seriously out-of-line stuff about Bert and his personal details, but I saw nothing about Becky.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,189
@previous (G)
Yeah it didn't happen as far as I can tell so I edited his post to reflect reality.
@1,089,187 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
You could say that but that depends on who you think the worst one of the bunch is :)
Yeah it didn't happen as far as I can tell so I edited his post to reflect reality.
@1,089,187 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
You could say that but that depends on who you think the worst one of the bunch is :)
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,190
beckyderp !3NeoVaGFAg joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,197
lol, i support this
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,200
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,201
@OP
If you're set on unbanning them, doing it immediately after Syntax has seemingly doxxed Bert is probably a bad idea. They'll be at each other's throats in moments and merrily spewing their feud everywhere.
Edit: Bert and Syntax, anyway. Matt alone might be tolerable.
If you're set on unbanning them, doing it immediately after Syntax has seemingly doxxed Bert is probably a bad idea. They'll be at each other's throats in moments and merrily spewing their feud everywhere.
Edit: Bert and Syntax, anyway. Matt alone might be tolerable.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
beckyderp !3NeoVaGFAg replied with this 6 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,202
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,217
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,313
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,352
@1,089,201 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
beckyderp !3NeoVaGFAg replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,354
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 19 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,355
@1,089,352 (P)This would be more impactful if you hadn't already declared you're leaving two other times.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,361
@1,089,352 (P)
> No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
How on earth did Svet come to know it?
> No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
How on earth did Svet come to know it?
dreamworks replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,406
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 47 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,421
@1,089,352 (P)
> No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
OK Bert if that is what U insist people call you NOW - May I call you two faced - You recently decided on MC-TC to keep addressing me by my first name -
What gives U the rite to use my First Name? AND me Not Yours?
Also someone NOT me posted your full name months ago on TC - Don't have a clue but do have a guess - It's something I wood NOT do - Yet a Mod of TC tells me you have been posting stuff about me that they had to pull
What I want you 2do is simple enough - So the USA Gov officially said you are a man without honor - Tyme for you to pony up to the trough and try being a man again
> No worries, I wouldn't post here again if it paid ten dollars a letter. Wanted to send a pm to mods but it said I had to make posts on the board first. Wanted to let you know that I made zero of the posts which have been made on tc after this recent banning. Three people here here knew my first name...svet, kook and syntax. That is all I have to say.
OK Bert if that is what U insist people call you NOW - May I call you two faced - You recently decided on MC-TC to keep addressing me by my first name -
What gives U the rite to use my First Name? AND me Not Yours?
Also someone NOT me posted your full name months ago on TC - Don't have a clue but do have a guess - It's something I wood NOT do - Yet a Mod of TC tells me you have been posting stuff about me that they had to pull
What I want you 2do is simple enough - So the USA Gov officially said you are a man without honor - Tyme for you to pony up to the trough and try being a man again
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,441
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 25 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,448
@previous (jodi !ariasXXmaE)
And many of us no urs
The point really is who does what with what. U said you cared less about what goes on at TC
Really? Hummmmmm well all I can say is
Ooooops out of tyme
And many of us no urs
The point really is who does what with what. U said you cared less about what goes on at TC
Really? Hummmmmm well all I can say is
Ooooops out of tyme
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,449
@1,089,135 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> Make syntax's unban conditional on providing proof of his written permission to evade bans plz
In case you missed it - I fully disclosed in total detail INDISPUTABLE 2 A MOD in Email the details
> Make syntax's unban conditional on providing proof of his written permission to evade bans plz
In case you missed it - I fully disclosed in total detail INDISPUTABLE 2 A MOD in Email the details
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,452
@previous (Syntax)
> In case you missed it - I fully disclosed in total detail INDISPUTABLE 2 A MOD in Email the details
http://minichan.org/topic/93905
> In case you missed it - I fully disclosed in total detail INDISPUTABLE 2 A MOD in Email the details
http://minichan.org/topic/93905
Anonymous I replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,453
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,455
@1,089,452 (S)
What part of the topic/thread do you want me to look at? Time is running out so be quick please
@previous (I)
A more pertinent question wood be
Why don't you bold and underline mod every time you type it?
What part of the topic/thread do you want me to look at? Time is running out so be quick please
@previous (I)
A more pertinent question wood be
Why don't you bold and underline mod every time you type it?
Anonymous S replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,456
@1,089,453 (I)
> Why do you bold and underline "mod" every time you type it?
He thinks it adds weight to his lies. "A MOD can vouch for you?? Well then, I guess you MUST be telling the truth!"
The true hilarity is when literally every mod ends up coming forward to say they have no idea what he's talking about.
> Why do you bold and underline "mod" every time you type it?
He thinks it adds weight to his lies. "A MOD can vouch for you?? Well then, I guess you MUST be telling the truth!"
The true hilarity is when literally every mod ends up coming forward to say they have no idea what he's talking about.
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,457
@previous (S)Ah so close to tyme limit for now
How about this for an example and I have NO clue which political party you are attached2 or even country
So take this man for example
So he as a VERY HIGH LEVEL and usually cough cough position says Something - You going to take the word of the President of USA as Truth the whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth?
So now plug in a minichan.org Mod in2 that equation
Now did I really say Vouch 4Me?
My fingers in Dyslexic manner do not always sperl out exactly what I want them to sprel out and later when I look at wot eye rote it does not compute to even lowly me
That said wot I was trying to say is/was this
My original (later recently verified in writing) Hell the person even said I was free to copypasta the Exact words As in Tell them!
So and I did read wot you read eventually - None back me up - Just saying IF Donald Trump can say something Anything and U fully expect it's
Truth the whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth?
But You did see me posting somewhere may have been on TC? That such 2nd set permission could of course be REVOKED
I state my case and did in mail with Mod The original permission is Sacrosanct and frankly my position is that it's Unrevokable and even my Sprel check no like my spelling and I had Alexa help me with that
Do I expect the person I sent the details in mail to post and back me up? Not really - BUT CAN SAY ON MY HONOR that is the Truth the whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth.
And I fully expect to hear from such person in a reply - But trust this as well - The email is soooooooo long winded so much in detail they may even miss it and C this and have to read it again to find it - I did NOT fully bold the lines of the Permission NOR did I even ever never expect such Permission and how hard binding it ended up being
And perhaps oooooops if I say more it no matter 2u cause you cannot with any reasonable mind figure out how this can be - AND 2B honest neigher did I when I read the Permission Slip - Will say it was NOT automatic and did require a few steps that frankly few here wood do - Svet perhaps as I cannot think of another poster who is here that could do what was necessary to do those few steps
Also IF a Step were to be missed THEN No Permission - Simple as that - Few wood find it as easy as I did to do the steps requested. and with that have a good day/nite
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,459
Ok, who the fuck unbanned syntax the stalker?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,461
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,462
@1,089,457 (Syntax)
> Sacrosanct and frankly my position is that it's Unrevokable
Oh boy...
Syntax, every active mod and admin made fun of you for saying this. How can this "permission slip" be so bulletproof if none of the staff know about it and even mock the very concept of it?
> The email is soooooooo long winded so much in detail they may even miss it and C this and have to read it again to find it - I did NOT fully bold the lines of the Permission NOR did I even ever never expect such Permission and how hard binding it ended up being
> AND 2B honest neigher did I when I read the Permission Slip - Will say it was NOT automatic and did require a few steps that frankly few here wood do - Svet perhaps as I cannot think of another poster who is here that could do what was necessary to do those few steps
So now it's a secret permission slip which requires secret steps to "activate"?
This... Syntax, this is not how moderators on a forum would behave. This is not how humans would behave. If for some reason tteh or one of the mods felt really strongly about you needing to evade a ban if you felt like it, we would just discuss it amongst ourselves. One of us wouldn't hand you a secret permission slip that nobody else knows about, that you need "steps" to activate. Why would anyone do that?
And also, if you're somehow referring to that VPN advert that used to be on the ban page, then that was put there by r04r, who subsequently removed it before she gave Minichan to tteh. It's not really "sacrosanct" permission if it was done by someone who is no longer involved with the website.
But even then, it was obviously a joke message. r04r just put it there to try and make it little extra money. Why would a forum's moderators ban someone but then not mind them just evading and coming back?
> Sacrosanct and frankly my position is that it's Unrevokable
Oh boy...
Syntax, every active mod and admin made fun of you for saying this. How can this "permission slip" be so bulletproof if none of the staff know about it and even mock the very concept of it?
> The email is soooooooo long winded so much in detail they may even miss it and C this and have to read it again to find it - I did NOT fully bold the lines of the Permission NOR did I even ever never expect such Permission and how hard binding it ended up being
> AND 2B honest neigher did I when I read the Permission Slip - Will say it was NOT automatic and did require a few steps that frankly few here wood do - Svet perhaps as I cannot think of another poster who is here that could do what was necessary to do those few steps
So now it's a secret permission slip which requires secret steps to "activate"?
This... Syntax, this is not how moderators on a forum would behave. This is not how humans would behave. If for some reason tteh or one of the mods felt really strongly about you needing to evade a ban if you felt like it, we would just discuss it amongst ourselves. One of us wouldn't hand you a secret permission slip that nobody else knows about, that you need "steps" to activate. Why would anyone do that?
And also, if you're somehow referring to that VPN advert that used to be on the ban page, then that was put there by r04r, who subsequently removed it before she gave Minichan to tteh. It's not really "sacrosanct" permission if it was done by someone who is no longer involved with the website.
But even then, it was obviously a joke message. r04r just put it there to try and make it little extra money. Why would a forum's moderators ban someone but then not mind them just evading and coming back?
Anonymous T replied with this 6 years ago, 32 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,463
@1,089,461 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But I thought due to the shit talking him and Bert were doing on TC, they were to remain banned until they calmed down?
Shitax has already started his shit since he's been back.
But I thought due to the shit talking him and Bert were doing on TC, they were to remain banned until they calmed down?
Shitax has already started his shit since he's been back.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,466
@1,089,457 (Syntax)
@1,089,462 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
You seem to attach way too much weight to the moderation here. You also made reference to "back-channel discussions" on site activity, and, uh, co-ordinating our posting so that ninjj isn't lonely.
If nothing else, at least take this onboard. The Minichan staff really aren't what you're making out. We're just some internet friends on a small forum, loosely working together to keep the place in decent shape. There's no chain of command or weekly meetings or anything like that. I think the closest thing we have to "back-channel discussions" are shitposting in the IRC or talking crap over PMs (neither of which you would even see anyway).
@previous (T)
That was just an opinion that Fake anon (and myself) voiced. Ultimately, tteh pays the bills so he gets the final call. Personally, I have no issues with that.
@1,089,462 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
You seem to attach way too much weight to the moderation here. You also made reference to "back-channel discussions" on site activity, and, uh, co-ordinating our posting so that ninjj isn't lonely.
If nothing else, at least take this onboard. The Minichan staff really aren't what you're making out. We're just some internet friends on a small forum, loosely working together to keep the place in decent shape. There's no chain of command or weekly meetings or anything like that. I think the closest thing we have to "back-channel discussions" are shitposting in the IRC or talking crap over PMs (neither of which you would even see anyway).
@previous (T)
That was just an opinion that Fake anon (and myself) voiced. Ultimately, tteh pays the bills so he gets the final call. Personally, I have no issues with that.
(Edited 1 hour later.)
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,480
@1,089,462 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
So I will try and be super quick and tomorrow or damn 2morrow may be all tied up work and Doc wise so let me jump back in and try real fast
> > Sacrosanct and frankly my position is that it's Unrevokable
> Oh boy...
>
> Syntax, every active mod and admin made fun of you for saying this. How can this "permission slip" be so bulletproof if none of the staff know about it and even mock the very concept of it?
Indeed I read each and every comment as it played out except often I had to play catch up and may have missed a bit because so much was posted Fri nite sat sat nite and you no my policy - Shoot me dead quickly IF I end up spending good fun real life time on the internet on a weekend evening not always counting Sunday of course but 2nite I do have fun plans And Mock me ya all did - Yet there are a few things none of you including those who commented Anon had/have a clue about.'''
I can assure you one staff member does NO - Now that is in email they may have not read yet or in the chapter and gotten to that chapter in the book I sent them
'''They may even disagree - I mean if you paid close attention to the recent hearings attorneys of great stature disagreed in total with each other
But on my word of honor what I wrote in this thread is the truth!'''
>
> > The email is soooooooo long winded so much in detail they may even miss it and C this and have to read it again to find it - I did NOT fully bold the lines of the Permission NOR did I even ever never expect such Permission and how hard binding it ended up being
>
> > AND 2B honest neigher did I when I read the Permission Slip - Will say it was NOT automatic and did require a few steps that frankly few here wood do - Svet perhaps as I cannot think of another poster who is here that could do what was necessary to do those few steps
> So now it's a secret permission slip which requires secret steps to "activate"?
>
> This... Syntax, this is not how moderators on a forum would behave. This is not how humans would behave. If for some reason tteh or one of the mods felt really strongly about you needing to evade a ban if you felt like it, we would just discuss it amongst ourselves. One of us wouldn't hand you a secret permission slip that nobody else knows about, that you need "steps" to activate. Why would anyone do that?
Good questions nor with shut short time left for me to get ready for 2nite can I fully address EXCEPT TO SAY - If the President of USA is not always accurate always forthcoming and and - Nor am I saying the few of you are not open and honest with each other - Then AGAIN Just perhaps er Jesus Christ - Just what IF someone wanted to pull your leg? Or throw in some humor? What IF someone gave me NEW Permission and was just fukin with Me and You all? I have no proof that the 2nd set of Permission was in fact real got that - As I have said elsewhere perhaps it was such that in an instant it could be revoked?'''
AND HOW DARE EITHER OF YOU Get on your high horse about rules and Honor when one of YOU in the open here said and I paraphrase - The new rule is one that I do not really believe in nor want to enforce
ALSO What the fuk with a 2nd ban because after the fact Ex Post Facto one of you decided that the ban was not long enough and you made a time mistrake and decided that even with the punishment you just had to add a new ban without even giving a reason or post pull or pointing out where the new ban was needed
Shame on grown recently educated university men for doing That EXCEPT I do not fault you all for trying to solve the shit posting - AND AND to show examples of another and how much work you all go into about removal of Poo material by the Pedophile -
Tell me more about how humans behave when WE have a Trump - Go on and share how that equation works - And you can tell me you all are better than Trump and that sure is true Yet the fact is I was given a 2nd set of permissions and you will shit bricks if and when you find out in detail and I THINK U WILL FIND out my position on the first AND AND U have No clue about something being posted on MC because FRANKLY I DOUBT IT IS SOMETHING EITHER OF YOU VIEW - I did point out in detail that something with the MC link in detail and it's from MC system got that - U all better look at what U say is no longer there cause I sure did include it in my email to the MOD
So on that alone you do not know what you are talking about - Clearly ya all can make Mistrakes as well -
>
> And also, if you're somehow referring to that VPN advert that used to be on the ban page, then that was put there by r04r, who subsequently removed it before she gave Minichan to tteh. It's not really "sacrosanct" permission if it was done by someone who is no longer involved with the website.
>
> But even then, it was obviously a joke message. r04r just put it there to try and make it little extra money. Why would a forum's moderators ban someone but then not mind them just evading and coming back?
'''There is one Mod that will probably be happy to explain it to you
Do I really care about that currently? I can tell you for a fact that you are free to check with r04r - She on that issue did not really give a fuk - at least that is what she told me as well as what a Mod said to me in recent mail
But again there is something neither of you has figured out Yet - So an important VERY IMPORTANT Part of the equation is missing for both of you. For sure it's been spelled out in full detail - How is this for a final thought - Might just take some Attorney to figure it out - Contract expert so I doubt becky is the one to give an opinion - It currently is a moot point and there is a Pun in there
And as to the steps well hell the fact of the matter is that to complete the permission for all it's worth does take steps - One that probably neither of you could take all the way. Perhaps one of you could but for sure not one I No - I did and that is all that counts in my book
Again I fully expect an Apology because YOU Assume to much - And clearly you need to see what others view - Now I am sorry I did not show copypasta to Kook so she could independently verify but I am willing to do that OK - Tuesday I can if by that time you have not figured out the details I will show Kook the details and she can verify what I said - And damn I may have to ask for something but can ask the One Modto give it to me because my screen cap sucked but is easy to fix -
I am soooo out of time and this reply willl loook llike a bloooddy mess
Damn and I just spent time the very little time I have with a new topic
So I will try and be super quick and tomorrow or damn 2morrow may be all tied up work and Doc wise so let me jump back in and try real fast
> > Sacrosanct and frankly my position is that it's Unrevokable
> Oh boy...
>
> Syntax, every active mod and admin made fun of you for saying this. How can this "permission slip" be so bulletproof if none of the staff know about it and even mock the very concept of it?
Indeed I read each and every comment as it played out except often I had to play catch up and may have missed a bit because so much was posted Fri nite sat sat nite and you no my policy - Shoot me dead quickly IF I end up spending good fun real life time on the internet on a weekend evening not always counting Sunday of course but 2nite I do have fun plans And Mock me ya all did - Yet there are a few things none of you including those who commented Anon had/have a clue about.'''
I can assure you one staff member does NO - Now that is in email they may have not read yet or in the chapter and gotten to that chapter in the book I sent them
'''They may even disagree - I mean if you paid close attention to the recent hearings attorneys of great stature disagreed in total with each other
But on my word of honor what I wrote in this thread is the truth!'''
>
> > The email is soooooooo long winded so much in detail they may even miss it and C this and have to read it again to find it - I did NOT fully bold the lines of the Permission NOR did I even ever never expect such Permission and how hard binding it ended up being
>
> > AND 2B honest neigher did I when I read the Permission Slip - Will say it was NOT automatic and did require a few steps that frankly few here wood do - Svet perhaps as I cannot think of another poster who is here that could do what was necessary to do those few steps
> So now it's a secret permission slip which requires secret steps to "activate"?
>
> This... Syntax, this is not how moderators on a forum would behave. This is not how humans would behave. If for some reason tteh or one of the mods felt really strongly about you needing to evade a ban if you felt like it, we would just discuss it amongst ourselves. One of us wouldn't hand you a secret permission slip that nobody else knows about, that you need "steps" to activate. Why would anyone do that?
Good questions nor with shut short time left for me to get ready for 2nite can I fully address EXCEPT TO SAY - If the President of USA is not always accurate always forthcoming and and - Nor am I saying the few of you are not open and honest with each other - Then AGAIN Just perhaps er Jesus Christ - Just what IF someone wanted to pull your leg? Or throw in some humor? What IF someone gave me NEW Permission and was just fukin with Me and You all? I have no proof that the 2nd set of Permission was in fact real got that - As I have said elsewhere perhaps it was such that in an instant it could be revoked?'''
AND HOW DARE EITHER OF YOU Get on your high horse about rules and Honor when one of YOU in the open here said and I paraphrase - The new rule is one that I do not really believe in nor want to enforce
ALSO What the fuk with a 2nd ban because after the fact Ex Post Facto one of you decided that the ban was not long enough and you made a time mistrake and decided that even with the punishment you just had to add a new ban without even giving a reason or post pull or pointing out where the new ban was needed
Shame on grown recently educated university men for doing That EXCEPT I do not fault you all for trying to solve the shit posting - AND AND to show examples of another and how much work you all go into about removal of Poo material by the Pedophile -
Tell me more about how humans behave when WE have a Trump - Go on and share how that equation works - And you can tell me you all are better than Trump and that sure is true Yet the fact is I was given a 2nd set of permissions and you will shit bricks if and when you find out in detail and I THINK U WILL FIND out my position on the first AND AND U have No clue about something being posted on MC because FRANKLY I DOUBT IT IS SOMETHING EITHER OF YOU VIEW - I did point out in detail that something with the MC link in detail and it's from MC system got that - U all better look at what U say is no longer there cause I sure did include it in my email to the MOD
So on that alone you do not know what you are talking about - Clearly ya all can make Mistrakes as well -
>
> And also, if you're somehow referring to that VPN advert that used to be on the ban page, then that was put there by r04r, who subsequently removed it before she gave Minichan to tteh. It's not really "sacrosanct" permission if it was done by someone who is no longer involved with the website.
>
> But even then, it was obviously a joke message. r04r just put it there to try and make it little extra money. Why would a forum's moderators ban someone but then not mind them just evading and coming back?
'''There is one Mod that will probably be happy to explain it to you
Do I really care about that currently? I can tell you for a fact that you are free to check with r04r - She on that issue did not really give a fuk - at least that is what she told me as well as what a Mod said to me in recent mail
But again there is something neither of you has figured out Yet - So an important VERY IMPORTANT Part of the equation is missing for both of you. For sure it's been spelled out in full detail - How is this for a final thought - Might just take some Attorney to figure it out - Contract expert so I doubt becky is the one to give an opinion - It currently is a moot point and there is a Pun in there
And as to the steps well hell the fact of the matter is that to complete the permission for all it's worth does take steps - One that probably neither of you could take all the way. Perhaps one of you could but for sure not one I No - I did and that is all that counts in my book
Again I fully expect an Apology because YOU Assume to much - And clearly you need to see what others view - Now I am sorry I did not show copypasta to Kook so she could independently verify but I am willing to do that OK - Tuesday I can if by that time you have not figured out the details I will show Kook the details and she can verify what I said - And damn I may have to ask for something but can ask the One Modto give it to me because my screen cap sucked but is easy to fix -
I am soooo out of time and this reply willl loook llike a bloooddy mess
Damn and I just spent time the very little time I have with a new topic
Anonymous T replied with this 6 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,496
@previous (Syntax)
> this reply willl loook llike a bloooddy mess
All of your replies are a bloooddy mess.
> this reply willl loook llike a bloooddy mess
All of your replies are a bloooddy mess.
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,498
@1,089,480 (Syntax)
> She on that issue did not really give a fuk - at least that is what she told me as well as what a Mod said to me in recent mail
Name the mod. Who told you r04r ever agreed to evading?
> She on that issue did not really give a fuk - at least that is what she told me as well as what a Mod said to me in recent mail
Name the mod. Who told you r04r ever agreed to evading?
tteh !MemesToDNA (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,502
@previous (V)
In years gone by, r04r promoted a particular VPN on the ban page. She told a few people they could evade with it. You might recall this discussion during the era of Chinæ's ban (long since expired; I could've renewed it but didn't). Presumably you didn't have the high honour of privately discussing a ban with her!
I thoroughly enjoy the conspiracy theories about this, so that's all I have to say on that front. Our rules apply to everybody. ?
In years gone by, r04r promoted a particular VPN on the ban page. She told a few people they could evade with it. You might recall this discussion during the era of Chinæ's ban (long since expired; I could've renewed it but didn't). Presumably you didn't have the high honour of privately discussing a ban with her!
I thoroughly enjoy the conspiracy theories about this, so that's all I have to say on that front. Our rules apply to everybody. ?
(Edited 9 hours later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,503
The ability to levy a country-wide ban still exists, actually. It's absurd, and I'm not convinced it was ever necessary. The database it uses is so outdated, too...
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,513
@1,089,448 (R)
> And many of us no urs
>
> The point really is who does what with what. U said you cared less about what goes on at TC
>
> Really? Hummmmmm well all I can say is
>
> Ooooops out of tyme
yeah my name is John
> And many of us no urs
>
> The point really is who does what with what. U said you cared less about what goes on at TC
>
> Really? Hummmmmm well all I can say is
>
> Ooooops out of tyme
yeah my name is John
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,514
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,515
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,089,516
> plot twist, the mods unbanned the terrible trolling trio just to cause maximum drama and make minichan active again