Why was ILOVEODEN banned?

[3RA1N1AC]

i heard they were both trying to lead us to greener pastures on the vivid.com blazer forum, where the lube flows like wine

 

[Mediocre Man]

Bans here are incredibly rare compared to other sites. The two people you know of were not banned because they were negative in their views or anything like that. It was because they were negative in their views for the purpose of pissing people off vs. honestly wanting to be part of the community.

This wasn't my decision, but I stand 100% behind it.

I've seen nothing from you that comes even close to deserving a ban.

I am not saying they were banned because they were negative in their views. I am saying I don't think it's a coincidence that the two people banned both had negative views. To me it seems like a shorter rope that those people are given simply because they are in the minority.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I am not saying they were banned because they were negative in their views. I am saying I don't think it's a coincidence that the two people banned both had negative views. To me it seems like a shorter rope that those people are given simply because they are in the minority.

I think it's more likely that the people who are extremely negative in their views are also more likely to simply be unhappy people who conduct themselves in a highly abrasive and unpleasant manner with no desire or intention to engage in rational discourse.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am not saying they were banned because they were negative in their views. I am saying I don't think it's a coincidence that the two people banned both had negative views. To me it seems like a shorter rope that those people are given simply because they are in the minority.

Not at all.

It's just easier to troll by being negative.

The only real coincidence is both posters were trolls.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think it's more likely that the people who are extremely negative in their views are also more likely to simply be unhappy people who conduct themselves in a highly abrasive and unpleasant manner with no desire or intention to engage in rational discourse.

The same could be said for extremely positive people as well though. They don't want to hear that Nate hasn't been close to getting out of the first round as a Blazer coach, and try to tell them and they get angry and irrational.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Not at all.

It's just easier to troll by being negative.

The only real coincidence is both posters were trolls.

I don't think both were. I thought one was blunt and negative, but in no way a troll

 

[Pinwheel1]

I don't think anyone should ever be banned. I am just amazed that the two people that I know of that have been banned are two people that don't look at the team through rose garden colored glasses. I don't think that is a coincidence

Sorry the "rose colored glasses" excuse is not valid in this case. (It rarely is)

I tried hard not to post in this thread, but since the mods are getting some crap over this I might as well give them some support.

IMHO if you want to be one of the better message boards where fans want to come and read/post/debate/argue then you need to try to keep the occasional "troll" out.

Sure MM you can be negative and I disagree with you 95% of the time, but I would never want you banned. But this guy's sole purpose was to irritate people and to provoke them into a flaming discussion. That type of agenda ruins a message board IMO. I thinks the Mods made the right call.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I would also humbly submit that, if for some reason you did cross the line talking about Nate's playoff record, you would listen to PMs asking you to tone it down a bit, not bitch at mods who were just trying to keep the board sane, and not respond to a punitive measure by just switching up screennames. If you were to not do any of those 3 things (after being banned before) you may be subject to the same measures.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

It was because they were negative in their views for the purpose of pissing people off

I mostly play a character of my real self on here because it's fun to drive everyone crazy

 

[THE HCP]

I don't want anybody to be banned from here. I like reading opinions negative and positive. But to think that Mixum or these other guys that got the boot, came on here for a good debate or to discuss things in a legit manner is ridiculous! They came on here just to stir shit up and cause some drama. There are a bunch of posters who don't drink the company kool-aid and come on here with a minority opinion and nobody has problems with them. Like my mama used to say, "It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it.........FAMS!"

 

[blue32]

I don't think both were. I thought one was blunt and negative, but in no way a troll

Everyone has their own opinions of "trolling" , but guess what? The only ones that matter are the guys that run this board; so lets all stfu and get back to hoops talk and quit bitching about what moron got banned and why....

 

[Mediocre Man]

I guess why not just put them on ignore?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Sure MM you can be negative and I disagree with you 95% of the time

I am happy you are right at least 5% of the time

 

[Nikolokolus]

I am happy you are right at least 5% of the time

haha

 

[TheBeastBoy]

I believe mods have the right to ban anyone that just comes in not to actually debate or discuss things in a mature manner, but to just stir shit up for the sakes of picking a fight and being classless jackasses. If you post in OLive, than you know about JET. He's one that would never last here. HCP is right in that it's not always what you say, it's HOW you say it. What are the intentions behind it? Is it to invoke a better discussion or to simply be a complete classless fucker? Actions determine that. Mods make the decisions based on that.

 

[Denny Crane]

I believe mods have the right to ban anyone that just comes in not to actually debate or discuss things in a mature manner, but to just stir shit up for the sakes of picking a fight and being classless jackasses. If you post in OLive, than you know about JET. He's one that would never last here. HCP is right in that it's not always what you say, it's HOW you say it. What are the intentions behind it? Is it to invoke a better discussion or to simply be a complete classless fucker? Actions determine that. Mods make the decisions based on that.

http://sportstwo.com/misc.php?do=showrules

See rule #1

 

[THE HCP]

I guess why not just put them on ignore?

I tried that with the MixUped one....... but all you see in the thread is quotes of what he posted and people going off. Didn't work.

 

[blue32]

I tried that with the MixUped one....... but all you see in the thread is quotes of what he posted and people going off. Didn't work.

The ignore feature definitely needs to be adjusted.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I tried that with the MixUped one....... but all you see in the thread is quotes of what he posted and people going off. Didn't work.

Yeah, that's the biggest weakness of ignore. That and, if the dude makes a thread, you still see the thread title (and ILO was great at flaming in the thread title where it all hangs out).

 

[TheBeastBoy]

http://sportstwo.com/misc.php?do=showrules

See rule #1

Guess I was right without even reading that...lol