I think you’re melding the two problems. People were banned directly for calling out Munky.
JM1
4262
The Munky situation is really its own thing, Demon. I am not even remotely surprised that people who went digging around in someone’s private life and put it on the board for the purpose of giving him abuse - regardless of how loathesome Munky appeared to be - got banned. You cannot allow that shit.
People got banned afterwards for trying to bait Munky in a completely different threads, months after the original one. That’s the sort of thing that happens and gets people banned at the moment.
Munky started a thread asking for advice on how to get around a restraining order. He did this while having his Facebook account linked from his Qt3 profile.
Munky ragequit the forum then came back months later to bait worthwhile posters with his protected status.
You seem to be confused on the order and instigator of events, so I thought I’d enlighten you.
JM1
4264
Yeah, that’s a fair and balanced post. Well done Bob.
JM1
4265
In fact no, there’s no point letting that lie. Munky did not provide all the details that were dug up. Nor did his Facebook profile.
And secondly, I was involved in the argument after the bans were handed out the second time round. You are wrong - the first thing that happened was Munky getting baited.
Pogo
4266
Bob is the FOX News of videogames.
That’s a little excessive.
In the sense that his profile contained his full name and city of residence and that restraining orders are public record then yes, he did.
And secondly, I was involved in the argument after the bans were handed out the second time round. You are wrong - the first thing that happened was Munky getting baited.
False. After quitting the forum for a couple of months, Munky comes back to whine about the forum. Angie responds by telling him to leave again, and then Munky taunts Angie about the previous incident. That he later has the sense to edit his post does not change history.
JM1
4269
Precisely my point. Some information was available by looking at his profile, so people went digging and found the restraining order and posted the information on the board.
False. After quitting the forum for a couple of months, Munky comes back to whine about the forum. Angie responds by telling him to leave again, and then Munky taunts Angie about the previous incident. That he later has the sense to edit his post does not change history.
No, he didn’t reference the previous incident. He was creepy and called her “hon” or sweetie or some such crap, in response to Angie telling him to fuck off.
Angie then flat-out baited him regarding the restraining order. If you look earlier in this very fucking thread, it’s all there.
Do you know any family law?
Restraining orders are issued on a balance of probabilities. This standard of proof is far lower than the reasonable doubt that characterizes criminal procedure. They are easily misused and frequently reversed, sometimes against the complainant partner. It’s notable that even for the obsession of his stalkers, they never uncovered a conviction.
Finally, there is no way to “get around” a restraining order. Any advice to that effect, other than “get a good family lawyer,” will probably get him further away from his kids’ lives.
RepoMan
4271
Which is why there was no need to dig for the facts of the situation. Even if everyone had believed everything he said, no one could have given him any advice that would have made any difference. The thread could’ve ended right there, with no one any the worse off.
Him coming back and being an idiot about it all just shows that everyone was probably right to be skeptical about his character, but it doesn’t change the original situation.
Hey, I’ve got this restraining order, and here’s my name, and here’s where I live, and hey why did you post that restraining order fuck you.
No, he didn’t reference the previous incident. He was creepy and called her “hon” or sweetie or some such crap, in response to Angie telling him to fuck off.
Angie then flat-out baited him regarding the restraining order. If you look earlier in this very fucking thread, it’s all there.
You see what you want to see, hon.
And here’s the ultimate place where all of these asinine back and forths lead:
Nuh uh!
Is too!
Nuh uh!
Is too!
All that seems served by the constant hashing out and re-hashing of things like this where people simply don’t view it the same way is to further polarize both sides. Unless someone truly believes that miraculously, somehow, someone is going to come up with the argument this time that 100% converts the other side, the only real purpose served by these things continuously being brought up (i.e. dragging them in from other threads) is simply to further polarize the two already polarized sides while the vast middle majority shrugs and goes “Fuck, not this shit again.”
Maybe there’s some correlation between this tendency and the rules Tom has made?
JM1
4274
Bob, one of us has a dog in this fight and it isn’t me. This very argument has already been hashed out in this thread. Angie’s ban was deserved.
JM1
4275
mouselock: Yes, you’re right. And that’s the end of my involvement in this argument. It’s a waste of my time.
Will someone do something somewhere else to get banned that isn’t related to this so we can discuss that?
Right…because she wasn’t polite. The overall necessity for posting here. UGH.
It’s like people want to pretend that A) they are anonymous and should be allowed to post whatever they want never have anyone do basic internet detective work and check the facts and b) being polite somehow makes what he was asking for better.
/me tries not to retch.
Has anyone figured out what it was Adree did?
Understanding the basic idea of “context” is maturity. Conversely, getting outraged whenever certain words are uttered is immaturity. We used to do that in junior high. Most of us grew out of it.
Maybe the disconnect here is that I grew up in a part of the country where the only people who use that word are ugly, racist trash.
That may be the source of your disconnect, but that just means you have baggage to get past. All words, no matter how vile their normal useage is, are just words. Change the context, and the word is different.
I think it’s adorable that there are places where people think it’s okay to throw it around.
I don’t know about “adorable”, but it is relieving that there are places where most people understand that words aren’t inherently taboo. It’s the sentiment behind the word & how it’s used that matters. I remember being in high school and reading the hilarious tale of some school banning Huckleberry Finn because it contained the word “nigger”. We all thought it was hilarious that some people would miss the point that badly. Context matters.
JM1
4280
Sorry Matt, this isn’t the argument. We’re talking about the second time, months after the Munky thing kicked off. Angie dragged up the restraining order just to bait Munky and got banned for it. Not what you’re talking about.
Now I’m really out of here. I have a couple of thousand words to write.
