The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Monte's ban
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3891		 Page 1 of 9
Author:  Mookhow [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Monte's ban
I know you want to talk about it.
Author:  Wwen [ Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
I already did in the other thread about Monte that Monte created to bathe in the attention of everyone else. I think I saw the thread where he made you ban him.

Is he really gone this time?
Author:  Colphax [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:12 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, yeah...I've been in a bit of /lurker mode lately, but I can't seem to find "the smoking gun" post that brought on the ban, myself. So what got him to this point...was there more to it that his general combative, dogged insano-idiocy of the last few days?

And please, count me in as another poster wanting permanent bans be permanent. I know, changes in management lead to Nitefox and Monte being let back in...I was glad Nite got back in, Monte...not so much. I knew it was a matter of time before this happened, but I admit Monte did seem to make an effort for a while. But, in the end, it was his attitude toward the rest of the board that did him in. And I'm a card carrying Democrat who voted for Obama; while I could understand some of where many of his arguments basically were coming from...well, I have this understanding of these things called rationality, evidence, and manners.
Author:  Midgen [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:15 am ]
Post subject: 
You showed a lot more patience than I would have....
Author:  darksiege [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:47 am ]
Post subject: 
I would just like to know what actually caused the final push.
Author:  Taskiss [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:38 am ]
Post subject: 
I kinda feel sorry for him. Being banned from a community you have spent such a long time with... well, that's gotta be a shock.

Still, it's probably a favor in the long run. Folks hang on sometimes when they should probably move on.
Author:  Talya [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:56 am ]
Post subject: 
The then-moderators did this before. Dash promptly undid it a month later.

Not complaining now, or anything, but I didn't see the infraction that precipitated it. He certainly hasn't posted anything more problematic as the chain that got him banned last time.
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:04 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree. I didn't see any bannable posts, just the typical asshattery.
Author:  Raltar [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Enough was enough, I suppose.
Author:  LadyKate [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Taskiss wrote:
I kinda feel sorry for him. Being banned from a community you have spent such a long time with... well, that's gotta be a shock.

Still, it's probably a favor in the long run. Folks hang on sometimes when they should probably move on.


^This. I kinda feel sorry for Monte too.

But my bigger problem is....now I have to come up with something else for Nitefox to do in his spare time to let off steam.
Poor Nitefox. His sandbox buddy is gone. :(
Author:  Mookhow [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Monte's ban
Monte's previous ban here was a 30 day ban. It had always been a 30 day ban, and I made sure that it was lifted no sooner or later than that. This ban is permanent. It's possible that down the line, I or someone else may undo it, but I have no intentions to remove it. I doubt anyone would remove it behind my back, either.

As to why I chose to ban him at this time, I'd say it's more a change in me than a change in him. I posted this in the moderator forum on the subject:
Quote:
I'm just tired of the way every thread seems to permanently derail as soon as he posts. And how he insults and flames anyone who disagrees with him, or even seemingly, if they don't agree with him enough. I'm just tired of him and the effect he has on this board.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Monte's ban
I think this exchange was what did it.

Monte wrote:
No.

I am not interested in submitting this to the court of public opinion. I'm not interested in leaving it to the fair and balanced crowd.

It would be a hilarious exercise in futility. Like I said, I could have actual film footage of DFK holding a red shotgun to my head, and it wouldn't matter. I have no illusions that no matter how much evidence I presented, this court would find in his favor.

Because I am me, and I am the Other. (*inc victim card swipe)


Mookhow wrote:
I don't give a **** about all this "other" crap. But you're acting like a **** loony, and you're being incredibly annoying. So stop accusing me of conspiring against you unless you want to show me some proof of it.

edit: on second thought, I don't care about your 'proof'. Just shut up.


Mookhow barely participates in Hellfire. I don't think any of us have much of a clue as to his political leanings.

This entire episode with Monte, hilariously, started because of an issue with Michael, Rynar, and TheRiov in General, and then shuyung starting a thread about it here, which Monte took as an opportunity to revisit his ban and grind an axe with DFK! even though neither one of them had much of anything to do with the original issue. Then he started expanding it into how the entire moderation staff was one big conspiracy to ban him.

In the process he claims that DFK! would get into arguments with him and then use moderator power to shut him up. Then, when everyone demands he show where this occured, he just refuses claiming "well, I know it happened but since you won't beleive it I don't need to show anything!" and then drags it on over and over, claiming he doesn't need to prove anything to us.

The thread had everything that's made him a detriment to this community for years:

a) blatant attention-whoring; hijaking the thread into yet another argument over how much "the conservatives" here hate him
b) making yet another totally absurd assertion, then utterly refusing to back it up with any evidence
c) repeating that assertion over and over, claiming we wouldn't believe the proof no matter what he showed us
d) insulting specific people then moving on to general insults directed at both the membership and the administration
e) pretending that he's being victimized when it's pointed out how bad his behvior is

These behaviors, or varients on them, have been present in just about every topic he's been in for years. The arguments, for Monte, at least, long since ceased being about issues. He never cared about discussing issues, at least not any time recently, since he was absolutely convinced that every one of us really just knew deep down that he was right, and wouldn't "accept reality". They were about venting his spleen at people he saw as misguided at best and evil at worst, so that he could confirm his self-image as standing up to the bad guys.

This thread just illustrates why it wasn't about his views, except insofar as the absurdity of his views spurred him to the other behaviors. Mook isn't a Hellfire participant. He's had no dog whatsoever in any of these fights, but Monte just couldn't stop himself from dragging him into a dispute that only came up because he just couldn't stand that the supposed "moderator abuse" issue being talked about wasn't the one he wanted to talk about.

It also illustrates why Monte didn't need to be here. Everyone here gets carried away or acts like an *** from time to time. Monte was way beyond that. His behavior was out of control in every thread he got into, and there wasn't actual debate or discussion; it was simply an escuse to scream at people whose views he found reprehensible simply because they weren't his.
Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Just so we're clear, you banned him not for breaking rules, but because you got annoyed? I mean Monte could be irrational, but we have members threatening physical harm to others, members who constantly actually break the rules we have laid down, and members who don't seem to be able to make a post without resorting to explative filled droning and yet what raised your ire is not anyone doing something harmful, but instead just being annoying and pigheaded?
Author:  Khross [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
TheRiov wrote:
...we have members threatening physical harm to others...
Proof?
TheRiov wrote:
...members who constantly actually break the rules we have laid down...
Proof? I've been warned exactly once since Sunmoon ceded control to IGN way back in the day.
TheRiov wrote:
...members who don't seem to be able to make a post without resorting to explativeexpletive filled droning...
Proof? You have one thread where I take you and Monte to task ...

You got others? There's a search function. Since refusing to support the same kinds of allegations ultimately got Monte banned ... you probably wanna start using it.
Author:  Taskiss [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Diamondeye wrote:
It also illustrates why Monte didn't need to be here.
Yeah, I understand all that...

I just consider myself fortunate that I'm not consumed by my philosophies ... trapped in such a rigid, confrontational mindset.

I wish him well.
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Khross wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
...we have members threatening physical harm to others...
Proof?

That was me.
Author:  Khross [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Hopwin wrote:
Khross wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
...we have members threatening physical harm to others...
Proof?
That was me.
Weren't you just raging on the latest in a long series of psycho-girlfriends? I mean, didn't this one steal your car to run across state lines and give up the hoo-nanny to some guy she swore to you she broke up with?
Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Khross wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
...we have members threatening physical harm to others...
Proof?
TheRiov wrote:
...members who constantly actually break the rules we have laid down...
Proof? I've been warned exactly once since Sunmoon ceded control to IGN way back in the day.
TheRiov wrote:
...members who don't seem to be able to make a post without resorting to explativeexpletive filled droning...
Proof? You have one thread where I take you and Monte to task ...

You got others? There's a search function. Since refusing to support the same kinds of allegations ultimately got Monte banned ... you probably wanna start using it.


I'll tell you what Khross, I'll provide you the proof this time IF you lay off the demands for proof in the future, because your approach seems to be that if you demand enough time (which MOST of us don't actually have time to spend combing the board for every little citation, you know, productive lives and all...) then in your head you've won the argument.


Oh and stop being a #$%#$ about spelling. a) I often post from my phone which makes auditing difficult b) The browser have to use most of the time doesn't have a spellcheck as a main function c) Your choice to single me out for spelling/grammar corrections is rapidly approaching harassment
Author:  Mookhow [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
TheRiov wrote:
Just so we're clear, you banned him not for breaking rules, but because you got annoyed? I mean Monte could be irrational, but we have members threatening physical harm to others, members who constantly actually break the rules we have laid down, and members who don't seem to be able to make a post without resorting to explative filled droning and yet what raised your ire is not anyone doing something harmful, but instead just being annoying and pigheaded?


If you want to believe that, go ahead. I doubt anything I say will change your mind.
Author:  Khross [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
TheRiov wrote:
I'll tell you what Khross, I'll provide you the proof this time IF you lay off the demands for proof in the future...
Hmmms, you're making allegations without proof. You are, in point of fact, making the same suggestion Monte made: that the Moderation/Administrative Staff of the forum plays favorites.
TheRiov wrote:
...because your approach seems to be that if you demand enough time (which MOST of us don't actually have time to spend combing the board for every little citation, you know, productive lives and all...) then in your head you've won the argument.
I tend to think that if you cannot substantiate the claims you make, particularly when they are wildly inconsistent with the facts as generally accepted ... then, yes, you must provide proof/citation/support for your claims. If you do not do so, you're simply making a bare assertion.
TheRiov wrote:
Oh and stop being a #$%#$ about spelling ... Your choice to single me out for spelling/grammar corrections is rapidly approaching harassment
I copy-edit spelling in about 90% of the posts I quote, regardless of the poster. I just noticed the Strike-Tag this time.
Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Khross wrote:
Weren't you just raging on the latest in a long series of psycho-girlfriends? I mean, didn't this one steal your car to run across state lines and give up the hoo-nanny to some guy she swore to you she broke up with?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3821&start=0

edit: Not proud of it but I stand firmly behind the sentiment I expressed.
Author:  Khross [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Monte's ban
Hopwin:

Somehow, given the generally intimate and problematic nature of the discussion, I don't think this post actually qualifies.
Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Khross wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
I'll tell you what Khross, I'll provide you the proof this time IF you lay off the demands for proof in the future...
Hmmms, you're making allegations without proof. You are, in point of fact, making the same suggestion Monte made: that the Moderation/Administrative Staff of the forum plays favorites.
TheRiov wrote:
...because your approach seems to be that if you demand enough time (which MOST of us don't actually have time to spend combing the board for every little citation, you know, productive lives and all...) then in your head you've won the argument.
I tend to think that if you cannot substantiate the claims you make, particularly when they are wildly inconsistent with the facts as generally accepted ... then, yes, you must provide proof/citation/support for your claims. If you do not do so, you're simply making a bare assertion.
TheRiov wrote:
Oh and stop being a #$%#$ about spelling ... Your choice to single me out for spelling/grammar corrections is rapidly approaching harassment
I copy-edit spelling in about 90% of the posts I quote, regardless of the poster. I just noticed the Strike-Tag this time.

Is that a yes or no? I'm happy to give you this one if you'll back off in the future, but if you're just going to ask me to waste my time searching for threads every time I want to cite historical precident just because you missed a particular thread or threads, its gonna get old quick. So, you can either search yourself, or agree that if I can provide proof in this circumstance my statements are not simply (as you have in the past accused) 'fabrications'
Author:  Khross [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
TheRiov wrote:
Is that a yes or no? I'm happy to give you this one if you'll back off in the future, but if you're just going to ask me to waste my time searching for threads every time I want to cite historical precident just because you missed a particular thread or threads, its gonna get old quick. So, you can either search yourself, or agree that if I can provide proof in this circumstance my statements are not simply (as you have in the past accused) 'fabrications'
The burden of proof doesn't change because you honored it "once", TheRiov. Again, I gave you the examples where it applies to me. So, unless you somehow have a catalog of transgressions by other people you find more ban-worthy than the recent allegations of an anti-Monte conspiracy theory; I feel you're barking up the wrong tree.
Author:  TheRiov [ Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:27 am ]
Post subject: 
So .... no. Because you're self employed with no kids and no life outside this place and your online games, you can push the "I WIN" button by demanding proof of of any statement made?

Got it.

But I'm not alledging a Conspiracy here. I'm stating that Monte is singularly unpopular, and did little to endear himself to the board as a whole. Indeed, there were many times I wished he would stay off my side. That being said, Monte did not break any rule we have, and others HAVE. I think Monte this time just pissed off the one person who could effect a permanant ban this time.
Page 1 of 9 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/