LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Definitely. He was known troll.
What I'm against is the recent crackdown on avatars.
Inside Broadcast V
- Thread starter Doozer61
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Definitely. He was known troll.
What I'm against is the recent crackdown on avatars.
UberBeaver
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
I always thought he was kinda funny. I didn't think he ever really pissed anyone off.
GibsonGirl
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Messages
- 13,270
LemonMelon said:
He was?
Since when?
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
LemonMelon said:What I'm against is the recent crackdown on avatars.
I am too, but I'm wondering if perhaps the mods took that back. People still have their avatars & sigs. I don't see anyone banned from it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
GibsonGirl said:
He was?
Do you really need that answered?
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
GibsonGirl said:
He was?
For me, I've seen him say worse stuff than what got him banned today. (Yes, mods, if he wouldn't have talked about Edge that way, he never would have been banned, so, in a way, that's exactly why he was banned) Actually, I wasn't even slightly taken aback, it seemed normal. I didn't even think it would get him in trouble.
I've seen him pick on other members repeatedly, and post even more lewd things than what got him banned. Seriously, I think those coming to his defense are, whether they think they are or not, doing it out of friendship. I found him extremely amusing too, but how could anyone have not seen this coming? 
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
UberBeaver said:
Wow, I never thought he was funny, ever.
This avatar thing is stupid (I mean those of you changing them to the dog). Please, its a message board. Its not a right or a democracy and I think you could find someone way more deserving anyway to use as your poster boy.
GibsonGirl
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Messages
- 13,270
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I've been here just as long as you have - longer in fact - and I've never seen U2Man post anything so offensive that he should be banned. Most of his 'offensive' comments are just pure joking around. I guess you guys just don't share his sense of humour.
Or perhaps you're slightly lacking in that department.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Lets face it, this has been the most entertaining occurence on this board in quite a while, which speaks to how vanilla this place can be.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Blue Room said:
The mods have the right to tell, nay, command us to change our avatars, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should exercise that right.
UberBeaver
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
GibsonGirl said:I guess you guys just don't share his sense of humour.
Oh no you d'int. snizap, DAYUM! 
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
GibsonGirl said:
I've been here just as long as you have - longer in fact - and I've never seen U2Man post anything so offensive that he should be banned. Most of his 'offensive' comments are just pure joking around. I guess you guys just don't share his sense of humour.
Trolls don't have to always be 'offensive' to be a troll. Trolls intentially post to stir up shit, and that's what he did all the time...
It has nothing to do with sense of humour.
randhail
Rock n' Roll Doggie
LemonMelon said:
Unless an avatar is patently offensive, then why should the mods have the command to force us to change our avatars. Micromanaging, ruling with an iron fist, taking your powers as a mod way too serious - whatever you want to call it is completely unnecessary.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Blue Room said:
But I think the point is that this avatar/sig rule is not listed in the FAQ...at least I didn't see it when I last looked, but I could be wrong. Now we all understand that over time rules need to be and can be changed. However before such a thing happens, I don't think it is such a bad idea to discuss it and the implications of enforcing such a rule.
It may not be a democracy as you say, but it certainly isn't 1984 either. Clearly, people haven't been banned because of their sigs. AND we're still obviously able to talk about it.
GibsonGirl
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Messages
- 13,270
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Certain people here - and I won't use any specific names - stir up shit nearly constantly. (Especially on the weekends when they're drunk, in a grouchy mood, and feel like ripping into every member of Interference who disagrees with them...) Why is U2Man singled out when these people aren't? I don't get that.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
randhail said:
Exactly....they "shouldn't". You can't argue with a mod, because ultimately, they're the ones with the finger on the button. But once they remove your ability to protest silently (as in the avatars) that's pushing your power a bit too far, IMO.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
this thread has not seen this kinda action in a long time!
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Exactly!
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
unico said:
And for a, um..."good" (or at least decent) reason, I suppose.
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
GibsonGirl said:
Well when they were warned by mods, did they change their behaviour? Because he never did.
I think there are those that shared his sense of "humor" that are sticking up for him, but they are forgetting how many times he was warned and never changed his behaviour, they forget how rude he was to so many, etc...
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Chizip said:
Two sides of the same coin.
GibsonGirl
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Messages
- 13,270
BonoVoxSupastar said:
No.
'They' haven't changed 'their' behaviour in the slightest. Just check out Bang & Clatter.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
GibsonGirl said:
No.
*makes my interference will*
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
GibsonGirl said:
No.
Well then we'll see how long they last.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
unico said:
People have been banned before or had alters banned for things that were not listed on the FAQ's. For things that most would not even consider offensive. I know this for a fact. Its a private message board. Like private property almost. You dont have to agree with it, but they have right to do whatever they please with it. No one is forced to be here.
Look, its not a big deal this avatar thing. I just think its kind of dumb and I think you are using the wrong person as some type of martyr or poster boy. Because he is anything but.
Lets face it, this is a big message board with alot of people about one of the biggest bands out there. None of us are that important to its success. Any of us leave its going to have no effect. There have been some great people here that left on their own accord and this place still is the best U2 message board out there. A person leaves, more will come. Its U2, its suppose to be fun.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
Blue Room said:
I've spoken only about the implications of the avatar/sig censoring.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
unico said:
I've spoken only about the implications of the avatar/sig censoring.
Sorry, only my first paragraph was responding to you specifically. The rest was just in general. I should have specified that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
