Has rem broken any bylaws?

Nameless

Has he actually broken bylaws? I mean, the whole banning is based on the fact that some do not like his views or his origins. Some may consider this trolling, while others do not.


Does this constitute a legit banning?


If it does, then this is a sad day.


MM

Snake Bitten

I doubt the anti-American actually gets banned...But at least everyone will be reminded what a fucking weasel he really is...

His only reason for coming onto the Alley is so he could get a shot at winning the laptop...Complete and total hypocrite...You all may choose to associate with the Frenchie...I do not...

Nameless

And that is your choice.


But my question was, is this banning poll legitimate? It should not be used as a publicity stunt or to prove a point.


MM

Nameless

5.) Bannings for "Trolling", i.e., "We hate your annoying presence", are accomplished by a 2/3 majority of those "citizens" that choose to vote. Votes are carried out by polls posted by any CITIZEN and will be run for 50 votes or 72 hours. Whichever comes first.

kungfool

I was banned at the morgue (for life) for saying things that a cliqe of narrow minded people didn't like.

I don't agree with the things Rem has said about our country... but I do believe in freedom of speech.

The Alley was set up for those with differing views from the windbreakers.

On that basis alone I don't feel Remster has broken any laws here.

Nameless

edit: nevermind you fixed it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MM

Captain Bli

No and NO!

Snake Bitten

So if Richard Reed, the shoebomber, wants to join our little forum, hang out, call everyone fat American assholes, you all would be hip?

packetjunkie

Richard Reed isn't posting here and isn't likely to post here; so why even debate the issue?

Would you ban Clinton if he wanted to post here? Somehow, I bet you would.

We should rename the site to ViperClique.Com

Snake Bitten

Clinton would not burn the flag on the graves of 53,000 Americans...Remster shits on America every chance he gets, all the while, he has been working the system for the last 14 years...Even so, he is afforded the courtesy of a vote...

packetjunkie

This sounds like an abuse of the system. Whats the fucking point of bringing a Banning Poll if you dont even think it will pass?

You're just wasting our fucking time.

packetjunkie

I believe a disproportionate number of requests for Banning Polls come from Gerald.

Therefore, I make a motion to ban Gerald from being able to call Banning Polls for abusing the privledge and making a mockery of the system.

remster

I'm cooking a nice pot of Crow for you to eat itty bitty. You have the wrong instincts of intolerance.

You're going to be my beotch for a while, until another loud mouth comes along. You are about to enter your diversity training! Bow to your master now!

And for those who think I'm a communist, I was happy to bail out of France because it was too socialist. Get your facts straight, or to reuse a line I slapped on IttyBitty, if you can't get your facts straight, you might be GAY.

remster

Seconded the Packet motion. With my 117 posts. Don't cry wolf until there's 15 of them and your left leg is missing.

Smokin

I think this is something that needs clarity in our "bylaws". Does someone really need to "break the rules" to be up for a banning poll? I think the rules dictate what will constitute grounds for banning. But the site guidelines are not "all inclusive". I think Gerald did make the effort to put up a LEGITIMATE motion for a banning with the reasons why stated clearly. It was also clearly seconded. Whether or not any rules were broken is debatable...Gerald can argue that he was trolling. So its put to a vote by the membership.
Its a delicate balance here. If we legislate more "laws" saying these are the ONLY reasons to ban someone, then we limit the power of the membership...more government. Thats just as bad as randomly banning people. On the other hand, if we just make it too easy to ban someone it the system can be abused or even used against us. I think the safeguard here is that we have some good moderators with a good head on their shoulders that will put a "little bit" of checks and balances in the system if it clearly becomes "abuse".

Snake Bitten

Oh...make no mistake...YOU are my little project from now on! I cannot stand parasites who mooch off my country, all the while thinking they are better than us...So until you get the fuck out, or actually become an American, you will be MY BITCH...aka...AMERICA's BITCH...

Tell us again how smart you are...I especially like the part about how about what a complete and utter failure you are!

Nameless

Why is it that every major change on the alley comes from me doing something? [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]


The bylaws do need some "tweaking".



MM

packetjunkie

Calling a Banning Poll simply to make a point, one that you know will not "pass", is abuse - plain and simple.

If I made a motion to ban SmokinV10 today for being a "troll" and got remster to second it - would you support posting the poll? Maybe you would simply because I made an example of it; but the truth is, you wouldn't. If for no other reason than we all know one wouldn't pass.

If I see someone light up and yell "FIRE!" in a public area - do you think people would be sympathetic to my claim that the flame could cause a fire?

mattl

why must we argue on the internet?