kenzu

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

zealot follows the consensus of the members... kenzu claims to be democratic but then suspends democracy at a whim to apease his personal feelings and sympathies...

Kenzu wrote:

I have never said that I would ban people because of their ideology. I only ban\suspend people who engage in personal attacks, promotion of violence against ethnic, religious and other groups and of course people who brake the code of conduct.

And calinis has engaged in all these. Even so you defended him.

Kenzu wrote:

YES, there is a code of conduct for every member who registers on this forum as part of forumotion forums. Why are you suddently unhappy with the rules you have accepted once you joined WR? Btw, there were no issues with insults, until very recently, when some members found out that they can use it as provocations to stirr up trouble and now are using them excessively, because they are bored.

I'm sure that for many the democraticity of the site was one of the most appealing features.

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

Really? Where? When? Who? This is slander.. The poster above Alek thinks slanderous activity makes users banworthy.

You better come up with a well founded accusation and with evidence for this, otherwise I'll really support that you get banned according to WR's rules. I remind you that slander is serious and you're incurring in it.

But just for the record I have banned only three people. Yes, that's right, THREE (3) people. You know who they're? In case you don't, I'll refresh your mind:

1. Watermelon. For which reason? Spamming, multi accounting and personal attacks. Trolling.
2. Calinis. For which reason? Engaged in Slander, very serious personal attacks and spam. Should I mention trolling?
3. Mattabesta. Engaged in in some spam, put a swastika as a signature in a context in which it was regarded by most as a clear provocation and in violation of WR's rules. I wanted to see 1) if people agreed with such a repressive rule, 2) wether people would defend mattabesta even though they don't like him. The results were seen. I shall point out that mattabesta is neither Hinduist or Nazi so your acussation is left completely groundless.

Now, I'm going to do a real and well founded accusation against you:
People that keep thinking the way you do when they grow up are the ones tat obstaculize the path towards democracy. You're the kind of person that would rather engage in slander to advance a political agenda (bsed itself on lies and ignorance) than to keep honest, informed, objective and in line with the people's demands. You're still very young and I hope that you change when you grow older, that you go away from such practices and ways of thinking, otherwise, you'll be among my enemies, be sure of that.

Zeronos wrote:

I fail to see the reason why curse words are against the rules here. I mean, yes, there should be a sensible limit on it, i.e., against EVERY OTHER WORD being a curse word or somesuch

The fuck? Why fucking do fucked up fucking shit like fucking banning fucking rights? Fuck you, fucking moron.

Stos wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

I fail to see the reason why curse words are against the rules here. I mean, yes, there should be a sensible limit on it, i.e., against EVERY OTHER WORD being a curse word or somesuch

The fuck? Why fucking do fucked up fucking shit like fucking banning fucking rights? Fuck you, fucking moron.

What the fuck?

Tyrlop wrote:

RedSoviet wrote:

im already thinking to leave

omg no. please stay. u bring color to this forum.

WOW, if even RedSoviet is thinks to leave then im out of this fuucking shit too, this forum sucks now

Stos wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

I fail to see the reason why curse words are against the rules here. I mean, yes, there should be a sensible limit on it, i.e., against EVERY OTHER WORD being a curse word or somesuch

The fuck? Why fucking do fucked up fucking shit like fucking banning fucking rights? Fuck you, fucking moron.

Perhaps I should have seen this coming...

Zeronos wrote:

Stos wrote:

Zeronos wrote:

I fail to see the reason why curse words are against the rules here. I mean, yes, there should be a sensible limit on it, i.e., against EVERY OTHER WORD being a curse word or somesuch

The fuck? Why fucking do fucked up fucking shit like fucking banning fucking rights? Fuck you, fucking moron.

Perhaps I should have seen this coming...

Really, you should have.

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

yes i agree

Stos wrote:

The fuck? Why fucking do fucked up fucking shit like fucking banning fucking rights? Fuck you, fucking moron.

We don't think it is funny.

Tyrlop wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

yes i agree

What? Ok, this is the proof that uninformed (and indifferent people) often fall for irrational arguements. It's a pity.

Quote :

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

liche, never thought you say somthing like this, you know its totaly bullshit

RedSoviet wrote:

Quote :

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

liche, never thought you say somthing like this, you know its totaly bullshit

lol you said you would do it if you were admin, Zealot does it but not as the main reason maybe it adds 20% more change to get banned.

RedSoviet wrote:

Quote :

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

liche, never thought you say somthing like this, you know its totaly bullshit

That's probably why he hasn't responded to Zealot's request for proof.

Quote :

Zealot does it but not as the main reason maybe it adds 20% more change to get banned.

Then why do you only assume this about Zealot? Kenzu has banned capitalists before, but he hasn't been accused of unfair banning practices. Of course i'm giving you the benefit of the assumption here, since what you said holds no weight if it isn't backed by some evidence.

Tyrlop wrote:

lol you said you would do it if you were admin, Zealot does it but not as the main reason maybe it adds 20% more change to get banned.

Something like my ban-to-ideology ratio is .2? I would like to know the mathematical procedures you used to get to said conclusion.

I don't take into account the ideology for banning or not a person, I take into acount the most important: the context.

Lets take into account Red Soviet. He curses like no one else on this forum and is terribly aggresive, he's been regarded as homophobic and often doesn't engage in deep discussions. Why do I abstain from banning him?

RedSoviet, unlike watermelon, mattabesta and calinis never engaged in activities that made him banworthy.

He never engaged in slander, spamming, trawling, serious personal attacks (calling someone "dumbfuck" or "stupid" are not serious enough offenses, most often they're groundless and when well founded are a problem for the addressed person not for the one who mentions them), intentional provocations nor serious violation of WR's rules (use of forbiden symbols).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

lol you said you would do it if you were admin, Zealot does it but not as the main reason maybe it adds 20% more change to get banned.

Something like my ban-to-ideology ratio is .2? I would like to know the mathematical procedures you used to get to said conclusion.

I don't take into account the ideology for banning or not a person, I take into acount the most important: the context.

Lets take into account Red Soviet. He curses like no one else on this forum and is terribly aggresive, he's been regarded as homophobic and often doesn't engage in deep discussions. Why do I abstain from banning him?

RedSoviet, unlike watermelon, mattabesta and calinis never engaged in activities that made him banworthy.

He never engaged in slander, spamming, trawling, serious personal attacks (calling someone "dumbfuck" or "stupid" are not serious enough offenses, most often they're groundless and when well founded are a problem for the addressed person not for the one who mentions them), intentional provocations nor serious violation of WR's rules (use of forbiden symbols).

ok

Kenzu wrote:

*EDIT* oops spam next time perm ban ok?

Wow, i was about to leave and i stumbled upon this little diddy. It was in one of your posts Tyrlop, and considering you just spammed, by the definition givin by Kenzu, he's obligated to perma ban your ass.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Kenzu plays this one. More inconsistencies perhaps? Or will he follow through, thus making himself look like the fash, perma-banning someone for spam. Where's the dramatic overture? This is good stuff.

Black_Cross wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

*EDIT* oops spam next time perm ban ok?

Wow, i was about to leave and i stumbled upon this little diddy. It was in one of your posts Tyrlop, and considering you just spammed, by the definition givin by Kenzu, he's obligated to perma ban your ass.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Kenzu plays this one. More inconsistencies perhaps? Or will he follow through, thus making himself look like the fash, perma-banning someone for spam. Where's the dramatic overture? This is good stuff.

ehm no actualy that was a joke of mine. LOL u fell for it. so funny omg. it was a joke ive made. because i knew it was spam and i didnt wanted to remove it so i just warned myself. so funny.

Black_Cross wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

*EDIT* oops spam next time perm ban ok?

Wow, i was about to leave and i stumbled upon this little diddy. It was in one of your posts Tyrlop, and considering you just spammed, by the definition givin by Kenzu, he's obligated to perma ban your ass.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Kenzu plays this one. More inconsistencies perhaps? Or will he follow through, thus making himself look like the fash, perma-banning someone for spam. Where's the dramatic overture? This is good stuff.

im callling no ban, but i say the all might warning is about to be throwndown
**** your shit kenzu. ban one of us you ban all of us.

beatnikzach wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

*EDIT* oops spam next time perm ban ok?

Wow, i was about to leave and i stumbled upon this little diddy. It was in one of your posts Tyrlop, and considering you just spammed, by the definition givin by Kenzu, he's obligated to perma ban your ass.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Kenzu plays this one. More inconsistencies perhaps? Or will he follow through, thus making himself look like the fash, perma-banning someone for spam. Where's the dramatic overture? This is good stuff.

im callling no ban, but i say the all might warning is about to be throwndown
**** your shit kenzu. ban one of us you ban all of us.

noooooo nooo recall it quick come on dont be so silly. ur figthing ur own blood and flesh. realize it, its exactly as ww1

if kenzu bans one of us he will rapidly loose all serious members of this site and be left at the mercy of the trolls

Alek4A wrote:

if kenzu bans one of us he will rapidly loose all serious members of this site and be left at the mercy of the trolls

Shall this post not pass unnoticed by Kenzu.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Alek4A wrote:

if kenzu bans one of us he will rapidly loose all serious members of this site and be left at the mercy of the trolls

Shall this post not pass unnoticed by Kenzu.

and may he not soon forget it

you see how powerful the folk can be

viva la revolution!

Unfortunately, based on the very first post, it constitutes a ban already based on the language.