Wtf

Originally posted by Xavius
Okay, I'm game again.

Who said there was more proof than that? Hell, who said that wasn't the only proof?

You just stated the obvious.

You're saying that it's okay to ban someone if the mod is sure that they're a sock but has no proof. Without one - or both - of those things, there is no proof and thus that person cannot be banned. Even if they are acting exactly like a banned member, they cannot be banned unless there is proof - in the form of a confession or positive sock check - that they are indeed a sock.

Originally posted by Xavius
Make what true? Holy jesus . . .

Originally posted by Lana
You're saying that it's okay to ban someone if the mod is sure that they're a sock but has no proof. Without one - or both - of those things, there is no proof and thus that person cannot be banned. Even if they are acting exactly like a banned member, they cannot be banned because there is no proof that they are indeed a sock.

I said it was okay to ban someone if the mod is sure that they're a sock but they have no proof?

Where did I say that? Show me the post that I said it was okay to ban someone if they thought they were a sock but didn't sock check.

And yes, you've managed to state the obvious again.

Originally posted by $noopbert
The nonsensical bullshit you constantly post. Duh.

It's funny watching people when they have no idea what they're talking about.

*Stares at Snoopbert.*

Originally posted by Xavius
It's funny watching people when they have no idea what they're talking about.

*Stares at Snoopbert.*

Originally posted by $noopbert
Oh the irony.

And . . .

Originally posted by Xavius
It's funny watching people when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Originally posted by Xavius
And . . .

Originally posted by Xavius
I said it was okay to ban someone if the mod is sure that they're a sock but they have no proof?

Where did I say that? Show me the post that I said it was okay to ban someone if they thought they were a sock but didn't sock check.

And yes, you've managed to state the obvious again.

From the post I made and repeated a hundred times, I was making it clear that usually Moderators ban someone without sock checking when they are almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

Which is not true at all. Sock check or confession is the only proof that can be allowed. Being 'sure' is not acceptable.

As I said -- I am a moderator and I do know what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Lana
Which is not true at all. Sock check or confession is the only proof that can be allowed. Being 'sure' is not acceptable.

As I said -- I am a moderator and I do know what I'm talking about.

I did not say it was okay to ban someone if they didn't sock check and thought they were sure.

I didn't say that at all, actually. The words "Okay" were never there.

Hell, I didn't say it was right to do that, either. I said that's usually what happens. You've misinterpreted.

I said usually Mods ban a member they're sure it's a sock. Through confessions, suspicion . . . Whatever.

I've seen it happen before. I'm an Admin/Mod too, y'know. 😛

Originally posted by $noopbert
It's ironic because you keep spewing bullshit about things you have no clue about. It's actually rather humorous.

I find it humorous when people can't think for themselves and have no sense for OR of debate.

*Not referring to anything.*

Originally posted by Xavius
I did not say it was okay to ban someone if they didn't sock check and thought they were sure.

I didn't say that at all, actually. The words "Okay" were never there.

Hell, I didn't say it was right to do that, either. I said that's usually what happens. You've misinterpreted.

I said usually Mods ban a member they're sure it's a sock. Through confessions, suspicion . . . Whatever.

I've seen it happen before. I'm an Admin/Mod too, y'know. 😛

However, suspicion does not cut it. As I have said.

The entire site can suspect you're a sock but without proof nothing can be done.

Originally posted by Xavius
I find it humorous when people can't think for themselves and have no sense for OR of debate.

*Not referring to anything.*

I would say he knows what he's talking about much more than you do.

Originally posted by Dusty

Originally posted by Lana
However, suspicion does not cut it. As I have said.

The entire site can suspect you're a sock but without proof nothing can be done.

I would say he knows what he's talking about much more than you do.

You did not answer my question:

Where does it say that I said it was okay for Mods to ban someone if they have not sock-checked and just THINK that the member is a sock?

I'd love to see the post where I said that.

Oh, of course. But I've seen it before where bans have happened without sock checks. Alot of Moderators sometimes do that without checking. It's bullshit, though, because they could be making a mistake.

Originally posted by Xavius
I find it humorous when people can't think for themselves and have no sense for OR of debate.

*Not referring to anything.*

Originally posted by $noopbert
I do think for myself, I butt heads with Lana all the time. Well, occasionally. I'd rather not think for myself and have a smart person thinking for me then think on my own and be a dumbass.

Or . . . You could have others think for you because you *ARE* a dumbass. That sounds more logically correct to me! 😱

Still not referring to anything . . . .

😆

LOL this is good, somone argueing with a mod about what mods are and arent allowed to do 😆

Originally posted by A.J
LOL this is good, somone argueing with a mod about what mods are and arent allowed to do 😆

You know what? I think you need to rendered into restriction again.

Lana was just being argumentive. I didn't say anything to argue against a Mod. I said sometimes Mods ban people without sock checking.

"Sometimes, Mods ban people without sock checking because they think it's obviously a sock."

^ If you don't think that's ever happened, you're an idiot.

If you DO think it's happened, you're still an idiot.

Originally posted by $noopbert
No dipshit, I had been permenantly banned for a year before. I was blamed for socking by a global who didnt make a sock check rather openly, and it almost got me banned on another forum, an example of a moderator taking action before thinking it through. Clear enough for you?

Originally posted by Xavius
You know what? I think you need to rendered into restriction again.

Lana was just being argumentive. I didn't say anything to argue against a Mod. I said sometimes Mods ban people without sock checking.

"Sometimes, Mods ban people without sock checking because they think it's obviously a sock."

^ If you don't think that's ever happened, you're an idiot.

If you DO think it's happened, you're still an idiot.

And I was saying that on here, that DOESN'T happen.

Maybe other sites, but not here.

Okay?