Should Mod's have to explain bans

Originally posted by Starhawk
No we talked when you got him banned the first time as you well know and again when he was banned permanently.

You smell that?

Smells like bullshit, but what do I know?

I agree 😬

Originally posted by BackFire

Is "Harrassing other members" or "Trolling" not enough?

It's never enough for some 😖hifty:

Originally posted by Schecter
^^^^
this is what i mean. its a joke that he still has this account. worrying about who's flaming who while this clown spams the forum is like spit-shining a car with 4 flat tires and a cracked engine block.

dur

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, of course you don't have to do it. It is more that some members might appreciate more information, in case of socks maybe their most famous incarnation.....I doubt it is that hard really, you could probably just copy-paste "Sock of Whirly" in 50% of the cases.

But Why? 😕

Originally posted by Schecter
great. so whats next, you wanna call for a vote of no confidence?

hmmmm

Originally posted by Schecter
how come nobody took my suggestion into consideration? 🙁

😉

Originally posted by Syren
I agree

derp.

whirly, i'd like to dress you up as a clown and throw bricks at you

its really a silly and counterproductive policy to have to wait for a
sock to literally confess to being a sock for you to ban it.

Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
Name: 😖hifty: Wh..., Evi..., Sir_W...., By_Cr...., Fla....,

Originally posted by Schecter
its really a silly and counterproductive policy to have to wait for a
sock to literally confess to being a sock for you to ban it.

So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

banned

Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

Originally posted by Starhawk
So basically you want to be able to accuse anyone you want without proof and have them banned? Then everyone would start accusing people simply because they don't like them.

No, stupid. If you read what Schecter wrote properly you might just come across a link taking you to the original post that he quoted, where, lo and behold, Whirly (a renowned socker) basically admitted who he was.

Stupid.

What?

Yes, they should explain. Wait, they do explain.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, they should explain. Wait, they do explain.

Four years late to the party, jackass.