War Room Lounge V195: Cleaning your room while high on pills with your pet lobster

Status
Not open for further replies.
The funniest part of all of this is how his dirty laundry is now available for all to see. This little weasel accused others of being stalkers, meanwhile he was harassing people off the forum. And he's on paper for two doxxings on moderators. A classic case of a guy accusing people of the very things he was doing but even worse.
 
breaking off some of that trump pack for @Fawlty

no ashtray grave for u buddeh just roached, depleted remains scattered into the wind

<{smellit?}>

lol he's not even touching the ash tray, eh? It's the pavement for him, then blowing away into a pile of dog shit.
 
Re: Fawlty's Ban:

For those in the War Room, this poster has a prior history on the site, that has spanned over many years and multiple accounts, that extend beyond this sub-forum. Before Fawlty, there were at least four accounts on record he used and were banned for (i) doxxing a moderator (twice), (ii) creating alts, and (iii) harassing staff off-site. When he was given a chance to come back as Fawlty on his request, it was with the idea he was on thin ice and needed to conduct himself in the best behavior.

For a while, he kept his head down but then frequently started running into trouble with the severe accusation clause of the flaming guidelines (Examples: claiming/ suggesting a poster beats their family, likes underage women or molests the elderly on a few separate occasions). The last straw was a comment containing "Do you ask for some form of identification to verify their ages before you pay money to fuck them?".

We've been persistent and clear with the War Room and especially lounge regulars that severe accusations like this need to stop, whether explicit or implied. All of this is within the context of a different poster recently being temp banned for a similar issue so this isn't a case of Fawlty forgetting the policy. I understand you may disagree with that policy but we've at least made it clear enough to avoid having cards or bans applied to your own accounts. Please keep in mind that those with prior bans on record will be given less leeway. Do not try to skirt around the rule unless you want to risk a similar action at this point.

That's not an accusation. The dirty laundry stuff is you covering your ass. Bullshit decision and a chickenshit follow up.

You hate to see it.
 
Re: Fawlty's Ban:

For those in the War Room, this poster has a prior history on the site, that has spanned over many years and multiple accounts, that extend beyond this sub-forum. Before Fawlty, there were at least four accounts on record he used and were banned for (i) doxxing a moderator (twice), (ii) creating alts, and (iii) harassing staff off-site. When he was given a chance to come back as Fawlty on his request, it was with the idea he was on thin ice and needed to conduct himself in the best behavior.

For a while, he kept his head down but then frequently started running into trouble with the severe accusation clause of the flaming guidelines (Examples: claiming/ suggesting a poster beats their family, likes underage women or molests the elderly on a few separate occasions). The last straw was a comment containing "Do you ask for some form of identification to verify their ages before you pay money to fuck them?".

We've been persistent and clear with the War Room and especially lounge regulars that severe accusations like this need to stop, whether explicit or implied. All of this is within the context of a different poster recently being temp banned for a similar issue so this isn't a case of Fawlty forgetting the policy. I understand you may disagree with that policy but we've at least made it clear enough to avoid having cards or bans applied to your own accounts. Please keep in mind that those with prior bans on record will be given less leeway. Do not try to skirt around the rule unless you want to risk a similar action at this point.



I do understand the history and therefore @ElijahWood did have a point that maybe it does not matter what ultimately did it because Fawlty was on borrowed time.

I disagree with how the situation at hand was handled (plain wrong IMO, your quote does not change that there was no rule breach here if you take the context of the post. Calling an election unfair does not make it so, and calling that exchange an implied :eek::eek::eek::eek: accusation does not make it so, either.)

I do not disagree with the rule. But I disagree with your interpretation of it, putting it mildly. Oeshon has admitted to paying whores in a country where it is known that a high percentage of sex workers are underage. Fawlty challenged him on whether he was actively taking measures to ensure he did not accidentally contribute to this disgusting section of the industry there. Reading an implied :eek::eek::eek::eek: accusation into this is a highly curious interpretation.

In other words

That's not an accusation. The dirty laundry stuff is you covering your ass. Bullshit decision and a chickenshit follow up.

You hate to see it.
 
Last edited:
@dezzy you do gods work around here.

If there were any justice you’d be recognized as the Sketch that Sketch wishes he was.
AnyDeliciousAruanas-size_restricted.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top