Social War Room Lounge V197: Look at me, I am the captain now.

Poll or pole?


  • Total voters
    27
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interestingly enough, this was on an offshoot forum, and Fawlty was among the posters that was a giant douchebag to me about it. I was fuckin pissed at him for years over that shit. I got over it eventually, because I post on Sherdog for fun and lols; holding actual, serious grudges is just a waste of time and energy. I felt like I should quit the forums, or get over it. I got over it. Never forgot, but put it behind me.
 
Last edited:
i am all for bikini in snow.

06lw7o8nqti41.jpg
You look comfortable in that. Cheers
 
I don't see how any competent, adult English speaker can defend the claim that there was an implied accusation of :eek::eek::eek::eek:philia there. The discussion was about his level of potential culpability in child sex trafficking/slavery based on the level of participation he acknowledged, without an implication that he was participating on a different level (e.g., actually hiring child prostitutes). The Trotsky ban was at least temporary and of someone who frequently has yellows, but it was similarly misguided. Meanwhile, there are any number of trolls who do nothing but make empty, thread-derailing posts who are allowed to continue with impunity. So the poor moderation hurts on both ends.
This , this whole thing is just off , something doesn't add up .
 
I really never looked into Fawlty's history. I was here when he was posting from his Ransom account as a Ron Paul supporter, and was banned, but I never caught what for.
It was perfectly obvious to me when I was modded though that his account was on thin ice due to some excessive history of e-drama. I also caught some of the same push back on moderation and attempts to advocate for posters he thought were unfairly done by, but after a few exchanges I just ignored that.
The :eek::eek::eek::eek: thing is really clear though. For whatever reason it's a topic that's overly common in the War Room, and even lead to posters contacting Crave about :eek::eek::eek::eek: accusations.
That has to stop.
Both direct and implied accusations will not be tolerated, as spelt out in the rules.
In Fawlty's case he continued the same discussion where Trotsky had been banned for the accusation, and made the same implication by asking how he avoids sleeping with minors when using hookers in a region that's known for it. There was no excuse for it, he tagged Oeshon into the thread to continue that same discussion. Whether it was pushing back on moderation by trying to say the same thing less directly, or just trying to get back at Oeshon for Trotsky being banned is really pretty irrelevant. It won't be tolerated and he had no chances left (he'd been previously warned and carded over the same rule, although not :eek::eek::eek::eek: accusations).
It's unfortunate that the same obsession seems to be part and parcel of American politics, however to the extent that there are public accusations or cases involving political figures (or MMA fighters for that matter), that discussion will be allowed here.
Calling other posters ":eek::eek::eek::eek: defenders" and ":eek::eek::eek::eek: enablers" also won't be allowed, although we rely on people reporting those posts. I know I'm certainly not reading through that sort of shit otherwise.


sorry to jump in here. i have called people :eek::eek::eek::eek: apologists before on this site. is it banable if that is indeed what they are doing? what about rape apologists? or statutory rape apology? we have had more than a few people arguing that it is not wrong to be having sex with underage girls or to rape in certain situations. i call them statutory rape apologist or rape apologists all the time. its what they are.
 
sorry to jump in here. i have called people :eek::eek::eek::eek: apologists before on this site. is it banable if that is indeed what they are doing? what about rape apologists? or statutory rape apology? we have had more than a few people arguing that it is not wrong to be having sex with underage girls or to rape in certain situations. i call them statutory rape apologist or rape apologists all the time. its what they are.

Just report the posts. Don't quote them or reply. We don't want people quibbling about the age of consent laws either.
It's not a topic that is welcome here.
 
I think you're blind here.
You can't ask someone what they do to avoid sleeping with minors in the context of that discussion without implying that's what's happening.


i saw that exact post and was reading the thread in context. it is in fact very likely that if you get prostitutes often you have had sex with someone underage. its highly likely. the same goes for people who watch porn. it is almost certain they have jacked off to an underage girl.

i dont see how you can ban that language without banning a very important truth that needs discussed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top