I have been permanently BANNED from the UT

I was justin askin' if it was or not, I had no idea how Daron meant it

I doubt he would've been banned had he stopped at posting them in a few posts (and subsequently having them removed)

But every time they removed his link he found new ways to post it.

He kinda gave them no choice. :icon_shrug:

Gotcha

Calling BS on this one. It wasn't until EC and others cried foul over his banning that the UT was forced to enforce, equally, the no advertising, no poaching rule.

Why did they only crack down on him?

And had EC and others cried foul from the onset the rule probably could have been forced to be enforced equally without EC bening banned.

I have no answer as to why they initially chose to single him out, I'm not a mod there nor am I in discussion with any of them.

I can only point out what should be obvious....he got himself banned because he kept purposely going around the rules while they were in the process of telling him not to violate them.

YOU!!!!!! :icon_evil:



:icon_rofl:

To some extent, I agree with you... On the other hand, it could have been handled so much better on the SDUT end.

Aren't moderators put in place for their abilities to work with people???

Exactly my point.

If you **** up here enough you get yourself banned.

EC ****ed up multiple times at the UT by continuously reposting the link...and got himself banned.

I'd rather not insult EC's intelligence, I think he's a smart man.

If I post a signature and subsequently have it removed I think I can figure out why it was removed without someone having to spell it out for me.

That being said, instead of blatantly posting it manually at the end of my posts I would have sent a PM to forum mods asking

1) Why was my sig removed?

and

2) If it's because they don't allow it, why do such and such have sigs advertising other forums?

That's my main point, EC may or may not have been singled out, I don't know, but he went about responding to it completely wrong.

Nobody gave that reason, I figured it out all on my lonesome using common sense after reading his own account to the situation.

Think about it.

If you own a forum....if you own any sort of organization...and you have rules you expect people to abide by, would you put up with someone who blatantly disobeys those rules for too long?

In my opinion they killed EC because it was a link to LeisureWorld and most posters over there know that LeisureWorld started over here :yes:

Pure Jealously :yes:

Funny how the thread about posting no links went up after EC was banned the day before...he was not "circumventing rules" ...He made no "nasty posts," as was alleged here, was not arguing like many there were, was not pre-warned, was singled out as there are still sigs with links to websites there (as there were the very day he was banned in the same area and those people were not banned) and the mod who posted that a warning was generally issued backtracked and admitted it was months ago.

Paint it however you want. I think it was a spite banning myself and very wrong and done on several levels, but that's jmo. I think alot of backtracking is going on now to justify it. And yes, he was a mod, and deserves the consideration of at least explaining his side. I think EC deserves better than this.

I like the UT and respect most of the mods. I think this is very wrong, someone went too far with "lifetime" for personal reasons, and it should be rectified. I think there are serious underlying issues...and have for a while.

On this matter....
...my last post.

That is a bit misguided and is up for debate despite any dictionary references.

Increased censorship does not always equal higher standards ...

Zieg heil ? Comprende ?

Like sands through the hours glass...

So are the bannes of our forums....

Wait. So finding new ways to post an advertising link everytime a mod removes your previous ability to do so is not circumventing rules? :icon_huh:

Just because they are arguably being picky about who they're enforcing the rules upon that's still circumventing the rules, at least according to dictionary.com it is.

You thinks incorrectly. No one asked me to come over here. I found it curious that there was a thread on the matter, and I finally signed up here for that reason. No one sent me.

If you don't want to believe that, that's your problem.


edit: I work in the radio business. SoSD is about 1% of what I do....mmmkay?

FO posted that was the reason EC was banned. Because of the links

No, I'm simply making him out like a guy who was blatantly disobeying forum rules. :icon_shrug:

I don't see why this concept is so hard for people to grasp.

I'm not even defending the UT here.

I've said multiple times that there may be a case of singling him out and that I don't know if there is or not, I'm simply trying to point out that it's obvious why they banned him.....even if the incident originated from singling out his link to LLV while others had links.

And the number of words I type in a post is irrelevant to the discussion.

And anything beyond that is between him and the Lizard. They know each other...if there's any more to it, then the Lizard will sort it out with EC.

BOTTOM LINE

We can all argue symantics but this was no "business decision"

What happened to EC was personal, plain and simple and why we (including me) are arguing over it.... is absolutely absurd.

EC and the lizard need to do lunch.

He is. Brother jihaded the UT and BT in one fell swoop. :yes::flag:

Impressive and all because of you - the "ROOT" of all that is EVIL. :icon_rofl: