The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

[Gameface]

Oh joy!

With such injustices it's a wonder that such reasonable people as yourself, Hopper, can even stand to participate in this farce of a fan message board.

It really does get kind of old. It's kind of like my brother-in-law telling me over and over why he can't wipe his feet before walking all over my carpet. I tell him it's my carpet and if he doesn't like it he can refrain from coming into my house at all. He responds by telling me that it's a carpet and the reason it's there is to be walked on, so why in the world would I be so unreasonable as to forbid him from doing so.

Good times.

 

[sirkickyass]

I sent Jason an email around that time, wherein I offered to voluntarily quit the board. Jason never responded to it. You want to call this email an "appeal?" What issues were raised in this "appeal?" This issue of vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensible warnings? Was that issue raised, for example? NO, it wasn't, nor was any issue at all appealed. So retract your false statement, please.

Jason posted, in the moderators forum, on that date, in a thread regarding the exact infraction you're talking about, a post that began with the sentence: "He has asked for an appeal."

I feel no need to retract my "false" statement. Clearly your dispute is with Jason regarding the character of your e-mail to him. I have not seen the e-mail personally and was telling you the information I had been given by the recipient of that e-mail. I have no basis upon which to opine on the exact contents of the message, but I will say that experience has taught me that arguing with you on this issue is pointless.

I fully expect multiple parables about injustice to populate this board in the coming weeks.

 

[Hopper]

Jason posted, in the moderators forum, on that date, in a thread regarding the exact infraction you're talking about, a post that began with the sentence: "He has asked for an appeal."

I feel no need to retract my "false" statement.

What "exact infraction" would that be? Please retract your false statement.

 

[sirkickyass]

What "exact infraction" would that be?

The one issued to you for trolling on 7/14/2010. Your notice argument related to the prior warning issued to you on 7/8/2010.

Please retract your false statement.

There is no need. Obviously you believe there is an issue of fact as to whether or not it was an appeal, but the owner of the board stated it was one to the moderating staff. My statement accurately reflected the information available to me.

 

[Hopper]

The one issued to you for trolling on 7/14/2010. Your notice argument related to the prior warning issued to you on 7/8/2010.



There is no need.

Two things:

1. Since the infraction is not the warning, and since you explicitly acknowledge this difference, then, even assuming the infraction was somehow "appealed" without my knowledge, notification, or participation, then you would still know your statement was false. Please retract it.

2. Who (obviously not me) participated in, and decided this so-called appeal? Were you notified of a decision? I certainly wasn't. Like I said, I didn't even know an "appeal" was being "heard" (I put "heard" in scarequotes because there is nothing to hear if the appealing party can say nothing, now, is there?).

 

[sirkickyass]

1. Since the infraction is not the warning, and since you explicitly acknowledge this difference, then, even assuming the infraction was somehow "appealed" without my knowledge, notification, or participation, then you would still know your statement was false. Please retract it.

The "notice" argument related to an infraction issued on 7/14/2010. The argument, to the best of my recollection, was that you had not actually been warned that your behavior was infraction worthy because you did not feel that the phrasing of the 7/8/2010 warning was sufficiently exact. The implication of the argument, to my mind, was that the infraction should be repealed because your warning was not sufficient to warn you away from such behavior in the future. As such, the statement Jason made regarding your appeal was made in the thread relating to the infraction. I find it difficult to believe that you were arguing that we should repeal the previous warning and not the infraction, as that would be of no practical benefit to you. If that was truly your argument then the issue is one of interpretation rather than making "false statements."

There is no "knowing false statement" here aint. I'm not certain why you're fixating.

2. Who (obviously not me) participated in, and decided this so-called appeal?

Jason.

 

[Hopper]

Jason.

Did you present that "case" to him? The case that the warning was clear? If not, did anyone? Or did he just undertake a completely independent review, with no input from any parties at all?

Were you notified of Jason's decision? If so, how?

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm not handing over to you a section of a thread in the moderator forum aint. That's the only real way to answer your question.

You're not entitled to that.

To quote an anonymous neg repper, "your inquiries have grown tiresome."

Either a) you appealed and you lost or b) you never bothered to ask for an appeal. No matter which version of events you believe the discussion is moot.

 

[Hopper]

I'm not handing over to you a section of a thread in the moderator forum aint. That's the only real way to answer your question. You're not entitled to that.

Just exactly what I've come to expect from you, Kicky. Claims based on supposed reliance upon "secret" information that no on else is "entitled to." Since they don't have the secret, inaccessible information, you tell them, like One Brow, that he can't argue with you. The implication is that if only he knew what you knew, he would agree with you. But he can't know what you know, because you refuse to reveal it.

Either a) you appealed and you lost or b) you never bothered to ask for an appeal. No matter which version of events you believe the discussion is moot.

Call it moot, all you want. I didn't claim it was (or was not) moot. I claimed that the so-called warning was vague, ambiguous, and incomprehensible. It is, and was. That's the truth of the matter.

Had I known that this "issue" was supposedly being "litigated" (your word) on "appeal," I would have pointed out why, but of course I wasn't given that opportunity.

As you know, among other problems, the so-called "notice of warning"

1. Contained a reference to page numbers which did not exist,
2. Did not contain a link to the allegedly objectionable post(s), your postive assurance to the contrary notwithstanding,
3. Quoted all kinds of rules about "bizzare posting formats," deliberate disruption of the useablility of the board (trolling) and other things, but nothing was said about how my post(s) could possibly violate those rules, and
4. My two subsequent requests for clarification went totally unresponded to.

I wonder if you told Jason all of that on "my" appeal, eh? I know I didn't. I wasn't even there.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Oh joy!

With such injustices it's a wonder that such reasonable people as yourself, Hopper, can even stand to participate in this farce of a fan message board.

It really does get kind of old. It's kind of like my brother-in-law telling me over and over why he can't wipe his feet before walking all over my carpet. I tell him it's my carpet and if he doesn't like it he can refrain from coming into my house at all. He responds by telling me that it's a carpet and the reason it's there is to be walked on, so why in the world would I be so unreasonable as to forbid him from doing so.

Good times.

So does he take his shoes off or not?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I'm not handing over to you a section of a thread in the moderator forum aint. That's the only real way to answer your question.

You're not entitled to that.

To quote an anonymous neg repper, "your inquiries have grown tiresome."

Either a) you appealed and you lost or b) you never bothered to ask for an appeal. No matter which version of events you believe the discussion is moot.

I'm curious why you feel compelled to reply to his antics. Ignorance is bliss. If he doesn't like it, he can, like you said, go start his own forum or find another that suits his "needs."

 

[C l u t c H 385]

Hopper is one of the few people that make the board worth reading...how can ya say he disrupts the "usability." Must be some real dimwits round.