Be the change you want to be. Post interesting content and take advantage of a population of posters who’ll engage you. Or pretend to care about being a member of the community all the while bitching and moaning about the board and mods. For example you left your own thread without answering questions posited to you here:
I apologize for not responding to your query in the first thread; I was getting tired of posting. Only because Atlantic lover was prohibited from posting today is why I posted. Before I proceed, though, I'm attempting to figure out why she was removed from the board. Why wasn't I banned from the board, but she was? Could it be because she is a Mormon? Or perhaps it's because she started a thread in which she disparaged the Vice President. What has changed in the last 24 hours since two moderators have been regularly in contact? This is quite puzzling.
And like damned clockwork totally-not-A-Mike is back to trolling. Too tired to post on topic, but enough energy to keep bitching about board memebers and the mods.
She has apparently been banned for allegedly being a sock puppet, according to what I see on Atlantic lover's phone. Who can tell me how to tell a poster is a sock puppet? How is Atlantic lover different from me in this regard?
To Dr shades will you elaborate on the reasons why Atlantic lover was banned?
Well shoot, it turns out Rotten Toms had gotten some faulty information - as the Mike, Mike and Mike show was indeed renewed for season two.
Season 2, episode 1: A wordprint study by Cassius U. showed there to be dozens of Mikes on the Mormon board dating back to 'Tobin', and at least two that were found in real life. - Jerry Lewis and Yosemite Sam's dragon
Season 2, episode 2: Mike b's Mormon missionary girlfriend drama turned out to be a simple cat-fishing - by Mike c's persona. He'd lost track and cat-fished himself
Season 2, episode 3: Mike submits for copyright protection on the phrase 'Hey everyone, look at me.'
Season 2, episode 4: High Spy turns states evidence and leaves a series of cryptic clues in a thread such as - Mike is also Mike, but nobody reads them and so Mike skates again.
Why do we not have a clear simple public answer from those who have the power to ban. I see zero reason such an action if it happens is to be secret. The on and on and on and on discussion is ridiculous trivial and just plain unpleasant.
Why do we not have a clear simple public answer from those who have the power to ban.
Let me answer your question with a question:
We have a rule against registering sock-puppet accounts. Someone registers an account and immediately complains about the moderation and the moderators, especially regarding a previously-moderated account.
Why do we not have a clear simple public answer from those who have the power to ban. I see zero reason such an action if it happens is to be secret. The on and on and on and on discussion is ridiculous trivial and just plain unpleasant.
We normally do not post about actions we take that aren’t visible on the board. For the record, when posting privileges are suspended, whether temporarily or permanently, the account owner is informed of the reason.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
