World of KJ
https://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Argos
https://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36693		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Argos
Why has he been banned?
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
loyalfromlondon wrote:
Quote:
2. Obscenity: Explicit nudity will not be allowed on the forum.


His pictures didn't even display a nude person, but only an uncovered bodypart, which isn't any different from displaying an uncovered finger, hand or face. Please cover your face and hands, loyalfromlondon, your flamboyant exposure of both upsets me to no end. This makes reason #2 obsolete as well, since Argos is the embodiment of Il Conformista.
Author:  bABA [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
now now .. no reason to lock it.

however, scream and say what you want in here. i'm not actually listening. hes banned. end of discussion. he will be allowed back in a week ... sadly.
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Even tough you aren't listening, could you please tell me what exactly is wrong with posting a picture of a Schniedelwutz? And why will Argos be allowed to come back after 1 week? Who set that exact timeframe?
Author:  Eagle [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Guybrush,

We deemed his picture as an intentional violation of our rules. We try to keep this a work safe environment, and we felt that Argos's picture was counter-productive to our rules.

It is our discretion in this situation as to the route we take. There have been similar situations with other posters, and in some cases, a similar act has only warranted a warning. In Argos's case, the Mods and Admins were tired of Argos's general behavior, and when coupled with his past warnings, decided that a week long ban was the best course of action.

To answer your question about the length of the ban, I decided. In most situations, when we deem a temporary ban is required, if this is the persons first ban, we try to keep it on the short side. If Argos breaks the rules again, we may deem that a longer ban is needed. That is fully at the discretion of the Mods and Admins.

I hope this helps,

KJ
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Eagle wrote:
I hope this helps


It probably would, if you had answered my first question properly and not in this standardized and generic automatic response kind of way, which doesn't even slightly touch the actual matter of the subject, KJ.
Author:  Chippy [ Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
:er:
Author:  paper [ Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Quote:
We deemed his picture as an intentional violation of our rules. We try to keep this a work safe environment, and we felt that Argos's picture was counter-productive to our rules.

It is our discretion in this situation as to the route we take.


How does that not answer the question???
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
french man wrote:
Quote:
We deemed his picture as an intentional violation of our rules. We try to keep this a work safe environment, and we felt that Argos's picture was counter-productive to our rules.

It is our discretion in this situation as to the route we take.


How does that not answer the question???


Because I asked what's wrong with posting a Schniedelwutz, not whether it's against their rules or not. What I wanted was an explanation of the nature of that rule and a reason for why that exact rule exists, because personally, I think it's utter bullshit. It's about as sensical as saying "we banned him for intentionally violating our rule of not using the letter "Q", which destroys our work safe environment <- :lol: ".
Author:  Chippy [ Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Umm... You said...

Quote:
if you had answered my first question properly


And your FIRST question was...

Quote:
Why has he been banned?


So... Eagle answered your question...

So drop it.
Author:  jujubee [ Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
GuybrushX McMurphy wrote:
french man wrote:
Quote:
We deemed his picture as an intentional violation of our rules. We try to keep this a work safe environment, and we felt that Argos's picture was counter-productive to our rules.

It is our discretion in this situation as to the route we take.


How does that not answer the question???


Because I asked what's wrong with posting a Schniedelwutz, not whether it's against their rules or not. What I wanted was an explanation of the nature of that rule and a reason for why that exact rule exists, because personally, I think it's utter bullshit. It's about as sensical as saying "we banned him for intentionally violating our rule of not using the letter "Q", which destroys our work safe environment <- :lol: ".

Sorry, but I visit this site at work, and a pic of a penis would get me fired.
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Munkatouille wrote:
Umm... You said...

Quote:
if you had answered my first question properly


And your FIRST question was...

Quote:
Why has he been banned?


So... Eagle answered your question...

So drop it.


I was - obviously - exclusively talking about my 2nd posting and the first question in it, which is "could you please tell me what exactly is wrong with posting a picture of a Schniedelwutz?", seeing as the first posting had already been covered (in an inappropriate way though).
Since Eagle covered questions in my second, my - at that point - current posting, e.g. the ban length subject matter, as well as attempting to answer the aforementioned question - which he failed to do - it was and still is highly obvious, for those that are at least slightly able to think, that this is the posting we're referring to. And either way, the Schniedelwutz-question/problem remains unresolved. Could you solve it instead of Eagle, Chipmunky?


Quote:
Sorry, but I visit this site at work, and a pic of a penis would get me fired.


What kind of work would that be? Mussolini's catamite? You should quit that job.
Author:  jujubee [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
I work somewhere where they do not allow porn. Shocking, I know.
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
It wasn't porn, it was anatomy. It wasn't even erected, let alone put to sexual/pornographic use.
Author:  jujubee [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
But my boss walking by and seeing a penis on my monitor is really going to think that.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Author:  GuybrushX McMurphy [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
That would be your boss being obtuse. Not purposefully though, I'm afraid. This also leads back to what I assumed first (regarding this sub-conversation, Chipmunky, not in my very first post in this thread or my first post at KJ).
But to answer your question: This is me purposefully and, of course, justfiably scrutinizing, instead of acting in the subservient way that you seem to prefer so dearly.
Author:  Gulli [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
:sleeping:

Guess that public apology to the FIA has really depressed Brushy. Don't worry brushy I know you didn't mean to be a cheating piece of shit at heart. :thumbsup:
Author:  Gulli [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Following on, since Brushy has been involved in such espionage should he explain past innovations????

Explain that 3rd braking system Brushy, im curious :thumbsup:
Author:  Eagle [ Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Since this thread has become a mockery, it is now closed.
Author:  Nebs [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Argos
Unbanned.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/