SoN!c wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:Yeah, your right. It's probably George Soros and the deep state trying to suppress his opinions. I heard Big Wham is a top Kamala donor, maybe the house can start an ethics investigation into this.
I don't lead anything on CC (except the olympic leaderboard) so maybe you need to reach out to someone who does for more concrete answers.
No its pretty simple - Vot and Duk are not best friends... so one not best friend used his power to have his not best friend looking like a multi
We don't normally comment on people's bans, but since you're calling my character into question, I think I'll rise on a point of personal privilege and respond to this one.
A little shocking, actually, that you would say something like this about me. I guess you haven't been around very long.
Were Votanic and I friends? No, definitely not. Would that be a reason to ban him? No, definitely not.
I'll tell you this: Nobody, but NOBODY, has ever been banned here for disagreeing with me, and nobody ever will be. It would be completely anathema to me. I take it as a fundamental truth that you don't learn anything by talking into an echo chamber. We learn things by talking to all people, whether they agree or not, whether they are friend or foe. Sure, it's nice when someone agrees with you. But what's absolutely essential to our growth as individuals, and as a society, is to talk to people who disagree with you.
Absolutely under no conditions do I want to silence people who disagree with me. The only bans I've EVER given out were for clear violations of the rules. In most case, for people insulting others. While we do encourage vigorous debate, it is still against the rules to let it get personal (although even in that department, we are extremely lenient in this forum.)
Yeah, Votanic annoyed me at times. I did have to give him a warning a couple times when he was stepping over the line. Only once I did actually have to give him a 3-day ban when he was in clear violation of the rules (advocating violence against someone, a very clear rule breach) and no, I wasn't involved in the conversation where he committed that offense. If I had been involved, I wouldn't have issued the ban myself. I would have posted in the mod forum and asked for other people to look over the situation, to prevent a conflict of interest.
But while he did sometimes make irritating comments in this forum, he also made some valid ones, and overall I'd say he was good to have around. Unfortunately, his past caught up to him. Evading a ban by creating a new account is pretty much guaranteed to elevate the original offense. That really had nothing to do with me.
SoN!c wrote:Thats all it is - pretty low but hey do believe Vot was banned without a official cheat report because he was!
The multi-hunters operate behind the scenes. They make no public announcements. And no, I don't get to see their deliberations, either. I only see the final result.
