Re: LionelHutz00
 

diablo i'm in agreement with you near 100%. it's not like, oops i messed up. the guy knows exactly what he did, and knew what he was doing when he did it.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

El D,

You make a compelling case. My mind had clearly suppressed the memories of having stupidly clicked on that link (why?! why?!) so thoroughly that I was thinking abstractly in terms of "good poster posts something really, really stupid" rather than the specific case of "good poster posts horse porn."

Re: LionelHutz00
 

If the guy isn't going to do it again (and it appears he won't), permabanning him is a mistake. It's in the best interest of 2+2 for him to come back and be a quality contributer. Sure he could make another account, but maybe he doesn't or doesn't post as much. What did 2+2 gain then in return for losing a good poster? Deterrent value? If so, why not just make an example of the first crappy poster to do it?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader,

So, ER doctors and cancer researchers should get free rein to rob a certain number of banks and not be put in jail?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

All,

I'm really surprised at the level of opposition we have here to the simple idea that if someone posts inline bestiality pics their account should be nuked.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Diablito,

The only explanation I can give is that a fairly high number of mods think a user should never permabanned for a single post if it isn't spam.

I personally can imagine several reasons for people to be banned for one post and horse porn is well over that line.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Maybe it's just that years of the internet have totally left me numb to anything shocking, but I'm not sure I find inline beastiality any worse than incline normal porn, or inline scat porn or whatever.

I think given current standards, having that be a "one and done" offense doesn't track with how we've handled stuff like this in the past. I think if we want to change that, the bar should be lower on the offensive meter than horse porn.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

haha wtf dids...i've seen all sorts of weird porn but bestiality is not even comparable to normal porn. i'm pretty sure we agree on that but i think it's FAAAAAR worse that inline normal porn.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Dibs,

OK, lemme go out on a limb really far here and make this bold statement too: If someone posts inline scat porn pics their account should be nuked.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leader,

So, ER doctors and cancer researchers should get free rein to rob a certain number of banks and not be put in jail?

[/ QUOTE ]

So they should get life sentences and be treated the same as life long criminals?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

I don't understand at all the concept of "well we shortened it to 5 days so now we can't re-lengthen it."

We're not expected or even supposed to be perfect. If we make a mistake we can admit to it and fix it. If that amounts to saying "oops, dude should be permabanned, or given a month, or whatever" then so be it. If we decide we have given people too many chances in the past, it's not exactly nice to go back and like, permaban them, but we can certainly change the standards at any time we feel like it.

Personally because this is something that is pretty horrible and really aggressively stupid and because people can get fired for just having that on screen, I'd have no problem making the standard "canned."

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dibs,

OK, lemme go out on a limb really far here and make this bold statement too: If someone posts inline scat porn pics their account should be nuked.

[/ QUOTE ]

My greater point was that I think that in terms of level of offense, gods honest dick in pussy hardcore porn is just as bad and probably should either be or not be a perma ban on the same standards as horse/scat porn. Both will get me fired, which to me is kinda the point.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Dibs,

You are smoking crack if you think regular dick in pussy porn is the same level of offensiveness as horse and scat porn.

I mean, I am just looking at what you wrote and wondering if this is some sort of joke because it's hard to believe that you could really be just that clueless and retarded.

Having said that, it may well be that all three of those should be considered as "above the bar" in terms of what leads to permabans. But to equate the first to the other two in terms of offensiveness and consequences is just plain idiotic.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader,

They should face the consequences as set out in the rules.

If the rules say that horse porn gets your account nuked, that should be what happens to both good posters and crappy posters when they post horse porn.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

"Having said that, it may well be that all three of those should be considered as "above the bar" in terms of what leads to permabans."

This is the point I'm trying to make. For a message board like 2p2, I think all hardcore porn should be off limits and would warrent a suspension. I think a permaban for any one post (again, save obvious spammers with no posts) is not the best policy.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

I think we should consider each situation differently. Questions we should think about include 1) what was the posters intent? 2) did they clearly know the rules and the possible punishment? 3) what violations have the poster had in the past? 4) what punishment would 'send a message to that poster'? 5) what punishment ranges 'would fit the crime'?

It sound as if this poster has had valuable contributions to the forums, has not had alot of problems noted, is sorry for his actions and would likely be a better poster with a second chance. If those statements are true I would support a five day suspension. If the poster has a problematic history and 'just doesn't get it', I would fully support a ban, an ip ban and ban on site status. I respect others opinions and this is JMHO.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: LionelHutz00
 

All,

Here is my suggestion for a policy:

If someone posts inline scat porn pics or inline bestiality pics their account should be nuked.

Agree/disagree?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leader,

They should face the consequences as set out in the rules.

If the rules say that horse porn gets your account nuked, that should be what happens to both good posters and crappy posters when they post horse porn.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm...So the argument is about whether rules should be enforced? That's fine so long as the rules are correct to begin with. If the rule is incorrect, then you are incorrect to enforce it. Or do you disagree with this, lol?

In any case I think the rule should be that if you do this you should be punished harshly as the mods/admins see fit. I don't see why it's got to be the same for everyone. That isn't good policy. I'm not sure how you can take the argument that if a sucky poster does something that really sucks he should be treated the same as a good contributer that f'ed up. But w/e

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Here is my suggestion for a policy:

If someone posts inline scat porn pics or inline bestiality pics their account should be nuked.

Agree/disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree

Edit: I disagree that it should be automatic.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader,

I'm simply saying that I believe there are certain actions that merit nuking of an account, period. To me, those actions include inline posting of scat porn or bestiality pics.

Clearly, you disagree. That's fine.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader,

Why do you disagree?

Why do you think it is a bad policy to say "2+2 is a place where inline posting of bestiality or scat porn pics is not allowed, and those actions are so offensive that doing them will result in account deletion."?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leader,

Why do you disagree?

Why do you think it is a bad policy to say "2+2 is a place where inline posting of bestiality or scat porn pics is not allowed, and those actions are so offensive that doing them will result in account deletion."?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know what more you want me to say. I think 2+2 benefits more from not banning valuable posters permanently and potentially losing them then it does from the deterrent value of such a policy.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader,

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with you being into scat porn and bestiality, it's just not my thing is all.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.

Return to Forum

lol let's see what happens

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Leader et al,

Do you think there is any sort of post that merits banning permanently? I have to assume not in the porn or gross direction.

Say a poster like LionelHutz00 did a sort of Rickroll style hidden link where it installed a virus which immediately formatted the persons hard drive? Would that merit banning?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

right hahahahaha i'm glad we're getting down to the heart of the matter here. apparently some mods think nothing merits a permaban on the first offense.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]

All,

Here is my suggestion for a policy:

If someone posts inline scat porn pics or inline bestiality pics their account should be nuked.

Agree/disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume a policy is the same as a rule? My opinion probably won't be very popular (especially with El Diablo). I disagree with that statement being a policy or a rule.

One reason is lets say Mat and Kiera have a fight. She is looking for revenge. Kiera posts bestiality porn under Mat's screen name. Should Mat be nuked/banned? No - he is an admin so he gets an exception. What if my girlfriend did the same thing? She would be a likely candidate as she can be totally crazy! Should I get nuked? What about <insert your forums most valuable poster here>? Where do we draw the line? Should drunk posters be handled differently? How do we know when someone was drunk or posted under someone else's account?

I would agree with 'sentencing guidelines' with punishment ranges. But, I think that would be far too much work and the current 'common sense approach' usually works very well. I think the mod crew overall does does a great job and utilizes common sense very well. (Now that we got rid of that damn sniper! Just kidding! :>) ) I think it is best to rehab valuable posters when possible rather than nuking their account and forcing them 'to start over'.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leader et al,

Do you think there is any sort of post that merits banning permanently? I have to assume not in the porn or gross direction.

Say a poster like LionelHutz00 did a sort of Rickroll style hidden link where it installed a virus which immediately formatted the persons hard drive? Would that merit banning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I would permaban the guy for that, but I think the situations are different. Someone would never do that "to get some time off" or think it was some funny joke. Something like can only be done to intentionally cause permanent damage. I'd have very serious doubts that anyone that did that would refrain from doing it again.

In this case, he probably didn't even realize the damage he could have done. Now he gets it and won't do it again. I have a hard time envisioning how that could be true in your example.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

new Lionel Hutz?

both IPs from california. is there any way to tell if this is him or if it's some copycat? if it's him circumventing his ban, i really think it's time for a perma-shitcan.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
new Lionel Hutz?

both IPs from california. is there any way to tell if this is him or if it's some copycat? if it's him circumventing his ban, i really think it's time for a perma-shitcan.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is so funny.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
new Lionel Hutz?

both IPs from california. is there any way to tell if this is him or if it's some copycat? if it's him circumventing his ban, i really think it's time for a perma-shitcan.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is so funny.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah really. Does the guy know that he was not supposed to do that, not to mention be so blatantly obvious about it? This could just be another case of the guy being non-bright, but this time in a way that only affects himself.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Guys,

Just to be clear, someone posted a pic of a naked woman sucking a horse's c[/b]ock, with horse cum dripping from her chin, inline in a tread and he's only banned for 5 days? Is this accurate?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys,

Just to be clear, someone posted a pic of a naked woman sucking a horse's c[/b]ock, with horse cum dripping from her chin, inline in a tread and he's only banned for 5 days? Is this accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

YUP!!!

Re: LionelHutz00
 

mia,

Is the woman hot?

Re: LionelHutz00
 

Why don't you just look at the picture.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

El D,

6.5-7.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

iron,

Because horse porn is gross.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

[ QUOTE ]
El D,

6.5-7.

[/ QUOTE ]

shes a 6 imo.

i just looked at that pic for the first time jesus is that explicit or what permaban lionelhutz already. i don't care if he just wanted a tempban there are a million more acceptable ways to get tempbanned, including pm'ing any freakin mod. hutz is a dumbass and he can make a new account if he wants, horse porn is just unacceptable.

Re: LionelHutz00
 

don't be a pussy d

look down the barrel

Re: LionelHutz00
 

i don't care what you do to this guy, but as far as i'm concerned this is wayyy less offensive then what dan bright posted.