Who banned Clarkmeister?

[citanul]

"Are you kidding me OP,how can you make such a lowlife post like that?

And MM is being kind.......because Hal is 100x better than the jackass person you come off to be?

You should rot in Hell! "

I see no notes about this dude getting punished. Which is just funny to me.

[Mike Haven]

This is such a pointless debate.

It's obvious what Mason is doing, and it's obvious that CM will be unbanned in a day or two. Period.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing something else is going on here. Perhaps Mason is pissed with him about something else and decided to ban him. Of course I think baning someone like Clark is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess that RR might be correct. I also think that banning him is a bad idea, there are other ways to accomplish the same goal.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have a problem with using Clark's posts as a litmus test for banning people?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do, it would turn modding into a 40-hr a week job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

Also I think it's basic unrealistic and unecessary given 2p2's target demos.

[Ryan Beal]

[ QUOTE ]
"Here are the forum rules, plus Mason/admins may at their personal discretion ban anyone for posting something they don't like, regardless of whether or not it violates any rules or policies of the forum."


[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately the terms and conditions of virtually every site out there say that. So regardless of this ban, I'm not sure I follow.


miajag:
[ QUOTE ]
Mason did say "enjoy your vacation," not "have a nice life" or whatever, so I'm guessing it's possible he plans to unban Clarkmeister in a day or two?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, it will probably end up being something like that. What tends to happen is that Mason will leave the duration up to Mat or they'll at least discuss it.

[entertainme]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

"Common courtesy."

That's why entertainme thinks Clark's posts are banworthy.

I personally have been a big proponent for having certain levels of conduct when it comes to common courtesy on the forums.

Does anyone have a problem with using Clark's posts as a litmus test for banning people? In other words, if people make posts that are more offensive/insulting than Clarkmeister's, they are subject to banning.

Agreed?

If this is agreed as policy, then I retract my prior post, as it would eliminate that whole issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually my "common courtesy" comment was in reference to what I see as the solution to Clark being banned.

We're guests in Mason's home.
Hal is a friend of Mason's.
Clark insults Hal.
Mason takes offense and kicks out Clark.

Having offended the host, it's just common courtesy to apologize. From what I know Mason is reasonable. I presume that if Clark were to apologize that Mason would agree that the offense doesn't merit a permaban.

I don't understand why this isn't plain common sense.

I agree that I would like to see a higher standard for courtesy forum wide, but wasn't proposing using Clark's post as a benchmark.

[Mat Sklansky]

This is all being handled between Mason and clark.

He'll be unbanned in a day or two.

[El Diablo]

entertainme,

"Having offended the host, it's just common courtesy to apologize."

That is fine.

However, that was not my perception regarding where Mat/Ryan were talking about taking 2+2.

Major online community/media/etc sites have owners and management. That doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want with content on their sites.

On the other hand, there are countless blogs and small websites that are basically the personal fiefdom of whoever runs them and comments/content/etc. is allowed or not based on the personal discretion of the owner.

2+2 is perfectly free to operate in either manner. I was just operating under the false assumption that it was trying to be in the former category.

[El Diablo]

Ryan,

"Ultimately the terms and conditions of virtually every site out there say that. So regardless of this ban, I'm not sure I follow."

See my post above addressed to entertainme.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... or how the 1993 Phoenix Suns were clearly >>>>>>> 1993 Chicago Bulls)

[/ QUOTE ]

Which side of the debate do you take, tuq? This is like the most important question i've ever asked on 2p2.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you're from Chicago so there's no way you're gonna agree with me, but anyway here goes.

The Suns were a better team than the Bulls that year. The better team doesn't always win. They won the most games in the regular season, but that's not my only argument. Danny Ainge, who played for the Blazers team that lost to the Bulls the previous year said (paraphrasing) "this one hurts more because last year Chicago was the better team. This year we were."

The Suns were Finals noobs, whereas the Bulls were two-time defending champions who had hardened playoff skillz from tangling with the Pistons prior to that. So the Suns put up no fight in going down 0-2, both games at home.

Then they woke up and in their three games in Chicago won game three in triple overtime, barely lost game four (MJ went for something like 55 that game) and then took game five pretty easily.

Speaking of Ainge, he pretty much cost the Suns the series when, for reasons that will forever elude me, he decide to double team Horace Grant, leaving Paxson open for the dagger three when the Suns were up two. It's not just that Horace Grant making a two would merely tie the game and give the Suns the last shot, it was that Horace Grant had made one freaking shot in games five and six combined.

So in those last four games the Suns were 2-2, 2-1 on the road, and both losses were in the last minute.

Granted, that was possibly the weakest of the Bulls championship teams. 1998 where they also narrowly escaped (that time to the Jazz) was pretty weak too.

Clarkmeister argues that had MJ not retired they would have run off eight straight. I say no way, his taking time off and coming back motivated and giving guys like Pippen a taste of life without him is a huge reason they won the last three titles.