sinfulbliss satiates soul with salaicious sexpest stirring, suffers sadly from short sighted success

[oranges]

viewtopic.php?p=699225#p699225


if anyone has a better way to finish this thread with an s word i'd be keen

[The Wrench]

Honestly sinful did nothing wrong. This is the fourms equivalent of a “Notes aren’t punishment” justified ban. He didn’t cross any lines and our boy deserves to be free.

Banter is banter

Also “Suffers succinctly for sedition”

[Timberpoes]

Well duh. Ban placed by the headmin that says notes are a punishment. What did anyone expect, that I'd add on yet another limp warning?

Warnings are a punishment, because if they're not heeded they eventually turn into bans.

And the bannings will continue until warning compliance improves.

[kinnebian]

the softban could expire when the headmin threads are out so I can engage (in a civil manner!) with those.

sinfuls one of the most pro player voices i know who uses forums so id like this too

[Indie-ana Jones]

I've seen at least 2 other people use that mock to stave off the fruit's attention before and I don't think either of them got warnings or bans for it. I'd prefer it be consistent if anything.

To add my two cents, as much as sinful can go overboard at times, he does also say a lot of the things that should be said that nobody else does. I honestly don't blame him getting defensive most of the time, since you people tend to dogpile him like a horde of rats, and often enough I don't believe the opposition is that civil either. A lot of you cloak your insults in passive aggressive terms, which is honestly just as insulting as outright stating an insult, but gives you enough cover to hide behind as to not face punishment.

Also, another player banned from the Player's Club. Hrngh.

[dendydoom]

the idea that my post was overly hostile is laughable considering sinful's own conduct. his entire stance within the "discussion" was that enforcing a "vibe" was untenable. it's quite ironic that he didn't like my "vibe" in that case.

i was under the impression that this was the tone of our interactions; it's fine and in good fun to take playful jabs at each other in the spirit of peanut posting. i'm able to take and dish out these jabs without taking them personally, because that is often the tone we enjoy when we're getting into these sorts of debates. it's fun. i'm not doing it to actually upset anyone, i have no ill will toward sinful or anyone else i interact with in these discussions, and they are never targeted toward someone's character fundamentally: they only comment on the relevant behaviour they're displaying. i fully understand that i don't know anyone personally from my interactions on the forums alone. if i dislike their posts, then that's all i know about them: that i dislike their posts. it doesn't go beyond that.

when i slip a dumb little jab in there it's just a little snarky snack for the reader to nibble on while they trudge through the rest of my post and get to its actual boring point. otherwise it would be another dry dendy essaypost, devoid of all flavour. those aren't fun to write, and i definitely know they aren't fun to read. his response had no point beyond the jab. there was no further reading to be done there. the choice to abandon discussion and fully turn to slapfighting was his choice, because he became totally focused on the fact that i spoke slightly out of turn. it is also why i disengaged from posting any further: there was no point. he'd sucked all the fun out of it by having a tantrum.

if he feels persecuted because i simply pointed out that he doesn't like being asked to do things when he openly insults and antagonizes other people the way he does then all i can say is that i hope that this gives him something to reflect on. if my delicately snide little comment had this effect, then i would implore him to consider the impact his regular behaviour has on other people who are not as equipped to handle it.

all in all, another example of someone who enjoys the sowing but never the reaping. i don't particularly care whether he's unbanned or not. his post calling me a child was not hurtful, clever or original. just meaningless.

also, i'm not a man. (sinful has kindly corrected this.)

[kinnebian]

ive never heard someone use the adjectives "delicately snide"
posh

[CMDR_Gungnir]

This feels like another case like his original player's club ban.

He was definitely crossing a lot of lines often. He definitely picked up a lot of warnings.

But this wasn't something worth hitting him for. And they should've waited until he did. If it was worth perma'ing him, it would've been inevitable.

[Bepis]

Suffers sadly from short sighted success

[oranges]

dang that is better

[oranges]

I've seen at least 2 other people use that mock to stave off the fruit's attention before and I don't think either of them got warnings or bans for it. I'd prefer it be consistent if anything.

actually they all got forum warnings


also I think sinfulbliss forgot the golden rule, which is that if you're going to be annoying at least be useful too.

[saprasam]

yeah this ban is stupid free sinful

[RaveRadbury]

Also, another player banned from the Player's Club. Hrngh.

Same player banned again from the player's club, only active ban from the player's club

jsyk

[Super Aggro Crag]

sinful was being a butthead but im glad they let his post stand instead of censoring it

honestly sinful just stop being a fucking douchebag, it was a fucking text box saying "hey stop being a fucking bitch" and you shit your fucking pants over it. next time i'll be sure to advise the admins telling people to stop being miserable drains on the community to instead of just saying we're trying to have a positive environment here just call them racial slurs, because i know you wouldn't have any issue with that and we could spare you an embarrassing appeal

[oranges]

next time i'll be sure to advise the admins telling people to tell people to stop being miserable drains on the community to instead of just saying we're trying to have a positive environment here just call them racial slurs because i know you wouldn't have any issue with that and we could spare you an embarrassing appeal

bro what the hell are you talking about

[Archie700]

The only reason why you guys were saying that the ban was bad was because he was banned for insulting oranges.

[Super Aggro Crag]

next time i'll be sure to advise the admins telling people to tell people to stop being miserable drains on the community to instead of just saying we're trying to have a positive environment here just call them racial slurs because i know you wouldn't have any issue with that and we could spare you an embarrassing appeal

bro what the hell are you talking about

sinful is one of those guys who finds it really important to some imagined community culture that people babble the n-word without context like a coprolaliac spastic fuckwit; I'm saying next time misdoubtful should just call Kendrick the n-word so that sinful won't get so upset about it

[iwishforducks]

sinful says some of the most darndest things, but i feel like we take too much glee in using him as our punching bag most of the time

should sinful should have said it? ehhhhh... sinful's message is more than just a little enflaming.

but honestly so was dendy's and oranges' messages; i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

lift the ban

[Archie700]

I've seen at least 2 other people use that mock to stave off the fruit's attention before and I don't think either of them got warnings or bans for it. I'd prefer it be consistent if anything.

To add my two cents, as much as sinful can go overboard at times, he does also say a lot of the things that should be said that nobody else does. I honestly don't blame him getting defensive most of the time, since you people tend to dogpile him like a horde of rats, and often enough I don't believe the opposition is that civil either. A lot of you cloak your insults in passive aggressive terms, which is honestly just as insulting as outright stating an insult, but gives you enough cover to hide behind as to not face punishment.

Also, another player banned from the Player's Club. Hrngh.

sinful says some of the most darndest things, but i feel like we take too much glee in using him as our punching bag most of the time

should sinful should have said it? ehhhhh... sinful's message is more than just a little enflaming.

but honestly so was dendy's and oranges' messages; i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

lift the ban

No.

[Sightld2]

i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

Respecfully, hard disagree.

Dreary said "You're dumb" Oranges said "You act like a child"

Sinful said "You sexually harass people"

[Super Aggro Crag]

they're all true statements i just think sinful should just stop acting like a little bitch

[Omega_DarkPotato]

i hope im one of the six game admins :pleading_face: i want to be part of some evil secret cabal working behind the scenes to ruin ppls experiences

[iwishforducks]

No.

then the ban should be about that, and not about this? i think sinful is a fucking deadass moron for saying that shit but the subject of THIS ban is ludicrous.

[iwishforducks]

i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

Respecfully, hard disagree.

Dreary said "You're dumb" Oranges said "You act like a child"

Sinful said "You sexually harass people"

the difference, as I see it, is that dreary and oranges were throwing around playground insults. completely irrelevant to the conversation as a whole. served no other purpose than to enflame. at least sinful's messages was somewhat relevant, i.e. "you can't call me immature when you have been administratively punished for sexual harassment"

[CMDR_Gungnir]

i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

Respecfully, hard disagree.

Dreary said "You're dumb" Oranges said "You act like a child"

Sinful said "You sexually harass people"

the difference, as I see it, is that dreary and oranges were throwing around playground insults. completely irrelevant to the conversation as a whole. served no other purpose than to enflame. at least sinful's messages was somewhat relevant, i.e. "you can't call me immature when you have been administratively punished for sexual harassment"

Hot take: If you have been removed from the community before for Sexual Harassment and are let back in only because you are useful, people should be fully allowed to call you out on it.

It'd be one thing if it was a regular dude who got Rule 8'd and went through a proper appeal and got approved. Give the guy a chance to move past his past.

Oranges' case was specifically JUST to prevent problems.

[conrad]

sinful says some of the most darndest things, but i feel like we take too much glee in using him as our punching bag most of the time

Y'all talk about alienating shitty members that make no effort in being not shitty like they did nothing wrong lol

[oranges]

i appealed my ban like everyone else

[Misdoubtful]

The real difference is some people are intentionally malicious, know what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyways.

[kinnebian]

at the end of day

im going to go paint something

[oranges]

I dunno about you guys but im waiting for my trainer to notice me and candidate me

[Omega_DarkPotato]

I dunno about you guys but im waiting for my trainer to notice me and candidate me

hi

[conrad]

I dunno about you guys but im waiting for my trainer to notice me and candidate me

Oh yeah this is literally why I posted on the player's club. As you can see, after I got noticed by senpai and purpled, I stopped posting entirely.

[iwishforducks]

sinful says some of the most darndest things, but i feel like we take too much glee in using him as our punching bag most of the time

Y'all talk about alienating shitty members that make no effort in being not shitty like they did nothing wrong lol

i would rather prefer if this community strayed away from being mean/alienating in its entirety. if someone is being shitty then it oughta be handled properly. this community need not get its fix from using people as punching bags

i don't really understand what you mean by "like they did nothing wrong" or who "Y'all" is precisely referring to, honestly. i have said my fair share of words about sinful in my time- and in this thread.

[conrad]

sinful says some of the most darndest things, but i feel like we take too much glee in using him as our punching bag most of the time

Y'all talk about alienating shitty members that make no effort in being not shitty like they did nothing wrong lol

i would rather prefer if this community strayed away from being mean/alienating in its entirety. if someone is being shitty then it oughta be handled properly. this community need not get its fix from using people as punching bags

If you're called out, consistently, for being an asshole, by a multitude of people, you're not some avant-garde visionary of proper conduct that has arrived with Zulfiqar in hand on a jihad to excise the cancer consuming tg.

You're just an asshole. If what you're saying is "ignore the trolls", then yeah, I advocate for that same idea. Except people here don't fucking do that anyway, and I can't in my heart of hearts blame them for not treating them the respect they actually don't deserve.

i don't really understand what you mean by "like they did nothing wrong" or who "Y'all" is precisely referring to, honestly. i have said my fair share of words about sinful in my time- and in this thread.

By "like they did nothing wrong", I mean that people paragoning dickheads, and the "Y'all" is those people. tbh that might not be you, and I apologize for casting this aspersion.

[dendydoom]

i would consider oranges' and dendy's messages way more enflaming than sinful's.

Respecfully, hard disagree.

Dreary said "You're dumb" Oranges said "You act like a child"

Sinful said "You sexually harass people"

the difference, as I see it, is that dreary and oranges were throwing around playground insults. completely irrelevant to the conversation as a whole. served no other purpose than to enflame. at least sinful's messages was somewhat relevant, i.e. "you can't call me immature when you have been administratively punished for sexual harassment"

i'm not going to defend my cheap mockery - if you didn't like it, then you didn't like it. that's fair. but it was about 10% of my actual post. there was a point behind it that was bigger than the fact that i was snidely insinuating that he was being foolishly arrogant around his refusal to ever concede to any requests for decency. his posts had no such point. it was just an insult standing out on its lonesome. the only response to that would be more insults, which i am not interested in. the jabs are nothing more than a nice little dessert. if it's all you eat then you'll just make yourself sick.

i was also under the impression that he was being sarcastic in the first place, since his entire point was that we shouldn't be policing each other's tone. ultimately i agreed with him, except that the claws should be kept to the scratching post debate threads, and not our cute little picture sharing threads. he disagreed and said that we should be able to say what we want anywhere because it's good for discussion. so i said exactly what i wanted. it was not good for discussion. an interesting experiment.

[EmpressMaia]

sinful was just speaking fax tho

[EmpressMaia]

oranges on several occasions has told the entirrer manuel cord he was horny and was finally banned for posting catgirl scat porn copypasta

[oranges]

simply false

[EmpressMaia]

all of the scat copypastas were deleted by moderators

[oranges]

convenient excuse

[The Wrench]

The only reason why you guys were saying that the ban was bad was because he was banned for insulting oranges.

No? I think the ban is bad because he didn’t say anything ban worthy

[EmpressMaia]

[oranges]

no evidence of felinid scat porn copypasta my hands are clean.

[EmpressMaia]

no evidence of felinid scat porn copypasta my hands are clean.

yes the admins deleted all of it because it was disgusting

[oranges]

i think you're lying.

[Boot]

All this would be avoided if we closed off players club to people who actually played the game.

[oranges]

all of this could be avoided if sinfulbliss did not get mad

[saprasam]

The only reason why you guys were saying that the ban was bad was because he was banned for insulting oranges.

if you were a baseballer you would've gone the opposite direction of the first base

[Jacquerel]

All this would be avoided if we closed off players club to people who actually played the game.

fuck and i actually played the game yesterday

[iwishforducks]

the difference, as I see it, is that dreary and oranges were throwing around playground insults. completely irrelevant to the conversation as a whole. served no other purpose than to enflame. at least sinful's messages was somewhat relevant, i.e. "you can't call me immature when you have been administratively punished for sexual harassment"

i'm not going to defend my cheap mockery - if you didn't like it, then you didn't like it. that's fair. but it was about 10% of my actual post. there was a point behind it that was bigger than the fact that i was snidely insinuating that he was being foolishly arrogant around his refusal to ever concede to any requests for decency. his posts had no such point. it was just an insult standing out on its lonesome. the only response to that would be more insults, which i am not interested in. the jabs are nothing more than a nice little dessert. if it's all you eat then you'll just make yourself sick.

the vibe i got from your post is very "talk-down"-ish. hard to put my finger on it exactly. probably just conrad coming in to one-up you? regardless the post alone just comes off as very snide. the first paragraph adds nothing to the conversation, because the second paragraph of your post says more than it does in less. from my point of view, "it's exhausting to have to explain things that should be simple." at the end of your post also comes off as very snide. i mean your post before that was completely fine. sinful's post to that was also completely fine. there's a very big tonal shift in your post

the only response to that would be more insults, which i am not interested in. the jabs are nothing more than a nice little dessert. if it's all you eat then you'll just make yourself sick.

thank goodness, i wouldn't want you to hurt yourself thinking about it too hard.

? i do not understand. this is very twofaced. why say you're not interested in responding with more insults when you respond with something that's just enflaming?

i was also under the impression that he was being sarcastic in the first place, since his entire point was that we shouldn't be policing each other's tone. ultimately i agreed with him, except that the claws should be kept to the scratching post debate threads, and not our cute little picture sharing threads. he disagreed and said that we should be able to say what we want anywhere because it's good for discussion. so i said exactly what i wanted. it was not good for discussion. an interesting experiment.

this is entirely besides the point, and ironically enough this is getting off-topic in itself, but i still think it's worthy enough to discuss: i think you misunderstood the point sinful and kendrick were making (i kind of didn't realize this until later, honestly.) first and foremost, kendrick's message on the thread itself was about no-context pictures. that posting story laced images with no context is lame. they were not saying that all of the images were lame or that the thread itself was lame. kendrick's post is still quite a cynical post regardless.

sinful's point about policing each other's tone is more about systematically enforcing tone versus personally choosing to say "i think you are being mean and non-conductive to conversations" - he doesn't want a world where you can just say whatever you want in every thread. he cares about keeping threads on topic... usually, at least. but he also doesn't care to engage messages that are directed towards him if they're just going to be enflaming.

the whole "so i said exactly what i wanted. it was not good for discussion. an interesting experiment." also comes off as very twofaced to me. you seem to be content in posting things that are enflaming. i do not understand you, dendy.