Winkle why don't you try to refrain from making neo look dumb thats not what this thread is about. It's not a let's make neolink look dumb thread most of us know he is a little on the dumb side.
Why don't you try reading all of my posts if you haven't already. I've shown some proof and made some good arguments.
Edit: You haven't quoted one person besides neo it's obvious your only focused on making him look dumb or bad.
Well, um ... I never really called him "dumb." In fact, I'm fairly certain that's what YOU just did ... not me.
To be honest, I'm rather surprised that someone who seems to be flailing for a direction of argument is speaking so coherently. He's certainly easier to follow than others that I could name; I just wish he'd get to the damn point. His continual stalling is really what led me to growing so frustrated with him in the first place.
My examination of his past behavior, after I
REALLY grew curious about what was going on, only added to that. I assure you ... any perceived desire to "make someone look dumb" (as you put it) is sheer imagination.
As to responding directly to your post ... I didn't, because it seemed fairly irrelevant to me regarding the larger issue at question. If you insist, however:
Blancho said:
Telling everyone it is ok to flame neolink without any penalty.
There is certainly some merit to your argument about Eleibfrid setting Neolink up as a target.
All I can say to that is that Neolink really set HIMSELF up. It's what he wanted. What's more, it's not really a special condition that a moderator was setting aside for Neolink, and Neolink alone. He may have framed it that way verbally, but it was more of an exasperated "dressing down" than anything else.
As far as the flameboard is concerned, "anyone" is open to flaming without ramifications. That's the beauty of the place. It's not a special state of being, created solely for him. I'm sure that if any true rules were broken (such as a genuine threat to Neolink's physical person), there would indeed be ramifications.
To your next point:
Blancho said:
Admitting to Jamal he erased some of his posts. But really gives no valid reason as to why.
The deletion of one post, based on content, is contestable. I'll go that far with you.
The repeated posting of the SAME CONTENT over and over, however, simply to get around said deletion, is just SPAM. I know firsthand that it is possible to make your case for previously deleted content, and win. I also know that stubbornly spamming an original post, in slightly different forms, is NOT the way to go about that fight.
Spam, at the very least, is a clearly identifiable violation of a rule. If Neolink wants to make an argument about his first post, then fine ... let's get the contents of it paraphrased, here, and discuss why it was removed. Maybe he'll even win.
The creation of sockpuppets ad nauseam, however, to create a mobile infantry of repetitive posts, is definitely a justifiable ticket to ban-city.
Blancho said:
I also feel Neolink and others such as Peregrine have been wrongfully removed rather I like them much or not. I am someone to stand up for things and I respect others who do the same.
Peregrine, as you'll recall, was an avid supporter of the destruction of the Flameboard overall. He WANTED moderators to have the ability to ban users, for little more than "trolling" and "flamebaiting" ... an exercise in judgement that is completely subjective. The true irony there, perhaps, is that out of perhaps ALL the other users on QCDN, the one person that could universally be agreed upon as a "flamebaiter" was Peregrine.
It was rather like a burglar advocating for stricter theft laws. He nailed his own coffin shut. Why are we even talking about it? What does he have to do with THIS? Let's stay on topic.
As for Neolink ... well, persistance won out, and we're back in the throes of that case, aren't we? Let's see how it turns out.
