Durf Ban Appeal

[aP|Nelg]

I guess you didnt read any of my points on my post? You certainly didn't comment on it... get rid of this LUCIFERRAINBOWS spammer's post btw, its driving me nuts.

[Soul]

Also, it's only a one day ban. Considering the massive response, it seems pretty clear to me that a permanent ban was probably more appropriate.

Really? You're thinking of banning someone for longer, because of reactions other people had? How idiotic is that? If anything the reaction of the people, shows that you are in the wrong, and the ban wasn't warranted.

Clearly you are in the wrong anyways for letting your family influence your decision, rather than the tronners. They aren't moderators. You are. Ban fairly and logically, not based on the opinions of others who aren't relative to your ability to ban people. Obvious missuse of power.

When someone is acting sexist, I rank the opinions of women higher than men.

This is sexist

Do you have firsthand knowledge that people are spamming the forums and they aren't Durf?

Do you have firsthand knowledge it is Durf?

On another topic, I PM'd Vogue about her attacks on autism. They didn't get ignored.

Why didn't you post and make a big deal (even ban!) like you did to Durf? Do you rank sexism ahead of cyber bullying? So biased.

[F0RC3]

Also, it's only a one day ban. Considering the massive response, it seems pretty clear to me that a permanent ban was probably more appropriate.

Really? You're thinking of banning someone for longer, because of reactions other people had? How idiotic is that? If anything the reaction of the people, shows that you are in the wrong, and the ban wasn't warranted.

Clearly you are in the wrong anyways for letting your family influence your decision, rather than the tronners. They aren't moderators. You are. Ban fairly and logically, not based on the opinions of others who aren't relative to your ability to ban people. Obvious missuse of power.

When someone is acting sexist, I rank the opinions of women higher than men. That's a logical thing to do. You know, listen to the people who are most affected by it.

If we didn't do that, the community would be disproportionately male. Oh wait, it is. Oops. Should have listened to the community.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "because of reactions other people had". Do you have firsthand knowledge that people are spamming the forums and they aren't Durf? Do you know who they are?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my actions, spamming the forums is bad. If you know who is doing it, perhaps you should say so.

Or maybe your own agenda is more important.

On another topic, I PM'd Vogue about her attacks on autism. They didn't get ignored.

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

You are so hypocritical. Look at your first sentence, and then ban yourself for sexism if you want to be any sort of consistent with your banning.. That in and of itself is more sexist than anything that durf said.

You don't understand what I'm saying? You said that because of the response from people, that durf somehow warranted a permanent ban? That makes no sense sir. edit: If you were simply talking about the spammer that's what you should have said.

I do agree that spamming the forums is bad, and this is something that should be a bannable offense. If it is durf, by all means ban him. But he definitely did not deserve the ban he had already.

[Lucifer]

When someone is acting sexist, I rank the opinions of women higher than men.

This is sexist

It's only sexist if you think that men have a say in questions involving oppressing women.

You're one of those Men's Rights Activists, aren't you?

Do you have firsthand knowledge it is Durf?

As I said, perhaps in a different thread, I have no knowledge it's Durf. I only know that this is happening because I banned Durf.

So, there are two possibilities:

1. It's Durf. And it justifies banning him. Not that I needed that justification. It's only a ONE DAY ban.

2. It's not Durf. And it exposes a culture of sexism/misogyny here that is quite disturbing. Not to mention the homophobia (he used a username of LUCIFERISAFAGGOT).

On another topic, I PM'd Vogue about her attacks on autism. They didn't get ignored.

Why didn't you post and make a big deal (even ban!) like you did to Durf? Do you rank sexism ahead of cyber bullying? So biased.

Sexism and cyber bullying are often the same thing, as is the case right now with all the attempts to defend Durf's blatant sexism.

As for Liz cyber bullying, not only is that nothing new, not only has she been repeatedly banned for it, but for anybody who's been around here for awhile, they should take her "cyber bullying" with a grain of salt.

She's a simple troll. She ranks on the same level of /dev/null in so many ways, I really think they should go on a date.

When it comes to sexism vs autism-hating, I have to say, as cold-blooded as it sounds, sexism is a much bigger problem. This is something that effects every single woman in my life, in yours, and everywhere else.

I will not apologize nor rescind my decision.

[aP|Nelg]

When someone is acting sexist, I rank the opinions of women higher than men.

This is sexist

It's only sexist if you think that men have a say in questions involving oppressing women.

You're one of those Men's Rights Activists, aren't you?

Do you have firsthand knowledge it is Durf?

As I said, perhaps in a different thread, I have no knowledge it's Durf. I only know that this is happening because I banned Durf.

So, there are two possibilities:

1. It's Durf. And it justifies banning him. Not that I needed that justification. It's only a ONE DAY ban.

2. It's not Durf. And it exposes a culture of sexism/misogyny here that is quite disturbing. Not to mention the homophobia (he used a username of LUCIFERISAFAGGOT).

On another topic, I PM'd Vogue about her attacks on autism. They didn't get ignored.

Why didn't you post and make a big deal (even ban!) like you did to Durf? Do you rank sexism ahead of cyber bullying? So biased.

Sexism and cyber bullying are often the same thing, as is the case right now with all the attempts to defend Durf's blatant sexism.

As for Liz cyber bullying, not only is that nothing new, not only has she been repeatedly banned for it, but for anybody who's been around here for awhile, they should take her "cyber bullying" with a grain of salt.

She's a simple troll. She ranks on the same level of /dev/null in so many ways, I really think they should go on a date.

When it comes to sexism vs autism-hating, I have to say, as cold-blooded as it sounds, sexism is a much bigger problem. This is something that effects every single woman in my life, in yours, and everywhere else.

I will not apologize nor rescind my decision.

So, what are your arguments for the posts you havent argued about yet?

[F0RC3]

"It's only sexist if you think that men have a say in questions involving oppressing women."

Women can't decide everything about the situation, that could lead it extremely skewed in their favor (as men have done for many centuries in the patriarchy. You can find similar things in matriarchal societies, except for in favor toward the women). The appropriate thing would be to have the decisions made by both genders, not by one gender or the other. This is what society is currently heading towards, and will reach (if everything isn't destroyed) eventually. People have a say in oppression of other people.

You are clearly the one being sexist. As I said, if you want to be consistent, ban yourself for one day.

[Lucifer]

So, what are your arguments for the posts you havent argued about yet?

I believe the posts I've made have addressed them, but I acknowledge they haven't addressed them to your satisfaction.

I don't owe you your satisfaction. If you'd like to discuss them, please respond to those posts and ask questions.

Women can't decide everything, that could lead it extremely skewed in their favor (as men have done for many centuries in the patriarchy. You can find similar things in matriarchal societies, except for in favor toward the women). The appropriate thing would be to have the decisions made by both genders, not by one gender or the other. This is what society is currently heading towards, and will reach (if everything isn't destroyed) eventually.

No, society is heading towards gender equality. That requires that you surrender your male privilege and actually make women equal to you.

And that's irrelevant.

We all currently live in a society that has historically and presently discriminated against women. We've always held them down as the weaker sex. Ranking their opinions higher on issues that affect them more than they affect men isn't "putting them in charge", it's making them more equal.

I don't know why that's not obvious. If you want to know how to reform a crime-ridden black neighborhood, you ask the people who live there. If you want to know how to make the world more friendly to gay people, you ask gay people. Why is it that when it comes to women, you don't bother to ask them? Why is it an issue that I consulted with women before making my decision?

I could have waited for Vogue to answer, in which case I may have agreed when she asked that Durf get a permanent ban. Instead, I asked the women in my life who I respect and love the most, and they were a bit more lenient than Vogue would have been.

Women aren't in charge here. People are.

[F0RC3]

Women can't decide everything, that could lead it extremely skewed in their favor (as men have done for many centuries in the patriarchy. You can find similar things in matriarchal societies, except for in favor toward the women). The appropriate thing would be to have the decisions made by both genders, not by one gender or the other. This is what society is currently heading towards, and will reach (if everything isn't destroyed) eventually.

No, society is heading towards gender equality. That requires that you surrender your male privilege and actually make women equal to you.

And that's irrelevant.

We all currently live in a society that has historically and presently discriminated against women. We've always held them down as the weaker sex. Ranking their opinions higher on issues that affect them more than they affect men isn't "putting them in charge", it's making them more equal.

I don't know why that's not obvious. If you want to know how to reform a crime-ridden black neighborhood, you ask the people who live there. If you want to know how to make the world more friendly to gay people, you ask gay people. Why is it that when it comes to women, you don't bother to ask them? Why is it an issue that I consulted with women before making my decision?

I could have waited for Vogue to answer, in which case I may have agreed when she asked that Durf get a permanent ban. Instead, I asked the women in my life who I respect and love the most, and they were a bit more lenient than Vogue would have been.

Women aren't in charge here. People are.

Do you really think that males only have privilege? While I won't deny that males currently have more privilege in our society, that doesn't mean women don't. Women have privileges of their own. A big example is often seen in divorces, the right to the kids is more often given to the females simply because they are female. Even if the man has better means to take care of the children and is a better caregiver. There are also other examples I could give, but that would mean woman would have to throw away that privilege.

This is a two way street lucifer, BOTH SIDES NEED TO BE EQUAL (Capitalized it because you seem to be missing the point of gender equality).

Women's opinions shouldn't be held higher, they should be held equally. You can't say that you hold the females gender higher than males, and then say that they are equal. That is sexist sir.

Who says I don't bother to ask them? However you can't ask only them. They may over exaggerate, or try to skew the results in their favor. For example, with the bad neighborhood. They may overestimate their problems, the houses, streets, etc... may not be as in bad condition as they really are. Opinions from the outside from professionals are needed. They also might say they need things that they don't need. The same goes for gender equality, you can't simply take the oppinions from the oppressed because they might try to gain too much power and then become the oppressors. Both sides need equal say, not one more than the other.

Really, you were going to take Liz's words and ban him forever if she said to? A person that you called a troll? Holy shit!

Your family, even if they are important to you, aren't truly relevant to YOUR ability to ban. That would be like giving someone your password and login and letting them moderate for you, if your as influenced by them as you're making it seem.

[Lucifer]

Ah, wow. I never said I hold women's opinions higher than men. What I said was that when it comes to women's issues, I consider women's opinions higher than men.

Reread that, because you read it wrong the first time, and likely have read it wrong again.

I'm divorced, with kids. I know what that situation looks like, thanks for reminding me. And that's not "female privilege". It's actually more sexism. Men are expected to pay out as much as possible to provide the kids a good home, but aren't generally trusted with the daily care of kids because that's a woman's role. And you really want to hold that up as a sign of "female privilege"?

I live in Texas, boy. I see sexism every ******* day.

If both sides are equal, than why the shemale comment? Was that you, or was that somebody else?

If both sides were equal, that comment wouldn't have made any sense, nor been appropriate.

Check your privilege. Durf wasn't saying anything rights, or about anything really important. He was merely suggesting that women aren't suited for the same jobs as men. I debunked that quite easily, and after receiving an abusive PM from him, as well as reading the other stuff he wrote, I decided to make a ONE DAY BAN.

ONE DAY.

ONE

DAY

How harsh is that? You can't post here for one day, but you can do everything else you're accustomed to doing?

Look at the backlash. Look at you and everyone else arguing for reinstatement.

If I banned Vogue for suggesting that men aren't so good at child-birth, would you make the same argument?

No. You wouldn't.

Sexist. This whole thing is sexist.

[Magi]

checkmyprivilege.com

[Lucifer]

checkmyprivilege.com

Under construction.

[Soul]

If I banned Vogue for suggesting that men aren't so good at child-birth, would you make the same argument?

No. You wouldn't.

Sexist. This whole thing is sexist.

Actually I would. And I assume you're implying that I(we) wouldn't because I(we) don't like her. That's not sexist. You are unbelievably cynical.

[Lucifer]

If I banned Vogue for suggesting that men aren't so good at child-birth, would you make the same argument?

No. You wouldn't.

Sexist. This whole thing is sexist.

Actually I would. And I assume you're implying that I(we) wouldn't because I(we) don't like her. That's not sexist. You are unbelievably cynical.

I am quite cynical. And I don't believe a word you've said here.

Have you made any attempt to find out who the spammer is? It's obviously someone who disagrees with my decision, as you do, and the spam is completely undermining your position.

If you are real about your position, find this person and get them to stop. Or stop, if you're the one doing it.

They're on your side of the argument. I won't negotiate with a gun pointed at my head. Take the gun away.

Also, the shutterstock picture is of a really attractive woman. FYI.

[F0RC3]

Ah, wow. I never said I hold women's opinions higher than men. What I said was that when it comes to women's issues, I consider women's opinions higher than men.

Reread that, because you read it wrong the first time, and likely have read it wrong again.

I'm divorced, with kids. I know what that situation looks like, thanks for reminding me. And that's not "female privilege". It's actually more sexism. Men are expected to pay out as much as possible to provide the kids a good home, but aren't generally trusted with the daily care of kids because that's a woman's role. And you really want to hold that up as a sign of "female privilege"?

I live in Texas, boy. I see sexism every ******* day.

If both sides are equal, than why the shemale comment? Was that you, or was that somebody else?

If both sides were equal, that comment wouldn't have made any sense, nor been appropriate.

Check your privilege. Durf wasn't saying anything rights, or about anything really important. He was merely suggesting that women aren't suited for the same jobs as men. I debunked that quite easily, and after receiving an abusive PM from him, as well as reading the other stuff he wrote, I decided to make a ONE DAY BAN.

ONE DAY.

ONE

DAY

How harsh is that? You can't post here for one day, but you can do everything else you're accustomed to doing?

Look at the backlash. Look at you and everyone else arguing for reinstatement.

If I banned Vogue for suggesting that men aren't so good at child-birth, would you make the same argument?

No. You wouldn't.

Sexist. This whole thing is sexist.

No I read it correctly. It is still sexist regardless. You should hold the opinions of people, equally (well i mean of course hold them higher or lower depending on how well they argue for their opinion). You shouldn't hold their opinions higher on women's oppression for the multitude of reasons that I presented already. Hold them equally, that is equal. Let the person's argument speak for its self, not their gender.

Um yeah. Sexism towards men, would mean that the females are priveliged in that regard. As I said two why street. Your situation sucks, I'm sorry I brought it up, but your situation doesn't change my argument.

I see sexism every day too, sexism exists in this society. It will likely always exist in some small facet, but will eventually get as close to equality as possible.

The same jobs as men? I'm not going to argue that they aren't fit for working all the same jobs as men, but on average women definitely are not as fit as men towards some things. Men are typically born with the ability to become stronger than a woman of the same age. On average they are stronger physically, which can be advantageous for men in some job situations (where as normal women would have to try extremely hard to improve their strength)

Check my privilege? I realize as a white male I have a pretty nice life. But just because I'm a white male, that doesn't mean I can't argue for an opinion that I feel isn't sexist. That doesn't mean that because I disagree with a woman it makes me sexist. It simply doesn't.

Okay a one day ban? I don't think he deserved any ban what so ever. One day ban itself is too much. I'm not saying that not being able to post is harsh, but the point is he shouldn't have been banned in the first place, that's why people are revolting.

Um if you banned vogue for saying men aren't good at child birth, I would probably say wtf? Why did you ban her. Men can't have children, not only are they not good at childbirth, the can't even do it. Anything about men being able to go through childbirth is purely theoretical.

TBH I'm finding that you are being sexist towards men...

[Soul]

Have you made any attempt to find out who the spammer is? It's obviously someone who disagrees with my decision, as you do, and the spam is completely undermining your position.

The spammer is clearly acting on his own accord. It's honestly annoying me having to scroll through it all.

If you are real about your position, find this person and get them to stop. Or stop, if you're the one doing it.

Now your accusing me of this? Give me a break.

They're on your side of the argument.

Are they?

-------------

Anyway I've made my point and the community has given their opinion as well. You have abused your power and unjustly banned Durf based on your own bias.

You've been served.