So... what was LXXXVIII banned for, anyway?

submitted by Debra_L from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

Part of the problem is that so much of the spamming is from accounts that are only a few days old. Your account is only 4 days old. If we also don't know anything about you and your 4-day-old account, what is the point of working with you on Admin and Mod problems? How do we know we're not being trolled into another fake conversation? Moreover, at least two or three of the accounts you note above are regularly violating the Saidit rules and/or guidelines.

[–]Debra_L[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

Moreover, at least two or three of the accounts you note above are regularly violating the Saidit rules and/or guidelines.

Interesting. Which accounts would that be, and what are the violations in question?

(Also please note that some of the accounts listed are only rumored to be somehow associated with LXXXVIII/loki88. So if we're gonna uncover actually what LXXXVIII was banned for weeks ago, it may not be enough to determine what other users should be but haven't been banned for. You're not gonna want to say LXXXVIII was banned for our sins, are ya? XP )

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

If you know what's happening, you've been at Saidit longer than this 4-day-old account. What was your original name on Saidit? The general question is: why trust a 4-day old account with anything related to problems with multiple 4-day-old accounts?

[–]Debra_L[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

It's okay. You don't have to trust me. (Though... exactly what's at stake? We aren't having a confidential discussion here. Any statement you make here is a public statement, not actually a reply in private.)

In return, I will note that you're evading the questions at hand, trying to distract via ad hominems. Fair is fair, right?

If you do change your mind, please feel more than welcome to expound on the above.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Now you're avoiding socks valid questions (whom I rarely agree with).

Who are you, and why should you care, and why should we indulge you?

If you can't be open, at least be clear, concise, and compelling.

If you can't comply with more you're a timesuck distraction, regardless of the good points raised in this post.

[–]Debra_L[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're discrediting your own notions of argumentative validity, if you tie them to the person. Ad hominems are frowned upon for good reason. (Actually a bannable offense on SaidIt, BTW.)

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't tie anything. I pointed out I'm flexible enough to agree with socks. Dragging down conversations, as you're doing, is ban-worthy, not ad hominems (especially with M7 unreliable moderation). More importantly, again you avoided the questions.

You are a waste of time.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

This answer confirms that you are likely one of the fake accounts.

The central argument here is that anyone familiar with the tactics of the fake account people would not so easily give themselves away as one of the fake account people, especially if this person were one of the Admins. You goofed. (You and most of the new accounts are already on a list of the fake accounts.)

[–]Debra_L[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

The central argument here

The central argument for what?

What are you afraid of, little man? That I might be LXXXVIII?? lol

He's reading everything we say anyway! Probably taking notes, too! XD
(Again: we're in public.)

The questions at hand are the questions at hand. Whether it's me or the Pope or Satan himself asking them. Either you can answer them -- or expose them as disingenuous, if you can -- or you have to hide behind ad hominems.

Appears it's the latter.

:sigh:

Next, please!

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Argumentative and lame.

Maybe they're correct in that you're a shit disturber.

Prove me wrong.

[–]Comatoast 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

This is embarrassing. I can't tell if you're balls deep on the spectrum, or just a sociopath with an insane amount of time on your hands that feels extremely ass blasted that the admin would ban you.

You! And of all people.. How could they do this? Don't they know who you are?

This is what entitlement looks like. Continue tipping your fedora while the rest of the world continues to turn and be active, despite not having to listen to your inane dogshit about ad hominems.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

Hey! I wear fedoras. Some covered in aluminum foil. Leave headgear out of it! They dint do nuffin.

[–]Comatoast 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Jason, you've earned your fedora for different reasons. It's a pure fedora that seeks out justice, as opposed to the soul-stained fedora of the majority of fedora-donning agents.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe I'm just clinging to my young sexy hipster glory days at Burning Man when fedoras and fur and pinstripes were rare before their mainstream comeback and corruption by wannabe SJWs.