Yeah, great mods we're having here.

Personally I've decided to leave myself out of the current issues going on around the NLSC. I've had a chance to get to know Jae and Jackal really well and my final verdict is that they're great Moderators. We all have the right to respond to harsh statements made to us. Whether you're an admin or mod or patchmaker. IF the president of the United States was dissed by another country I'm sure he would make his presence felt the next time the two met. People just use the mod issue when they got nothing else. I can say this because I've been in their positions before. So this being said, if you got nothing nice to say.. dont say nothing at all About me that is

Keep in mind if the mods werent here to keep order we'd be in trouble. So suck it up and go blow yourselves

nice words of wisdom eh Legend boy

Aite no more. Just lock the thread. Everything has been said.

Aite no more. Just lock the thread. Everything has been said.

Oh, good- the true lord of the NLSC has spoken

Nah. Just want the hating to stop.

to be honest its just the drama. i dont think there is so much hate in here.if ever the poeple do meet in real life there wont be much hating as much as the hating that you thought is hapenning here.anyways its over now i guess. filip's gone. so there wont be much ranting. as a consolation filip is constant in my forum

when there is hate, there is love?
so where is the love?
go seek it in an elephunk's ass!!!

by nigga version of j.timberlake

Yeah there's really no "hate" in here anymore... I'm quite happy for the thread to remain open if anyone has any concerns about the moderating they want to tell us.

He's gone Fender.

I know, I just felt it was time for me to make a Mr. Rogers "Don't worry be happy" statement.

This forum never fails to have threads like these...i remember the days when i was the main focus of dissent..heh.

Well, well... quite a bit of ruckus here...

To keep things sort, and seeing as everyone has given their view of the situation, I'll give mine, in case anybody wishes to hear the accused/plaintiff (depending on point of view) . By chronological order, from what I can recall:

- We started off bad with Jackal, as it is obvious to all that his posting manner does not agree with mine, and vice versa. Fair enough, I guess

- Sometime after, things started getting very much better. He even included me in a favorable manner in his shoutout thread, and I asked for him to be given a moderator tag.

- Answering in one of his posts in which he had some genuinely good words to say about another forum member, I butted in and said something in the likes of "You forgot the slurping smilie", followed by only a laughing smilie. In all honesty, we were doing quite well at the time and I meant that as a joke. I forgot/neglected the 'j/k - mr. green' addition, which probably led for him to take it as an insult. Again, fair enough, it was my mistake, I forgot about how things typed can easily be misinterpreted on the forum.

- He sends me a PM some days later , saying something in the likes of : "My God, XX posts a day... Have you no life? " to which I respond in the following manner:

Let's see:

1) Working at home.

2) Good ol' trusted laptop.

3) Tending for a pregnant/food craving wife.

4) No other forums I visit

5) I consider NLSC my Internet Family. And you my cousin.



I guess that answers your question.


Ofcourse, after the twins arrive your assumption will have become correct, I will then have NO LIFE...


Oh, and don't be so stiff... no need dissing people for no reason. Times change, people come and go, much less forum posters.

So get your ass on the comp and start posting again, we've missed you.

And Yohance is back!!!

- I have a bout with Matthew, in which I call him a 'cancer to this community'

- Jackal defends Matthew and accuses me of hypocricy, intentionally gathering the support of 14 year olds. Things included in the rant are "Greece has gone from the cradle of civilization to the bottom of the pit" and other stuff like that. Funny really, if you do not take it seriously.

- he starts making out of the blue posts about me and my family without provocation. Again, I try to stay civil and answer with short, funny, and maybe just a little sarcastic comments.

- The above continues, and my attempts to cool him off just bounce back at me. After soem warnings, I sent him a PM informing him that I have teh ability to prevent him from posting in this forum if he does not allow me to post in peace. I stress: POSTING IN THIS FORUM. I had no intention of hacking into his computer. I just had the means to disable his account in this forum. Nothing more.

- Word gets out about the PM, and I have a talk with Andrew about it detailing the situation. I end my discussion with the Admin with this PM by Andrew:

-ell I can understand and appreciate your position, I'd just hate for the site/forum to come to technical harm because of a dispute between two members of the community.

Jackal said he'd lay off, I'll keep monitoring the situation and intervene where appropriate, taking whatever action needs to be taken. In the interest of fairness to everyone, I'd like to make sure everyone's given a fair chance.

- Andrew

-o problem, glad to discuss matters before they get too out of hand and beyond a resolution.

See you around the forums.

- Andrew

Note: The 'threatening PM' has already been sent, and STILL NO BAN.


- A day passes, and Jackal starts another flame war to which I respond in my usual way. Short, sarcastic, funnily intended comments.At one point, Jackal posts: "One more from you, that's all I need, One more"
I reply again and next thing I know, I'm banned.


Monday the first of August arrives, and I e-mail Jackal about my ban and its status. He responds that because of a 'threatening e-mail' my ban has been extended by two days. I was under the impression that e-mails are private interchange of information between two people, and not having anything to do with forum rules. Then again, maybe it's just my profession speaking again.


To all of you who insist my banning was fair because of the PM I sent, I say I'd have to agree with you. But the point is: I was NOT banned because of the PM, or we wouldn't be have had the aforementioned convo with Andrew. I was eventually banned for 'abusing a moderator'. And that is the truth.



And that is all. I have already began proceedings to make even with Jackal, and it has nothing to do with this forum. From this moment on, and for the sake of the forum and threads staying on topic. I will ignore all of his posts outside this thread.



One more thing: It saddens me that people I consider friends made haste to give their opinion regarding the fairness of the ban, before actually taking the time to hear the other side speaking its case. But then again maybe it's just my profession that makes me prejudiced as far as'correct and fair proceedings are concerned'.


And with this out of the day, I will make an effort to make up for my weekly absence by adding sheer volume to this post:

Im not sure why Dweaver was banned though, he seemed to be the only genuwine Bayside supporter Ive ever come across on the internet and from what Ive seen so far hes a good member and is pretty knowledgeable.

Haha, imagine if I lived in the Bay Area... I would be wearing a Raider cap to work...

as a NLSC Member badge so brilliantly points out, I'm a team member and will support Jackal in either decision he makes.

Nietsche: "Beyond Good and Evil".

The situation with Dweaver runs a bit deeper than a couple of posts, there was an issue with some private messages and Jackal had agreed to back off but felt provoked, hence the banning as the situation again escalated.

Ah, yes. But who escalated it?

coolmac's law of plain logical events #9999 Bring Back My PAL [supporting Dweaver all the way]

Hehe, at least I have 3 loyal friends still around... Thanks X, Sit and C-mac. ( And Riot )

Dweaver kept going with his remark such as "you all should ask what a jackass is". That ticked me off.

That was a genuine question on my part. Jackal's alternate nam edid bring it to my mind, true, but I just had a falsh and asked what it means in case someone had an answer. That was not an indirect attack at Jackal. You can choose to believe this, or not.

Anyways, even after that threat, I am still willing to just leave it to a 5 day suspension because I'm not one who likes the suspension or the banning.

Jackal's e-mail after my inquiry as to my ban status, on ASugust 1st:

Not quite, I believe you were quite confrontational in the last e-mail I sent you regarding the patch up thus I proceeded to extend your suspension by two more days.

Personal threats won't get you very far, I can make some of my own given by now I know where you work but I won't stoop to your level.


See you after two days, Dweaver.

Quite the contradiction. And probably the reason why I'm back on Thursday instead of Monday.

I said "you lot"... he has mailed alot of people, hence the "Supports Dweaver" names. And yes, I do know for a fact that he did email them.

Unless The X has amultiple personality disorder, I only mailed one person. Oh, I mailed Andrew as well to get him to mail me back formally informing me of my ban the the reasons behind it. I got no response after 3 attempts.

Dweaver needs a enema to get all the shit out of his system.

enema? What is that? Anyway, now you have both sides of the story.

Don't speak as if you know what I would & wouldn't do. I'm the craziest motherfucker you'll ever come across.

As for Dweaver, I know I'd support him getting a permanent ban. He didn't seem like it from the posts I read, but in light of the things you divulged in this threat - he's a fuckwit.

Again,it's better to hear the other side speak before you make judgements like that. You may still stick with your original opinion, which is fair enough, but now would be the time to say something as totalistic as that.

however, those threats and even when Jackal offered his hand (very noble, btw), are disappointing and I would have to favor the ban.

Now this, this I did not see coming... I would expect you to mail me first ( I asked you to via The X) and hearing my side. This disappoints me, trully.

Hehe, you want me to be alright with a person that went and asked The X on how to hack a computer? Sure.

Hey X, can you actually do that? It must have been part of your MBA class...
Nope, I know people outsid ethe forum who can disable an account. Nothing further. The X had nothing to do with it. I asked for his support and to be my voice for the time I could not be here and defend myself.


And that's all... I was in Germany from Friday till Monday so the ban robbed me of three days of posting... which made me realise that I sometimes took things here too sriously since thi sis the only Internet community I'm a regular part of... Injustices happen, just like shit... When I am directly attacked, I will give it tim eto die out. If it does not, I will give a warning. If it persists, I will take my chances at fighting back. This is how the world works, unfortunately or fortunately.



Now, back to normal, shall we?

You do what you must to make your banning seem like you did not deserve it. Kudos to you on that one.

I was contemplating whether I should, or shouldn't ban you. I didn't see it fit. My fellow moderators did. Then the sniping continued and in an arrogant manner you said "that could be negotiated", in other words you won't get in trouble given you already discussed things with Andrew. I'm letting you slide here being the bigger man & shit and you're making wise ass remarks about "that can be negotiated". Pushing your luck, that's called pushing your luck.

You didn't threaten to harm my PC in the e-mail either, you suggested I start saving. None the less, the only reason you e-mailed me that e-mail was due to what was taking place on the forums. Saying that is private and between two people is a contradiction on its own.

I think you tend to forget I'm studying Law as well.

You had your say, let people go ooh & aah and feel whatever it is they feel. I spoke to the three people that should & do have a word in matters regarding the ban, Andrew, Jae & Matthew. All three supported me & in fact Andrew can vouch for me that you were indeed unbanned on Wednesday my time given I also banned you on Wednesday my time.

I'm amazed you didn't mention how crudely you slapped away my hand of peace that I extended, in a rather disgusting manner, yet you didn't fail to mention how much of a meanie I am.

Hilarious. Apart from Jae, Matthew & Andrew only Null has seen the other sad e-mails you've sent to me. If in any way I was wrong, he would've told me that given he's not inclined to pick sides. I'd be willing to show the e-mails in which you offer your hand of peace, which I reject (quite rightfully so I'd say). Yet I find it amusing how you want peace after I said I wanted peace and the whole threat and all.

Real mature & wise as a certain someone put it.

Again, carry on with your "feel sorry for Dweaver" campaign. I am completely done with this matter. To each their own, think as they wish. What you did was despicable, no two ways about it.

Oh, I mailed Andrew as well to get him to mail me back formally informing me of my ban the the reasons behind it. I got no response after 3 attempts

Why would Andrew respond to a ban I made? The point was for you to get your reasons. He spoke to me & I proceeded to give them to you, don't paint him as a bad guy now, anyone not supporting you seems to be the bad guy in your story.

Last edited by Jackal on Thu Aug 04, 2005 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Enema

Thing is, no matter which way you try and put it. You went overboard in a very juvenile and pathetic way (the harming of Jackals stuff a.k.a just hindering him to post here). Very unfit for a lawyer, man and soon to be parent. Actually very unfit for anyone who isn't 12 and spends his days going ROTFL!!!!One! on CS-servers.

You deserve a ban, and should generally just not try and justify the crappy way you acted.


EDIT: In response to Dweaver, not Jackal. Bugger me if I'd have the intrest to quote the long post and cut it up into relevant bits

i'll fix my sig for a change. now that DW bush is around and election day is over
welcome back "hacker" friend

Very unfit for a lawyer

Actually, a lawyer is the profession most susceptible to side means to make things work.

To Jackal: It's over,already... You said your part, every other forum member that was interested in this 'debate' has too, and it was only fitting for closure that I made my voice heard as well. Now people can start jusdging having seen both sides of teh fence.

Very unfit for a lawyer

Actually, a lawyer is the profession most susceptible to side means to make things work.

To Jackal: It's over,already... You said your part, every other forum member that was interested in this 'debate' has too, and it was only fitting for closure that I made my voice heard as well. Now people can start jusdging having seen both sides of teh fence.

Actually a lawyer is the most probable occupation to use unvalidated threats to make things swing their way, often by incoherent references to improbable events. That I should have thought of. Let's scratch that bit from my opinon.

Actually a lawyer is the most probable occupation to use unvalidated threats to make things swing their way, often by incoherent references to improbable events. That I should have thought of. Let's scratch that bit from my opinon.

Indeed. Choice of words to put it may vary depending on personal side-choosing.

To Jackal: It's over,already... You said your part, every other forum member that was interested in this 'debate' has too, and it was only fitting for closure that I made my voice heard as well. Now people can start jusdging having seen both sides of teh fence.

Pleasure, no need wasting anymore time on something that's already been dealt with.

Actually a lawyer is the most probable occupation to use unvalidated threats to make things swing their way, often by incoherent references to improbable events. That I should have thought of. Let's scratch that bit from my opinon.

Indeed. Choice of words to put it may vary depending on personal side-choosing.

Not really, rather depending on the way one has been given the opportunity to watch a lawyer in action so to speak. Or maybe even the rather fundamental choice of what is right and wrong. In my book, threats go into the "wrong" part.

And as to how a lawyer percieves himself, I would not attribute that to the chosen proffesion, but rather the person behind the choice.

Or maybe even the rather fundamental choice of what is right and wrong.

Deja Vu: Nietsche-"Beyond Good and Evil". I'm a Nietschean, even if I can't spell his name properly.

And as to how a lawyer percieves himself, I would not attribute that to the chosen proffesion, but rather the person behind the choice.

Point being, the choice is always behind the person... especially since a man's personality basis is set at the age of 7. No ethically or morally challenging choices to make up until then, so it's just watching and learning... "Oh, if only man was free..." -

Deja Vu: Nietsche-"Beyond Good and Evil". I'm a Nietschean, even if I can't spell his name properly.

Trusting ones rethoric on Friedrich Nietzsche is an easy way to take in any argument when it come down to right and wrong. But sure.

"As long as a man knows very well the strength and weaknesses of his teaching, his art, his religion, its power is still slight. The pupil and apostle who, blinded by the authority of the master and by the piety he feels toward him, pays no attention to the weaknesses of a teaching, a religion, and soon usually has for that reason more power than the master."

"It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head"

"hitherto we have been permitted to seek beauty only in the morally good - a fact which sufficiently accounts for our having found so little of it and having had to seek about for imaginary beauties without backbone!"

Point being, the choice is always behind the person... especially since a man's personality basis is set at the age of 7. No ethically or morally challenging choices to make up until then, so it's just watching and learning... "Oh, if only man was free..." -

Let's not base the foundation of the argument on wildy disputed ideas on where and when a personality is set. Or how it is developed. To put the choice before the person is to relieve the person of any responsibility. And therefore a shortcut to absolve guilt.

Too bad you guys never argued at the philosophy thread. Throw Jona into the mix, and you got a book.

Unless The X has amultiple personality disorder, I only mailed one person. Oh, I mailed Andrew as well to get him to mail me back formally informing me of my ban the the reasons behind it.

Whether it was you, X, or someone else who contacted "them" (I won't drag someone's name into this), someone has told me outside of the forum that they were contacted and asked to support you. So I don't think that's exactly right. Then again, lawyers have a tendency to bend the truth, if it benefits them.

Also, the fact that you, a married adult lawyer expecting twins, would go as far as try to attack someone's computer in some way over an internet dispute from a forum you had supposedly been "retired" from seems incredibly absurd to me (and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one).

And one last thing from my storybook of a post, I doubt anyone would take a seemingly "friendly" joke without offense when you use the smiley so much. It just looks like some cocky motherfucker with a British accent saying "Come get some, bitch". Well, I guess maybe that's my inner monologue, but I wanted to clear that up.

Unless The X has amultiple personality disorder, I only mailed one person. Oh, I mailed Andrew as well to get him to mail me back formally informing me of my ban the the reasons behind it. I got no response after 3 attempts.

Did you mail people asking them to put "Supports Dweaver" in their name/sig? Regardless, you did contact people to help you "hack" the NLSC. Something I personally won't look past, and something I've become very warey of. This isn't a free ride, after seeing all of the evidence I was all for a permanent ban. Anyways, the issue is somewhat cleared up now. We'll just wait and see what happens.

nope. it was SIT who mailed me.
and i do think it was necessary at that time when i too saw the evidence accroding to my own investigation.

that might be biased since it was only my own. but i'm still entitled to my opinion aint i?

in all aspects during the whole banning period DW never did mailed me or PM me or even visited my forum. thats the final word

Then how did Sit come up with the idea to mail you