a Punished Toxicology appreciate thread

[IkeTheGeneric]

you tell people to calm down in arguments yet here you are presumably smashing your keyboard to forgetin pieces as you type this

Is this your way of saying thank you? I gave you more detail and you can't be happy with that.

I'll take "Arguments for brevity" for 200, Alex.

[Ad Bot]

[Masterlegodude]

you tell people to calm down in arguments yet here you are presumably smashing your keyboard to forgetin pieces as you type this

[Kidalex90]

Because I don't flame people in a bannable way. I learned that lesson the hard way, and I'm glad I did because it's made me a better person as a result.

Badspot bans people for flaming when they write a post that is intentionally derogatory or offensive towards a specific individual, without any further context or clarification. The posts are straight up insults, played straight without a hint of irony or comedy, either for the sake of creating an argument or to deride a user when it is irrelevant to the context of the thread.

When I write an angry post towards somebody, I don't just insult their negative characteristics and leave at that. In the past, I used to tell people to just "forget off", or "Die", or I would say something like "Shut the forget up you cunt". Those kinds of posts are flaming because they add nothing to the conversation, and yet create a hostile atmosphere that can lead into bigger arguments. Nowadays, when I write a post about a person I don't like, I go on to explain why those characteristics are negative in the context of the thread. I give enough detail for the post to be positively contributing to the flow of the topic. It's not bullying or harassment; it's a thorough breakdown of exactly why I feel somebody has done something wrong.

tl;dr I'm not interrupting the thread to be overly hostile, while that's exactly what Toxicology did


I don't get Toxicology's game. I said some things that were personally insulting to him, sure, but rather than smarten up and try to prove me wrong in a mature way to make me look like an idiot for being wrong, he instead acted like a spoiled brat, going to various topics I posted in with deliberate bait meant to incite me.

The whole movie night fiasco was at first a simple prank on his behalf (which took him 2 hours to setup, btw), but you can tell he actually got personally invested in it and started to care about the numbers and attention. When my CyTube event didn't fail, but instead everybody was actually having fun, he couldn't hack it that I got exactly what I wanted out of it. I don't care that there was only maybe 15 people at the peak, because those who were there actively contributed to the chat and we had a great time.

His salt is delectable because it tastes like disappointment and jealousy. He should take some time off these forums to sort out his own life and figure out what he actually wants to achieve, that isn't just trying to troll some guy on the internet whose old job was to deal with people like him all the time.

so youre basically admiting to flaming

[McJob]

so youre basically admiting to flaming

What.

Did you even read what I said? I explained exactly why my posts aren't flaming.

[Maxwell.]

jesus what is it about the flaming rule you people don't get

[Kidalex90]

What.

Did you even read what I said? I explained exactly why my posts aren't flaming.

you said you flame people in a "non bannable way"

[IkeTheGeneric]

My understanding is that the bounds of the rule is a threshold of being an starfish towards someone unwarranted. Calling someone a stupid starfish (or what have you) in an argument isn't bannable, but copying somebody's movie thread to mock them unprovoked is.

"Flaming" is just unwarranted personal attacks anyways. Being a richard or insulting people isn't flaming on it's own.

[Verification]

there's a difference between flaming, bashing, and snide remarks. mcjob is somewhere in the middle of bashing and snide remarks i would think. he actually constructs a feasible argument and still bothers to actually talk to you most of the time.

[Mardalf]

jesus what is it about the flaming rule you people don't get

Don't set big stuff on fire right?

Like only make small manageable fires

Or is it more the intention of the fire like when they burn an old house because it's easier than tearing it down?

[Kidalex90]

My understanding is that the bounds of the rule is a threshold of being an starfish towards someone unwarranted. Calling someone a stupid starfish (or what have you) in an argument isn't bannable, but copying somebody's movie thread to mock them unprovoked is.

"Flaming" is just unwarranted personal attacks anyways. Being a richard or insulting people isn't flaming on it's own.

then by your logic toxicologys ban is complete bullstuff
you are not the brightest person

[IkeTheGeneric]

Also what is and isn't bannable shouldn't be a metric for social conduct. You just shouldn't be going out of your way to be a richard. If you are, well, all you've accomplished is being a richard.

If this is all just for laughs, you could probably expend more effort into getting a better sense of humor, that way the effort-to-laughs ratio would increase, since you guys are already trying really hard just for stuffs 'n giggles.

then by your logic toxicologys ban is complete bullstuff
you are not the brightest person

Reading comprehension isn't your strongest trait, aye?

[HellHound]

really makes you think, with the same 2-3 people getting banned and then buying accounts to keep doing what they got banned for

[Kidalex90]

Reading comprehension isn't your strongest trait, aye?

he was banned because he insulted mcjob which by your logic he shouldnt have been banned for
i am very sorrowful that youre illiterate and probably suffer from numerous cognitive disabilities

[McJob]

Kidalex90, you put a bunch of screenshots in your signature to demonstrate your "bad boy status", showing bans and people getting upset with you. Do you really believe you have any ground to stand on when discussing who is or isn't ban-worthy, when you can't even seem to understand the rules for yourself?

Toxicology came into my thread and leveled a personal attack at me. There was no context. He didn't quote me, there wasn't a running conversation. Just in the middle of the thread, he made an insult about myself. Please explain how that is warranted in any way, shape or form.

[Mardalf]

really makes you think, with the same 2-3 people getting banned and then buying accounts to keep doing what they got banned for

It's almost like a conspiracy