Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions) - Blogs - Bulbagarden Forums

View RSS Feed

OMG, I killed Bulbagarden!

Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions)

Rate this Entry
by , 20th November 2009 at 07:53 AM (1138 Views)
Most of you probably noticed that I was gone from the forums for two weeks and my nick was crossed out, meaning that I was banned. But I don't care... I got deserved vacations from Bulbagarden. But now I'm back.

Do you want to know why I was banned? That's right. Because of Kotone. Now I totally have a reason to hate her. But I wonder how it's possible that I wasn't punished for my signature for so long. Many people, including admins, have seen it numerous times. And suddenly I get banned for that. I guess that Bulbagarden isn't a thing that has its logic.

However, the infraction for the signature was just a final kick to already-lying me. The punch that decided on my ban earlier was practically undeserved. I got 4 infraction points for saying to an other user that he "doesn't know anything". Evkl interpreted that as an implication that the other user was mentally disabled. I mean, WHAT THE HELL?! Were those words really so hard to understand? Are you ALWAYS taking everything so literally, Americans? It's really stupid. Not to mention that the other user didn't feel offended or anything. The reaction of the other user should be the measure of the post abusiveness, NOT admin's subjective interpretation. Not to mention that I WASN'T flamewarring with that user.

So, I'm living with 21 infraction points. It's over the ban limit but somehow I'm breathing. However, I think that it's at least "not needed".

As thou rememberst correctly, I got [b]15 permanent infraction points[/b] for one post. It's COMPLETELY against the Infraction System (which wasn't all that different from today's one back then). I mean, 10 points and another 5 from a different admin, just because of one post. Not to mention that it wasn't anything objective. It was all about opinions. Some may agree with them, some may not. I think that 5 points was all I deserved for that. Because indeed, that was a flamewar.

I'm not, by any means, asking for total amnesty. But believe me, I'VE ATONED FOR THAT POST LONG AGO ALREADY. I'm not taking such active part in "unsafe" debates anymore, and really watching my word. Giving me 15 permanent points for ONE POST wasn't right at the first place. But I've sucked it up and tried to be a better user. After a long time of a safe policy of posting, after getting banned twice (one ban was an admitted fail, the other one was an unadmitted one), I realized that I'm unfairly and severely restrained. With my current situation (21 infraction points), even a single use of profanity is almost LETHAL for me. Just because I was dishonourably stabbed in back by an alliance of two woman one year ago. But as I said, I'm not asking for a full amnesty. Out of those 15 permanent infraction points, take out at least 5, not neccessarily out of them. I've atoned. I deserve a second chance. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp0ce1kS-yw"]I'M BEGGING THOU FOR MERCY![/URL]

Submit "Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions)" to Digg Submit "Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions)" to del.icio.us Submit "Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions)" to StumbleUpon Submit "Back from Vacations (or rather, Infractions)" to Google

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
  1. Maxim Posthumus's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    [QUOTE=H-con;bt32112]I especially liked when you said that you didn't approve of a scientific study when it came from Sweden. That really showed your ignorance. Last time I visited Sweden, I couldn't see any sign of this "brain-washing" you mentioned, and I would know that, as I've visited Sweden several times. It shows how little actual knowledge you have. And besides, shouldn't a scientist be independent of the society's opinion when executing a study.[/quote]

    Visiting the country for a few days is not enough. Being a gay supporter (I assume that you are), you probably didn't notice that. But if you told anything negative about the gays, told a joke or something, you'd get arrested. It's SWEDEN - the country where saying "vagina" is considered as politically incorrect and where children constantly sue their parents.

    You're ignorant, thinking that visiting a country for several days is enough to learn the country's political situation. It's not. You're just a tourist there. Tourist's point of view is always naive.

    [QUOTE=H-con;bt32112]It's not your opinion that really annoyed me, it was that you said you were the guardian of moral and all that shit. It has "always" been wrong due to the definition of that "moral", which has it roots very long ago. [b]The definition of moral can change.[/b][/quote]

    That's why the modern world sucks ass. It completely changed the definitions of BASIC values. It's really scary. It's not true that morality can change. If it really does, then the world's gonna end.

    Be real, how can something that has always been wrong can suddenly become good? Because the position of stars changed? Because date number changed? It's just a date. It doesn't have anything to do with morality.

    Morality is like the properties of elements. It's unchangeable. Call me when Oxygen becomes a metal.

    [QUOTE=H-con;bt32112]The point is that you've given no really evidence that being gay is a bad thing except your definition of moral and blankly disregarded a scientific study that proves otherwise due to the scientists were Swedes in addition to saying you're the guardian of moral and calling the gay-supporters a cult. Anything I've missed now?[/QUOTE]

    "Not giving an evidence" is a reason for getting permanent infraction points? Love your logic.

    It's not "my" or "your" definition of moral. It's not something that can be subjective or changeable. What if my definition of moral considered stealing and rape as something morally okay? Would it be okay, then?

    And as I said - Sweden is a country where saying "vagina" is considered as politically incorrect. The science reports are REALLY altered according to country's political situation. This was blatant during Soviet times but it's hardly just Soviet. Americans do it. And European Union (which Sweden is a part of) does it too. I'm not so quick to believe the reports which are done by governmental scientists, especially when it comes to elements which are an object of a large political debate. Science IS tied to politics very often. There are scientists who negate the existence of races. Do you believe them?

    Also, old debate is old. Maybe we should stop gravedigging and give me the motherfuckass second chance instead of repeating the points that I've repeated thousands of times already. And that's all to prove that my infraction points shouldn't have been reversed. Don't you have your OWN issues, people?
  2. H-con's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Might I ask, on what ground do you have to comment Sweden's gay-politics? I haven't seen anything about children suing their parents in droves either, that's just your imagination (though it could have happen, but not in the scale you think, especially after looking through their biggest newspapers...).

    Living in the country next to it usually brings some attention to their political system and views. You're just being childish when you face an argument like that. Comparing it with Soviet-style research is damn wrong, as they didn't actually have the liberty to say what their studies really showed. But then again, I remember what you wrote about vaccines (but don't let us start on them now), so I feel that discussing this is rather pointless. I'd rather trust the scientists that actually have done a study that other, independent scientists can look into though. As is the current position, you can't prove them otherwise.

    Moral isn't like the property of elements, as you can't "study" moral as you can do with chemistry. Besides, the human conception of these have changed. Moral depends on the society. In a society, stoning of women could be seen as morally right, yet in our view, it wouldn't. Does that suddenly make us more right than they are? (of course I'm not saying stoning women are good for anything, just that we can't try force anything on anyone, it's a change that I think have to happen more or less naturally). Is the death-penalty morally right. I'd say no, but other might say yes. Your point that moral doesn't change is wrong.

    On a side-note, maybe they shouldn't have been permanent though, but that's up to the higher powers to decide. I don't care about your infractions at all to be honest, more about the infraction-system in general, and I didn't even know permanent infractions were possible.
  3. Blackjack Gabbiani's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    The only core value we really need to have is "treat people fairly". To deny gays the same rights as straights is in violation of the most basic value we can possibly have.
  4. Mijzelffan's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    I never saw your old siganture, as I turned off signatures. can you pm your old one to me by any chance?
  5. Satoshi-kun's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxim Menschevick
    Of course. Because not being a homosexual supporter is wrong on these forums.
    Don't forget that 10 of those much deserved permanent infraction points of yours wasn't for "not being a homosexual supporter," but was for telling people that they didn't have real families because of your skewed perspective.

    There is also a difference between "not being a homosexual supporter" and showing a seething hatred toward anyone who is gay.
  6. Steven's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackjack Palazzo
    The only core value we really need to have is "treat people fairly". To deny gays the same rights as straights is in violation of the most basic value we can possibly have.
    This would be where I chime in. "Treating people fairly", in this case, also implies that there wouldn't be any religious offense that comes with gay marriage. I support homosexual marriage whole-heartedly, but only when its not through, in my case, a Christian institution. They can be married under the state, not the church. And with this, I show my appreciation for the separation of church and state.

    This is also why I haven't joined the LGBTS (or w/e) on here, because I'm torn on this subject, trying to create my own middle ground between moral values and religious beliefs.
  7. d.aisuke's Avatar
    • |
    • permalink
    Oh, so you WERE banned?
    Shit sucks.

    I have to say Maxim, though I like you and all that post was very offensive. If I were a mod I'd probably have banned you for a week or so.
    I say those infraction points were fair punishment.

    >>were

    See, that was a year ago, I agree with you, it's time to let that shit go.

    What's funny and ironic about Gay VS non-gay issues is that everyone cries foul.
    You say "it's wrong, respect my opinion, blah blah, blah"
    We/They say "it's right respect my opinion, blah blah, blah"

    If any party was TRULY tolerant, we'd accept each others opinions and agree to disagree.
    "Turn the other cheek" as Jesus would say.

    And on a further note, though I do consider myself a member of the LGBT community; I agree with many "haters" who say "being gay is wrong, U R A FAGGIT!!!"
    It's not normal obviously, but everyone is entitled to their preferences.

    >You don't have to "like" or "agree with" homosexuality etc etc, but you don't have to hate and flame either.


    >You don't have to "like" or "agree with" people who believe homosexuality etc etc is a sin, but you don't have to hate and flame either.


    This is slightly off-topic, but Maxim, what are your religious beliefs?

    And, it's glad to have you back, your posts are not only entertaining, but also thought out and well-research.

    tl;dr- Maxim knows what he's talking about and he also contributes great discussion; quit giving him a hard time.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12