Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws

OmegaZero_Alpha Wrote:
Snarf Wrote:You seriously still fucking care?

I have more of a problem with him just repeating the same fallacious bullshit.


which part of his post was fallacious?

why are you such a pretentious douche?

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.
Reply

glouch Wrote:
Snarf Wrote:You seriously still fucking care?
uhh snarf where did you find that image? 8O :blurp:
he set the timer on his cam for 5 sec so he could quickly cap himself.

Thanks.
Reply

OmegaZero_Alpha Wrote:
Snarf Wrote:You seriously still fucking care?

I have more of a problem with him just repeating the same fallacious bullshit.

Like the part where you stated the other side can't do it, when in fact they can? Or are you not counting that in your "fallacious bullshit" category?
Reply

I have to side with Jerclay here. Design flaw, maybe. Exploit, hardly.


Besides, DF already said he wouldn't ban for an offense such as this. I think Hell-met is wrong in his actions on this matter.

And besides, I know I've seen Hell-met exploit abuse more than once before. Who are we trying to kid here.

I am Half-Duplex`, and I approve this message.
Reply

totally not biaised

[Image: hell-met.jpg]
Reply

You're right. Totally not biased. I went through the entire thread. And even if you did have it out for him, its a silly reason to kick.

Its nothing like shooting through the gates at start up.

I am Half-Duplex`, and I approve this message.
Reply

Since I've already said everything I had to say in this thread,

deal w/ it nerd

[Image: hell-met.jpg]
Reply

Not trying to make an attack on you in anyway. But DF did say he wouldn't have banned for something so small to avoid headache such as this.

I know you're trying to "do your job" as admin...
...and I know each admin is different when it comes to what they are willing to tolerate.

But I think next time you should ask yourself WWDFD before hand when it comes to an issue as small as this. Especially if you intend on banning for 10 days...regardless if you fat-fingered it or not :/

it really does sound like you were sniffing for a reason to ban. poor admin skills bro.

I am Half-Duplex`, and I approve this message.
Reply

Didn't you hear? Not agreeing with him is plenty basis for bias accusations.
Reply

guys I just realized something.





2fort.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)