Didn't see this until now. Since I made some of the quoted comments, I felt I should clarify them.
Re bestiality: this was a while ago but I'm pretty sure I meant in the context of posting pictures. Calling someone a dogfucker is, as mentioned, not nice but I fail to see how it would violate anything. It might be defamatory but that sort of thing is very hard to prove. MLA might know but he is no longer here.
As for the rules of this site, we do need to follow the Hostgator TOS, which means that we need to follow the applicable laws in the states of Texas and Florida, but this is an internet message board and the laws that we can break against are about publishing content. In other words, we won't be able to engage in bestiality but we might post pictures of it, and that would violate the TOS.
Paedophilia and copyrighted material would be my greatest concerns, however. Both could get us shut down.
As for other rules, I've pointed out more than once that if your objective is to harm the site, you won't be here for long.
Marx was stupid enough to post pictures, illegal content, which was the direct reason for his ban. That he tried to make it look as if Anton had posted them, which was just as stupid. He also made veiled threats, which didn't help his case.
Combine those and there's no reason to limit the consequences to harsh words. He was an idiot.
That was the reason why when I saw Jack's saying I had broken the rules around this (and as facts), I did not do a "catch me if you can" approach to it. I thought "No, I'm pretty sure that I haven't BUT Jack is stating it as fact not opinion. Maybe I HAVE done or said something that "crosses the line" of the rules.
On a site like this that means either endangering the sites's existence, endangering the members of the site or the accessibility/usability of the site. Breaking rules and in respect to this issue meant breaking laws and endangering the site's existence (from my reading) because it was not endangering the membership (like say if I was hacking the site for personal details on members), and it was not making the site completely useable (like spamming shit out of the forum).
What is left is endangering the site risking it get shut down by the hosts as a result of potential law breaking. THIS is what I had thought the rules I was being told I knew i had broken...and was going to have others allow me to stay on the basis of good standing. (So fucking out of character for me to do this, that I still can't get my head around it)
But what had I done or said to break TOS? My instinct was to say 'Nothing" but Jack seemed pretty sure and more so that I would be given leniency. I was not happy having this kind of character assassination go unaccounted. BUT Maybe Jack was right. Maybe Jack knew something else and was going to back the claims with something substantial? No, Jack was just throwing it out there unfounded and wanted to not back a thing. no reason for saying anything but potentially accusing Me and perhaps others of potentially risking the site.....and not caring enough to own their actions.
I let Jack know IF this was the case I would ask for my account deletion, to which I got something that to me sounded like "No don't do that because though I have accused you of being deceptive and breaking the rules knowingly, and said you will accept favouritism" just accept the favouritism or cover up, because I like you". No I don't actually like misuse of power nor authority. Never have. I like rules and I like them to stay and be consistent and inflexible. I am Aspie. I don't like people short cutting or circumventing through sucking up or greasing palms or being more popular. Never have. So therefore if this was happening and I was going to be a party to such, I would fall on my sword.
I investigated things. I was a lot less confident when started looking at the TOS and the Laws governing them than when I started. Jack may not have known when she made her pronouncements but what if there was "actually" something in it? I was a little concern. It was a bit Twilight Zone-ish. Like seeing if I could find a big stick to be beaten with. Finally I had all facts and able to line all ducks up.
There was nothing in what Jack said. Absolutely nothing. My concerns were completely misplaced. By no reading would anything I have done in this respect served to place the site at risk or broken rules. Of course Jack changes the goal posts and falls back to it being all jut her opinion and what she understood the rules to mean (not that she explained this in any way what her understanding of the rules were) and that I was doing what I knew was unacceptable forum discussion. I busted that open too and that seems to be really more her view than the forum as a whole.
Just disappointed in her really.
Sure you know you have, and you will likely be given patience in the matter as a long standing member, and maybe you should. Not saying you should be banned; in fact, don't know that marx should have been either. Never really understood where the lines of these rules lie. More intersted in the thoughts of the admin who banned him.
I am the first member here to call for Marx being banned.
Marx fabricated evidence in an attempted frame up of Alfonso with the intent of getting Alfonso banned. The fact that the scumbag planted evidence with that intent is a great reason to ban the POS IMO.
As far as references to bestiality go 
does not get anyone banned and neither did calling Duke Nukem a pig fucker.
Actually I had forgotten about Duke. Yes does actually solidify further against the claim of what is unacceptable discussion for the forum. I never saw the specific "evidence" but more than happy I did not. The same went for Bruce. That WILL get the site shut down in EXACTLY the same way
WON'T.
I agree with you entirely.
Have said all there is to say about it. These are my thoughts and they wont change. Fall on your own sword, or not; claim it was fine and all the reasons why; it doesn't really matter. </endfaggyjack>
Yup you pretty much have. You were wrong on each account. No biggie.
Again I really do not care for the Bestiality accusations and such, there was an amount of claim backing and rule interpretation and reasonable assessment that can be done to show it one way or another. Either way that was going to show you were completely right in which case I would have apologised to the membership for putting them in jeopardy or that it was was half of one and half of the other and depending how lineball it was, I would have stayed or left, or there was nothing in it.
None of that really matters to me. That you have this really shitty view of what kind of person I am , and what I would seek to wriggle out of and why, does actually matter. I am interested on what basis you ever thought this way of me.
