The Banishing of Woodruff?

[Symmetry]

That guy was utterly worthless to discussions. He was just trying to get under peoples' skin.

You're must be joking? Wow, ironically Dangerboy describes himself almost perfectly.

Woodruff was banned because people like pimpdave bait him. Woodruff was banned because a multi, intentionally created to bait woodruff because woodruff had gotten the better of the multi creator in prior debates, baited him and he reacted to it.

Totally reasonable to uphold that ban. If you're an idiot.

Ugh...this is what happened to him!

viewtopic.php?f=239&t=166468

Indeed, as far as I can tell, a troll account was set up to intentionally annoy him, he got annoyed. The multi account got banned (big deal- the only purpose of the account was to annoy), and Woody got a ban too (pretty much justifying the purpose of the troll account).

Woody, not having the advantage of multiple accounts, what with being an honest bloke, is cut off. The multi troll claims his scalp, and gains satisfaction.

I don't think anyone who's been on these forums for any length of time would argue that Woodruff doesn't have a short temper, but he's also unfailingly honest.

If there's more to this than Woody railing against a troll, I'm open to a rethink.

[shieldgenerator7]

poor woodruff. being targeted like that. I hope he returns soon

[Dukasaur]

I don't think anyone who's been on these forums for any length of time would argue that Woodruff doesn't have a short temper, but he's also unfailingly honest.

+1

[tkr4lf]

I don't think anyone who's been on these forums for any length of time would argue that Woodruff doesn't have a short temper, but he's also unfailingly honest.

+1

+1

[john9blue]

You're must be joking? Wow, ironically Dangerboy describes himself almost perfectly.

Woodruff was banned because people like pimpdave bait him. Woodruff was banned because a multi, intentionally created to bait woodruff because woodruff had gotten the better of the multi creator in prior debates, baited him and he reacted to it.

Totally reasonable to uphold that ban. If you're an idiot.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, a troll account was set up to intentionally annoy him, he got annoyed. The multi account got banned (big deal- the only purpose of the account was to annoy), and Woody got a ban too (pretty much justifying the purpose of the troll account).

Woody, not having the advantage of multiple accounts, what with being an honest bloke, is cut off. The multi troll claims his scalp, and gains satisfaction.

I don't think anyone who's been on these forums for any length of time would argue that Woodruff doesn't have a short temper, but he's also unfailingly honest.

If there's more to this than Woody railing against a troll, I'm open to a rethink.

these two posts sum it up almost flawlessly.

i tolerated woodruff for the same reason that i tolerate player. they may disagree with me frequently, but they are not trolls. nobody who is not a troll deserves to be banned.

[Symmetry]

Maybe one of the mods will step in and explain the thinking behind this decision to reward trolling. All I saw on the C&A report was that he violated the forum guidelines, pretty much the vaguest explanation possible. For the mods involved in this travesty:



This is a nipple, in violation of the community guidelines. I'm also posting this intentionally, and acknowledge that it may well be considered annoying- a violation of another community guideline.

Of course, I'm not looking for a ban, just a bit of common sense.

Community guidelines should protect the community, not reward trolling.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Of course, I'm not looking for a ban, just a bit of common sense.

Community guidelines should protect the community, not reward trolling.

I've been asking for that for a couple of years now.

Here's how the discussion usually goes:

Me: This decision doesn't make sense
Mod: It's correct according to the guidelines.
Me: Yes, but surely you see, it makes no sense.
Mod: No, it makes perfect sense *quotes guidelines*.
Me: Yes, but can't you see that this decision is against what the guidelines are trying to achieve, even if it respects them in letter
Mod: This inquiry has been satisfactorily handled as per the guidelines. Thread locked.

[pimpdave]

I don't think you guys know what trolling actually is.

[CreepersWiener]

Maybe one of the mods will step in and explain the thinking behind this decision to reward trolling. All I saw on the C&A report was that he violated the forum guidelines, pretty much the vaguest explanation possible. For the mods involved in this travesty:



This is a nipple, in violation of the community guidelines. I'm also posting this intentionally, and acknowledge that it may well be considered annoying- a violation of another community guideline.

Of course, I'm not looking for a ban, just a bit of common sense.

Community guidelines should protect the community, not reward trolling.

What did the discussion entail? How do you bait someone that has a multi account? Shouldn't Woodruff be rewarded for baiting a multi? Come on...the mods have got to see the error in all this hoopla. For the mods to punish an honest member of CC and reward someone that has flagrantly abused CC rules seems to be a bit obtuse...don't you think?

Anyway, FREE WOODRUFF!

[Quirk]

I don't think you guys know what trolling actually is.

When it's done right you never even know you were trolled.

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems that carpetman brought out what actually lurks beneath Woodruff's personality. The ban is sufficient because the punishment hopefully encourages him to be less caustic. Even if an alleged troll is NOT talking to Woodruff, Woodruff tends to resort to ad hominem attacks.

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

[Symmetry]

It seems that carpetman brought out what actually lurks beneath Woodruff's personality. The ban is sufficient because the punishment hopefully encourages him to be less caustic. Even if an alleged troll is NOT talking to Woodruff, Woodruff tends to resort to ad hominem attacks.

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

Meh, not really dude, as far as I can tell, he was banned for the carpetman stuff, and not for any other reason. Few of us are free from the odd ad hominem, you've done a fair few in your time against my good self, and I've not reported them because I don't want to see you banned. Plus, of course, unlike carpet, I kind of assumed that you weren't looking to get me banned either.

In any case, if this was, as you suggest, a troll account that was set up to reveal the true Woodruff (which bizarrely, you also seem to suggest was apparent), it sounds like it was a reward for a long-standing set of grudges, achieved by cheating, no?

[BigBallinStalin]

It seems that carpetman brought out what actually lurks beneath Woodruff's personality. The ban is sufficient because the punishment hopefully encourages him to be less caustic. Even if an alleged troll is NOT talking to Woodruff, Woodruff tends to resort to ad hominem attacks.

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

Meh, not really dude, as far as I can tell, he was banned for the carpetman stuff, and not for any other reason. Few of us are free from the odd ad hominem, you've done a fair few in your time against my good self, and I've not reported them because I don't want to see you banned. Plus, of course, unlike carpet, I kind of assumed that you weren't looking to get me banned either.

In any case, if this was, as you suggest, a troll account that was set up to reveal the true Woodruff (which bizarrely, you also seem to suggest was apparent), it sounds like it was a reward for a long-standing set of grudges, achieved by cheating, no?

If what you posit is true, then it was clever ninja attack.

[kentington]

Was the owner of the multi banned? That is what I would like to know. Who cares if carpet was banned.

Also, I am more in line with Symmetry on this. If he had it coming then he should have already been banned. But against a multi who was obviously out to piss people off? I would think you would choose to be lenient in this situation and not in the others. Kinda backwards.

I do know what you speak of though BBS. I think it was something of 3-4 pages of him dodging what you were calling him out on and no one else was saying anything or paying attention. But my experience with him was as pleasant as with Symmetry, willing to discuss if both sides remain civil.

[daddy1gringo]

So who was carpetman a multi of?

[luns101]

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

This^

[tkr4lf]

So who was carpetman a multi of?

barackattack, I think.

[Ray Rider]

It seems that carpetman brought out what actually lurks beneath Woodruff's personality. The ban is sufficient because the punishment hopefully encourages him to be less caustic. Even if an alleged troll is NOT talking to Woodruff, Woodruff tends to resort to ad hominem attacks.

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

I don't want anyone to get a ban; that said, I didn't appreciate Woodruff's arrogant and demeaning attitude in most of his posts. Yeah, like Sym said, everyone has at times dipped into ad hominem attacks; but in the case of Woodruff, that was his style all the time. He did have some pretty funny comments at times, however, and sometimes made a good contribution to a debate.

So who was carpetman a multi of?

barackattack, I think.

Seriously? That's a surprise.

[Aradhus]

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

This^

Is a pile of utter fucking stupid garbage.

1, he had just been banned for however long, 3 months I think, returning in december. So how the f*ck is that a long time coming?
2 - If ad hominems and ducking and dodging questions which decimate a part of your argument are necessary criteria for getting banned in here, then just about every one of you fuckers, 'have it coming'.

[BigBallinStalin]

As far as his honesty goes, I've noticed him duck and dodge. He's great at making logical arguments, but he's good at dodging without many noticing. And if he's pressured, he will resort to "reading comprehension failure" with little to none explanation, or he'll resort to the ad hominem attacks.

We've noticed this about his behavior, so this ban has been a long time coming. It's not just his reaction to carpet man's posts. It's been his reaction in general to people over time which justifies his ban.

This^

Is a pile of utter fucking stupid garbage.

1, he had just been banned for however long, 3 months I think, returning in december. So how the f*ck is that a long time coming?
2 - If ad hominems and ducking and dodging questions which decimate a part of your argument are necessary criteria for getting banned in here, then just about every one of you fuckers, 'have it coming'.

1) He's been abusive for awhile. Most people don't engage in such long mean streaks.
2) Sure, everyone does that, but Woodruff has engaged in it much more frequently than most.

Everyone to some degree is an asshole on the fora, but Woodruff was banned for being an extreme asshole--considering his abusive history. He wasn't banned for dodging questions, which was my response to the claim that Woodruff is "... unfailingly honest." That's not true; he dodges questions when under pressure, but not many notice this. Just sayin'.

[Aradhus]

Well we don't all have your gifted talents when it comes to dishonesty, do we. So while the general listless herd might not know the difference between a thing and the lack of a thing actually beimg thre same thing, we've got you here to guide us.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well we don't all have your gifted talents when it comes to dishonesty, do we. So while the general listless herd might not know the difference between a thing and the lack of a thing actually beimg thre same thing, we've got you here to guide us.

I'm not implying anywhere that I'm some enlightened guide who can lead the masses to the 7th chakra. I'm simply explaining why Woodruff got banned and then defending my reasoning.

If you've got no good counter-arguments, then I guess crossing your arms and resorting to your kind of response is one substitute. It's not an effective substitute, but who cares, right? Some perceive value in insulting others--just like Woodruff, who does that more than most posters.

[Aradhus]

How the f*ck can I have a counter argument when you've presented no evidence to your claims which amount to, having a great talent at spotting things other people can't.

Woodruff got banned for flaming some asshole. I don't know what the f*ck you're talking about but I have a sneaking suspicion (your perception of) his dishonesty in debates around the forum had fuckall to do with him being banned.

[pimpdave]

he dodges questions when under pressure, but not many notice this. Just sayin'.

Plenty of us notice, just don't bother with him or pointing it out anymore.

[pimpdave]

How the f*ck can I have a counter argument when you've presented no evidence to your claims which amount to, having a great talent at spotting things other people can't.

Do you ever read the forum