Bring back Maverick74
- Thread starter Pabst
- Start date
- Status
Mav was banned?
I guess I do support the Partiot Act after all.
I guess I do support the Partiot Act after all.
Man, I turn the computer off for a couple of days and I come back and Mav is BANNED??? WTF?
Baron, I think you have done a good job over the years and I have invariably supported your decisions on controversial issues, but I really think you got this one wrong. Waggie has been one of the most aggressive, antagonistic posters ever since he joined, and he has contributed very little other than in chitchat. Mav by contrast has been a mainstay of the single best forum on ET, the options forum.
If this decision stands, may I suggest you simply delete the chitchat forum since it seems to do little other than spread strife and controversy?
Baron, I think you have done a good job over the years and I have invariably supported your decisions on controversial issues, but I really think you got this one wrong. Waggie has been one of the most aggressive, antagonistic posters ever since he joined, and he has contributed very little other than in chitchat. Mav by contrast has been a mainstay of the single best forum on ET, the options forum.
If this decision stands, may I suggest you simply delete the chitchat forum since it seems to do little other than spread strife and controversy?
How many of the right wingers who are crying foul cried foul when Wild was banned?
Baron
ET Founder
The thread Maverick posted with links to a third party site containing references to waggie's real name and gay porn was totally OVER THE LINE. When I saw that thread, it was clear that Maverick74 had violated more terms of our member agreement in a single post than I've ever seen. So he was banned for no other reason than the content of his own post. I even got complaints from other members about his thread and how the whole situation had escalated to levels that were way too high.
Banning Maverick was not intended to be a permanent thing. I banned Maverick and simply told him that he and Waggie needed to work their differences out before I would restore his access.
Let me make it clear that I was not asked to ban Maverick. I was asked to remove the thread, which I agreed needed to be done after looking at it. However, I felt and still feel that the thread was merely a "technical indicator" that shows how high the tensions have escalated to, and the only solution to the root problem is that these two individuals work out the situation between themselves. Otherwise, if they are allowed to interact with each other in this public forum without any sort of truce, the bad blood would probably just continue or get worse.
Finally, I want to reiterate one last point to everyone who participates on this site, but especially in the chit chat forum. As stated in our member agreement, the United States Congress ruled several years ago that when you participate on an interactive service such as ET, YOU and ONLY YOU are 100% responsible for the content of your own posts. There's nothing wrong with healthy debate that is conducted in a "let's agree to disagree" manner. But if you let your disagreement with another person turn into anger or hatred, and you then intentionally or unintentionally slander or defame another person or business through one of your posts, you could be putting yourself in legal trouble. So just as a general reminder, please be mindful of the content you publish on our site, especially if it has to do with another person or business. Thanks!
Banning Maverick was not intended to be a permanent thing. I banned Maverick and simply told him that he and Waggie needed to work their differences out before I would restore his access.
Let me make it clear that I was not asked to ban Maverick. I was asked to remove the thread, which I agreed needed to be done after looking at it. However, I felt and still feel that the thread was merely a "technical indicator" that shows how high the tensions have escalated to, and the only solution to the root problem is that these two individuals work out the situation between themselves. Otherwise, if they are allowed to interact with each other in this public forum without any sort of truce, the bad blood would probably just continue or get worse.
Finally, I want to reiterate one last point to everyone who participates on this site, but especially in the chit chat forum. As stated in our member agreement, the United States Congress ruled several years ago that when you participate on an interactive service such as ET, YOU and ONLY YOU are 100% responsible for the content of your own posts. There's nothing wrong with healthy debate that is conducted in a "let's agree to disagree" manner. But if you let your disagreement with another person turn into anger or hatred, and you then intentionally or unintentionally slander or defame another person or business through one of your posts, you could be putting yourself in legal trouble. So just as a general reminder, please be mindful of the content you publish on our site, especially if it has to do with another person or business. Thanks!
- Status