[Bodom]

Can we stop using the you were in the convo so you were flaming him excuse?

Ive been in tons of big convos on msn with kc and people, then someone would add fersken and just flame him while most of the time others ignore him and dont actually say anything such as Dave. Ask Superchao how much it happens if you dont believe me.

But just saying stop with the whole excuse abotu being there makes you guilty.

[©allum]

Guilty by association you dave.

[Red Sentinel]

Can we stop using the you were in the convo so you were flaming him excuse?

Ive been in tons of big convos on msn with kc and people, then someone would add fersken and just flame him while most of the time others ignore him and dont actually say anything such as Dave.  Ask Superchao how much it happens if you dont believe me.

But just saying stop with the whole excuse abotu being there makes you guilty.

yeah, i get added some times, and say example of who's there:
super, kc , goku, saj, ech, alex and some random persons.
it's like when i get added, KC and alex and saj flames me [EXAMPLE], but the other ignore me, so see careful of what they say, do not assume

[x t o n]

your all

[Dark Alex666]

oh noes. im a flamer at least i dont bring my msn convos up on the boards

[Red Sentinel]

alex, dont try to start with me
i've just read all those topics that happened tonight, and i have a VERY short fuse right now

[Bashae]

Steady there...

[Snowy]

KABLOOIE!!!! errr msn convos shouldnt be brought up on the board UNLESS it has to do with something STARTED on the board

[Red Sentinel]

he didnt exdactly flame me, but if i made a spelling/grammar mistake or said something wrong, i'd get rudely insulted of that (KC)

[CongressJon]

One other thing about this: If you're going to make accusations about people that came from a conversation through MSN, AIM, etc., it definately helps to provide a screenshot.

The thing is, if you were flaming a person on MSN who started flaming on the forums, though the forum-flamer is clearly guilty as charged, "you" (as in the person who flamed the forum-flamer on MSN or whatever) could be just as guilty. Provocation, if confirmed, would make "you" as much of a flamer as the other one.

[Cspace]

As was said over and over and over in the situation last night, the action taken had absolutely nothing to do with the conversations. 100% of the reasons for what was done revolved around what was done here, last night and once earlier, mostly in GD, and involving our members here in the open. Some of it is also in the Deletion Archive if a mod wishes to validate this for himself/herself.

The conversations were brought up originally purely as a warning for the future, not condemnation for the past. I was basically saying 'if you're involved in a situation off the site in the future, it can be taken into account when brought here', not simply witnessing it or being associated with it. Then Base brought up the past conversation to show that these claims did hold water, not necessarily for coming down on certain members but showing that these issues have existed for months. The reasoning then got flipped by a few members for a variety of reasons (not necessarily willingly), but that conversation had absolutely no impact on what was done.

Since not everyone seems to have seen my mentions of this scattered around the maelstrom in GD, I'm saying it here again plainly in the open. If you wish to see the specific reasons for why action was taken, please refer to the threads and appeals for it is laid out many times there. Once again, since some members keep overlooking it, the action taken had physically nothing to do with anything that happened offline.

[jkl;]

One other thing about this: If you're going to make accusations about people that came from a conversation through MSN, AIM, etc., it definately helps to provide a screenshot.

Yeah, it would make sense. Maybe that's why it wasn't done.

The thing is, if you were flaming a person on MSN who started flaming on the forums, though the forum-flamer is clearly guilty as charged, "you" (as in the person who flamed the forum-flamer on MSN or whatever) could be just as guilty. Provocation, if confirmed, would make "you" as much of a flamer as the other one.

No no.. don't let Fore look bad, he's always right, I'm always wrong, remember?

[alt1]

he didnt exdactly flame me, but if i made a spelling/grammar mistake or said something wrong, i'd get rudely insulted of that (KC)

I don't give a crap how you spell, why don't you realize that?

I might make a joke about you spelling something incorrectly, but I don't care.

If you're so insulted by that, then grow up. Life isn't so pretty and happy and carefree.

[CongressJon]

he didnt exdactly flame me, but if i made a spelling/grammar mistake or said something wrong, i'd get rudely insulted of that (KC)

I don't give a crap how you spell, why don't you realize that?

I might make a joke about you spelling something incorrectly, but I don't care.

If you're so insulted by that, then grow up. Life isn't so pretty and happy and carefree.

Sure. Life isn't pretty, happy or carefree for the majority of the time. But when you're talking casually among friends (or supposedly friends), then that should be the atmosphere, at any rate. Sure, life isn't like that, but when you work delibrerately to create just the opposite of that, well, you're not exactly deserving of a laugh... Or even permission to keep posting here.

[Bodom]

Yeah but i saw base saying quite a few times "why were u in a flamefest convo"