The case for/against the Moose's Whistle

[Green Monstah]

Click the forum leaders link at the bottom of the main page, and it will show you all the members of all the cabals in CUFdom. The EC has never hidden their presence. In fact, I would call it common knowledge.

Thanks for the info.

.

[Green Monstah]

Some of us here may even have access without EVER being on the EC

Incredibly awesome.

[Insert jealous emoticon here]

[wuapinmon]

So he was banned because he "didn't want any part of this community"?? Are you sure it wasn't more like, "we didn't want to deal with him here"? Out with it, Surfah.

Which, given that no one is crying for his absence, isn't an invalid reason. Also, couldn't it be a combination of both?

[wuapinmon]

Odd comparison, given that you are seeing the same response here that you would see if you were to go to the office of the boss and want to know why the coworker was fired, then press for details.

Well, it isn't perfect, but it was better than the stake / high council example I first thought of.

I don't give a damn about the Moose's Whistle. I do bristle when someone gets grief over asking why.

[Surfah]

So he was banned because he "didn't want any part of this community"?? Are you sure it wasn't more like, "we didn't want to deal with him here"? Out with it, Surfah.

Moose was a troll. He admitted to being a troll. And he acknowledged that he would never stop trolling. He argued that trolls are what made boards lively. Like I said, like JIC said, like UtahDan said, he wanted no part of this community and continues to affirm that.

Why would we want to deal with that? Better, why should we deal with that?

[scottie]

Moose was a troll. He admitted to being a troll. And he acknowledged that he would never stop trolling. He argued that trolls are what made boards lively. Like I said, like JIC said, like UtahDan said, he wanted no part of this community and continues to affirm that.

Why would we want to deal with that? Better, why should we deal with that?

That's a better explanation than he "didn't want any part of this community."

I just tried to perform an advanced search for keyword "troll" by user name Moose's Whistle, but sadly we can't search by banned accounts, so I'll take you at your word.

[Surfah]

That's a better explanation than he "didn't want any part of this community."

I just tried to perform an advanced search for keyword "troll" by user name Moose's Whistle, but sadly we can't search by banned accounts, so I'll take you at your word.

His actions clearly demonstrated he wanted no part of this community.

I just tried to perform an advanced search for keyword "troll" by user name Moose's Whistle, but sadly we can't search by banned accounts, so I'll take you at your word.

Careful, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

[falafel]

Then you read it wrong. JIC also said Moose didn't want any part of this community. That is my understanding of why Moose was banned. And why he is still banned.

So he was banned because he didn't want any part of the community? How was that determined? And by whom? The committee as a whole?

UD said the reason he is still banned is because he keeps signing up dupes, not that he doesn't want any part of the community. IMO, signing up for 10s of dupe accounts is evidence that he does want to be a part of the community. Regardless, there's some inconsistency in the responses from the various EC members on this point

But if it were any other reason you said you'd be fine with it, so why are you persisting with this discussion? I take it that you actually aren't fine with any of the reasons for his banishment that you said you would be. Is my understanding of that correct here?

I would be fine with the reasons for banishment if there were a single, straightforward answer on that point. I'm also disturbed by how everyone keeps dancing around it.

Out with it then. What is this about? I have no interest in reading between the lines or misinterpreting anything you may or may not be implying.

Its about the process. I'm in favor of consistent, reasonably applied rules. The responses I've seen so far lead me to believe that Moose's banning was, to borrow a term, a little arbitrary and capricious. If someone were to come out and say "Yes, we banned Moose because felt like it and we don't give a shit about process" then I'd say great and thank you for the honest answer.

[falafel]

I just tried to perform an advanced search for keyword "troll" by user name Moose's Whistle, but sadly we can't search by banned accounts, so I'll take you at your word.

You can search by banned accounts.

http://cougaruteforum.com/search.php?searchid=1772192

I suspect you didn't get any results for "troll" because The Moose's Whistle never used that term. But his dupe BSU Broncos and Utah Utes Fan did.

[scottie]

You can search by banned accounts.

http://cougaruteforum.com/search.php?searchid=1772192

I suspect you didn't get any results for "troll" because The Moose's Whistle never used that term. But his dupe BSU Broncos and Utah Utes Fan did.

Ah ha, then it's just the auto-complete for the user name field that doesn't work on banned accounts.

[Surfah]

So he was banned because he didn't want any part of the community? How was that determined? And by whom? The committee as a whole?

Moose determined that. The committee responded.

IMO, signing up for 10s of dupe accounts is evidence that he does want to be a part of the community. Regardless, there's some inconsistency in the responses from the various EC members on this point

I disagree.

I would be fine with the reasons for banishment if there were a single, straightforward answer on that point. I'm also disturbed by how everyone keeps dancing around it.

I am disturbed by why this is so important to you and why you obviously feel entitled to know these things when you say you're not. You've done as much dancing as anyone in this thread.

Its about the process. I'm in favor of consistent, reasonably applied rules. The responses I've seen so far lead me to believe that Moose's banning was, to borrow a term, a little arbitrary and capricious.

This has already been addressed. Each situation is considered by itself. It's not a court of law. We don't have minimum or maximum sentences based on the offense.

If someone were to come out and say "Yes, we banned Moose because felt like it and we don't give a shit about process" then I'd say great and thank you for the honest answer.

I don't believe this because you already believe his banning to be a little arbitrary and capricious.

[Green Monstah]

Moose was a troll. He admitted to being a troll. And he acknowledged that he would never stop trolling. He argued that trolls are what made boards lively. Like I said, like JIC said, like UtahDan said, he wanted no part of this community and continues to affirm that.

Why would we want to deal with that? Better, why should we deal with that?

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Green Monstah]

I am disturbed by why this is so important to you and why you obviously feel entitled to know these things when you say you're not. You've done as much dancing as anyone in this thread.

[Flattop]

UD said the reason he is still banned is because he keeps signing up dupes, not that he doesn't want any part of the community. IMO, signing up for 10s of dupe accounts is evidence that he does want to be a part of the community.

Or it is evidence that he wants to troll, and that he never quits. This would appear to be the very definition of a self-proclaimed troll:

Originally Posted by The Moose's Whistle
That's because I do as I want. Always have, always will. If I have any more suggestions, you'll hear them. The reason I post here, despite what I believe to be a poor format, is that I find it amusing to get under your skin, and others like you. Nothing against you, I just find it amusing to get under your skin.

[Surfah]

Don't read into that. I meant I am bothered by falafel's seeming inconsistencies. He says he's not entitled to an answer but wants one. He says he'd be fine with any answer, but really he's not.