Why was Trinity banned?

[Guy-jin]

I stopped arguing with her long ago.

I haven't taken Trinity seriously since the early days of the Obama-bashing. I pretty much just called Trinity out for being the sexist "she" was whenever I stumbled into one of "her" idiotic threads.

And no, "she" was very unlikely to be a "woman".

And why do so many people care again? As long as you're not posting thread after thread of inflammatory tripe, you've got nothing to worry about.

 

[wispandex_bulge]

Once again, I find it interesting how little consensus there is among those who knew about her. Primarily leftist people are pointing their fingers at the inflamatory and disruptive rule. Most of the politically apathetic or rightist people are either ointing to the other rules as possibilities or left wondering, as I do, what really got her banned. Again, I bring this up becasue I have made many posts in the political forums, probably with many of the same points that she used (I dont really know), but nothing that I posted was purposefully to inflame or disrupt. I know that as a priavte institution, the owners adn moderators of this site have carte blanche to do what they please, but I woudl think a little transparency into the enforcement of the rules, especially in teh case of banning is probably a good thing.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

And no, "she" was very unlikely to be a "woman".

I'm fairly certain that she is. I don't want to go into detail, but I'll say that she tried to convert a certain guy on this site to the straight side so that she could have his baby. Strange, but true.

Edit:
Wasn't she a member of some kind of "Cougars for Hillary" organization?

 

[Guy-jin]

I'm fairly certain that she is. I really don't want to go into detail, but I'll say that she tried to convert a certain guy on this site to the straight side so that she could have his baby. Strange, but true.

I'll show you the PMs I got from "Ms. Teacher" sometime, rec.

Sufficed to say, both of us have probably been around the Internet block enough to know that "women" like Trinity are usually hiding something (between their legs).

 

[Industrialsize]

Call me crazy, but I miss Trinity. Yes she spewed crap, BUT it was "entertaining" and made me do my homework to dispute her outrageous claims.

 

[wispandex_bulge]

Ok, perfect timing. I think it is appropriate with the start of a new "page" to redefine and refocuse the point of this post. So far the majority of this post has been a referendum on Trinity. I had intended and still intend to make this a referendum on the rules and their enforcement.

It is interesting how the attacks against Trinity have practically boiled over in her absence. Also interesting is the ONE and ONLY moderator to post to this thread simply pointed to her posts, without actually answering the question directly about why she was banned. After looking at her posts, I do not find evident reason to ban her.

So again, I call for transparency in rule enforcement. I understand that the owners and moderators have final say and need not give reasons, but I think that we need to stand up for fair and equitable enforcement of the rules. That is what this post is about. Please comment on topic from now on.

 

[B_Nick4444]

yes

puzzled and perplexed minds want to know

 

[Pitbull]

I addressed a new thread to the moderators regarding the questions we seem to have on this topic.

http://www.lpsg.org/104518-moderators-clarification-on-member-banning.html#post1732244

I hope they will respond.
It would be better than trying to read their minds.

 

[FRE]

My guess is that his or her postings -- thread after thread of desperately strained anti-Obama crap (and I do mean crap) -- were found to violate the part of the terms of service that I have emphasized below.

These violations are subject to a sanction up to, and rarely including, permanent ban, depending on (cumulative) severity:

• Nude avatars.
• Commercial advertisement, flooding, and other forms of spam.
• Content that jeopardizes the board's legal status.
• Passwords or cracks to LPSG or any other website.
• Harassment of, or threats against, other LPSG members.
• Content whose primary purpose is to disrupt or inflame.
• Senseless or unrecognizable content.

The ban may not be permanent, though.

I hope that my several consecutive and long posts on http://www.lpsg.org/189657-replacing-fossil-fuels.html are not considered flooding.

 

[FRE]

I notice that nude avatars is reason for banning. I guess then that if one is wearing only a hat or socks it's ok because that does not constitute nudity.

Trinity apparently believes that Obama was born in Kenya. Perhaps he was; I can think of two ways for that to be possible.

One way would be for Obana's parents to know that Obama would, in the future, be running for president and have an operative in Hawaii publish a fake newspaper report about his birth in Hawaii. Another way would be for an Obama supporter to use a time machine to travel to Hawaii and tamper with the records.

 

[houtx48]

ever thought he/she is bat shit crazy. there was nobody around making you read the nonsence. if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and don't go tattling to the moderators.

 

[798686]

Poor ol' Trin. I quite liked her, and thought she stood up pretty well to the flak she attracted.

 

[D_stryhtfg]

I just find it hard to believe that someone would be paid to post on lpsg. But you never know.

Yeah...where can I sign up...I COULD quit my day job(s)...:biggrin1:

Do we get extra money for posting pics?? :smile:

 

[Calboner]

Several months ago I put that freak on "Ignore" and quit clicking on its hateful, lunatic threads in the "Politics" forum. It is distressing to see the manifestations of such a perverted mind, even in the form of thread titles. I am glad that it has been banned again, and I hope that the ban is permanent this time. (The entry in the "Moderator Actions" thread does not contain the qualification "temporary," so I assume that it is permanent.)

 

[Northland]

Several months ago I put that freak on "Ignore" and quit clicking on its hateful, lunatic threads in the "Politics" forum. It is distressing to see the manifestations of such a perverted mind, even in the form of thread titles. I am glad that it has been banned again, and I hope that the ban is permanent this time. (The entry in the "Moderator Actions" thread does not contain the qualification "temporary," so I assume that it is permanent.)

There are manifestations of twisted hatred throughout the politics section, and along with the Trinity ban we have 2 others who have been handed temporary bans-one of whom at least was handed a temp ban from politics once before. The new and clearer politics forum rules are to my understanding still being crafted, until then it's something of a mess.

In most cases, if anyone speaks ill of the left (Democrats- Obama, Clinton, Pelosi et al) they are attacked and insulted by one after another. If one is seen as being in anyway right leaning (Republican or Conservative) they are destroyed on thread topic alone.

Threads which attack anything Republcan (several titles with Wingnuttery in them), such as an idea or a gaffe by a Republican are given high fives by the radical coalition. A similar gaffe from a Democrat is greeted by finger pointing at where the Republicans have erred, not admitting to the error of the Democratic leader (Congress/Senator/Governor/Mayor/Etc.)



One thing which I find most puzzling is why, just days before Trinity was rebanned, this thread dealing with the earlier banning was brought back up- a year and 9 months after the last post on the topic. Seems odd timing and would have needed some level of searching. Further, there was nothing in mod actions to indicate Trinity had even been handed a warning, and the posts were no different from what Trinity has always posted.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

there was nothing in mod actions to indicate Trinity had even been handed a warning, and the posts were no different from what Trinity has always posted.

Well, if she had been banned for a certain style of posting previously, and she continued to post in the same manner, then she's on thin ice.
The mods don't go through the whole heads up/warning/banning cycle again.

And you know she was banned before, because you write:

One thing which I find most puzzling is why, just days before Trinity was rebanned ...

 

[Northland]

Well, if she had been banned for a certain style of posting previously, and she continued to post in the same manner, then she's on thin ice.
The mods don't go through the whole heads up/warning/banning cycle again.

Sure about that? Check the May 11 listings.

And you know she was banned before, because you write:

That wasn't the issue, I was just wondering why exactly the thread came back up at this time- it seemed odd timing.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I'm not even going to say a word...
Not one. You should all know how I feel on this.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Sure about that? Check the May 11 listings.

No, I'm not sure at all.
I have no idea what's going on in the background.

But here's my (stab-in-the-dark) thinking:
If Vinyl got a temp ban today, that would bring him back to the level of punishment he got last time around.
If Trinity got a permanent ban in September 2008, then this recent ban would bring her back to the level of punishment she got last time around.
Both would therefore have been treated equally.

But I can't remember the nature of the ban Trinity received back in September 2008 -- and I'm not sure I ever knew it.

 

[vince]

Is "general nastiness"against the ToS? If so, then a lot of people could be in trouble!