[AneroidOcean]

(10-07-2014 09:59 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Guys ask for transparency about bannings, often with the (incorrect) speculation that they're done arbitrarily, with little consideration, or for personal reasons. So there you have it. Roosh and I even discussed this case in detail behind the scenes, though this one didn't even merit it because it's so clear cut.

This is otherwise a good conversation and thread. Let's carry on.

I've enjoyed his posts in the past. I had no idea he was at a warning level for prior infractions. I actually took a lot less offense to the things you guys believe are personal attacks and had a much bigger problem with his (as well as multiple people on either side) thinking it's a black and white situation with no grey area. This is where the personal attacks come in. It's one thing to really believe someone is an idiot and another entirely to not consider or reason through some of their beliefs that you don't agree with but that may have some merit (instead of dismissing them entirely).

As Gio has laid out there are MANY factors when considering what route to take. This is calibration, a part of game I still struggle with, but that I recognize is immensely important.

I'm not on either team, I recognize there are valid reasons on both sides why someone would choose to not think much of buying an appetizer as well as why someone would think a lot of it.

I started this post to say one thing, THANK you to the moderator team for the transparency in this case. I don't know how many people ask for it or what their reasons are, but especially in the less obvious of cases such as a high-rep/high-contribution member I think it lays out a foundation for how the rest of us can continue to benefit from as well as contribute to the forum.