Posted:
#26
@trainwreck66
Lets wait for wmi999 reply 1st 
"At 50, everyone has the face they deserve" -George Orwell
Why did BigD get cancelled?
Posted:
#27
@trainwreck66
You have been on this site for 10 years you have seen members come and go and the reason for someone being banned is always the same. That is your answer, the people making the decisions follow the rules set by Covers to moderate the forums and when members break the rules they either get cautioned, boxed or banned and that is how the site operates. Some members will get boxed over and over and over and over then one time they get banned. It is like you guys are shocked when you break the rules and then the decision is to ban, that is just the risk you take and the decision of the person dealing with that situation.
If you guys seriously do not know why then how do you think it can be made any clearer? That member regularly broke the rules and this time he was banned, that is all there is to it and it will keep happening if members break the rules.
Posted:
#30
@wallstreetcappers
I stand by what I said. Yes, people know the possible reasons why. You know as well as I do not everyone may be aware of all the post some may or not make. A question put in the help section should always be answered. It's beyond unprofessional.
Its pathetic you just couldn't be man enough to just answer the question in the first place.
As for the excuses you use for the banning? Fine. No issues with that. But you let guys like HailFlutie who spews constant lies, hate and pure BS to continue to post AND get boxed over and over and over and over and over.
Of course, these are our opinions and like always you will brush them off as meaningless to you
Thank you though for finally replying.
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
Posted:
#31
@trainwreck66
That tag means nothing, it does not mean someone will get banned or not its just a tag and nothing else. Post count is not a huge deal its just a fun thing for other members to see how active the person is.
A caution warning is usually a polite way to nudge someone about the site rules and yes we all know that a popcorn emoticon CAN be used as a sarcastic bashing tool, it happens all the time so that is likely what happened to you.
Mystery solved, he broke the rules all the time...all the time and got banned, there is nothing more to the story and that is always the case when someone gets banned. All of the people moderating have been on the site a very very very very long time, everyone follows the site rules and terms and he could have been banned a ton of times in the past, no question.
Posted:
#32
@wallstreetcappers
We have a lot of users on this site on username 2 and username 3 . They have been granted leniency . I think you may have fucked up on this one . Take a look and maybe give a nudge going forward is what we are asking . Like WMI said ....there are more users that are deserving
Posted:
#33
@trainwreck66
The thing is a decision is made based on the site rules, there is no mistake on this banning. He was boxed over and over and over, he could have been banned many times in the past and this time he was. The other stuff you said is subjective and you cannot correlate it to anything else. Saying that this member is awful why are they not banned does not mean another member who was should not have been. You do not know the history of any member or the frequency of breaking the rules.
Any decision made is following the rules, the box vs ban or 100 boxings no banning does not really correlate its just how things worked out and some members were banned and snuck back and then banned again after doing the same thing that got them banned originally but in general if a member is banned and returns they can expect to be banned again as the rules of the site follow that process. What is missing in all of this hoopla is accountability, you guys are all about deflection and blame and unfairness when the original member who was banned had it coming and THAT is why he got banned, that is the only reason and nothing else matters.
Posted:
#34
@wallstreetcappers
Is it not possible to restrict someone to the PB only, while still being able to post/reply in the PB, like it used to be?
Seems a better option than banning (for some members)
Maybe after a little time has passed you and the others in charge will consider allowing BigD2.0 back. For that matter, maybe even your old friend BR.
Stranger things have happened
bigreds daddy
Posted:
#38
Quote Originally Posted by Getty3:
For those that care, Covers.com is a Canadian based company which is currently partnered with Postmedia Network of Toronto which in turn is largely owned by Chatham Asset Management which is based in the US with a HQ in New Jersey. They claim to have 20 million annual users. This is not a mom and pop website. There is a corporate twist lurking in the background which is counting numbers and dollars. BigD was worth money to this platform, the person who banned him has no value.
For those that care, Covers.com is a Canadian based company which is currently partnered with Postmedia Network of Toronto which in turn is largely owned by Chatham Asset Management which is based in the US with a HQ in New Jersey. They claim to have 20 million annual users. This is not a mom and pop website. There is a corporate twist lurking in the background which is counting numbers and dollars. BigD was worth money to this platform, the person who banned him has no value.
Have pointed this obvious reality out previously in this sub and another here
I've been told by a certain MOD that talking about anything related to the factual reality of a website company making money of its' user website traffic and usage is "fake news".... 
You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is the land of wolves now...
Hot Forum Topics
