I would argue that telling someone to go kill himself is far worse. But to each their own And I agree with your second point completely. KevC may have burned his second chance personally attacking Clutch.
I get it. Spoiler I also think this is not looking at it the way Clutch is, imo. Clutch doesn't view this thread as "who's offensive posts were the least or most offensive." We do, in our attempt to play The Man and express our disagreement or agreement. Maybe we are letting this thread disturb ourselves by trying to express our need to influence BBS events like bannings. To Clutch, his participation in this thread seems partly to illustrate via kevC -- "You are the walking-talking-reading-posting embodiment of second chances on the board" -- how he approaches Forgiveness....too....not just punishment. Punishment is easy...Forgiveness is something few in the Thread appear to grasp as well as Clutch. And I'm pretty sure Clutch seeks opportunities to Forgive much more than Punish, as his approach to life -- especially on Thanksgiving weekend. I also saw Clutch apologize to Granville...unconditionally. Is Granville going to stop calling Clutch out now? And threatening to report him to the NBA and Rockets? I wonder.
Yeah, I'm not trying to be in a position of defending offensive attacks. That isn't what I was trying to do. That being said, asking for proof isn't a problem and wouldn't be a problem when BTG did it. The only problem is that when scholarly studies and other proof is provided, BTG then says he doesn't buy the proof without solid reasoning why. I don't mind asking for proof. I just mind ignoring proof, and continuing to spout the same crap. This is all a huge mess for a poster that detracts value from the site. I also want to make sure I understand what will or won't get me banned from the site.
What if frequenting that business provides some kind of unique value to you (entertainment, a unique food, etc) that you can't easily replace elsewhere? Or what if you think the business is (intentionally or not) promoting hate/racism/etc in some way and you feel you have some kind of moral obligation to try to stand against it? I can think of any number of other reasons here. I don't know what all these people are thinking on either side of the issue, but I think "why don't you just leave?" is kind of simplistic. I don't like a lot of Amazon's policies and the way they approach business in a lot of ways, but I appreciate the convenience and services they provide me, so I continue to use them.
My biggest question would be, pretending BtG never said the autism stuff, does Clutch think BtG provides some kind of positive value to the forum? If so, I'm confused but I get the decision to give him another chance. I just don't see what that value is.
He stated that he thought BTG was a solid contributor to the 3 Houston sports forums (he also qualified it with “i May be wrong)
Unless you make an offensive remark that puts you on the wrong side of 100% decent public opinion, then you will first see a Neg Rep. (Clutch rarely "immediately bans" as he did to BTG.) But if you get a Neg Rep...don't lash out....don't elevate it. Neg Reps also accumulate Neg points and can trigger Auto-Bans eventually...but the points system auto-expires, too.
Clearly we have different views on how we handle our affairs when dealing with an entity that does something to one personally and makes one so upset that they find it necessary to report the owner of that entity to some authority. Someone that does something that affects me personally and doesn’t satisfy me when I ask for an explanation, doesn’t get my business anymore.
Yikes - I hope he reviews BTG posts in the future and decides that he was wrong. I can't speak to GARM, but last time I saw his posts in the Texans & football forums, they were no different than D&D - just a stream of insults at anyone who disagrees with anything he suggests. Every thread he participated in went in an extreme downward spiral of stupidity. There was nothing in there I would remotely define as a solid contributor.
Fair enough - you're not an agent of change and don't feel the need to stand up to try to prevent others from being harmed the same way. That's fine, but I think it's weird that you'd wonder why other people don't take the same stance.
Yeah, several of us that regularly post in the Texans forum replied last night to let Clutch know BtG is in fact not a solid contributor in those forums and has been the exact opposite for years. Clutch did say he could be wrong and to let him know if he was. But then that thread got deleted, so no idea if he saw the feedback.
Personally, I get a lot of value and inspiration from seeing Clutch show Forgiveness, anyway he sees fit. It helps me Forgive others, as well. I hope BTG sees this, too. If not, Clutch will be back with the ban hammer; as he said, BTG can't just come back and apologize,,,he has to live it with change in his posting style. I trust Clutch when he says that. BTG will be mistaken to take that lightly. To Texans Fans (@Harrisment --- Use the Report Button. I'll handle the GARM reporting ...
Right, like the conditional return of offering an an apology---which he basically didn't do and used it as a platform to attack @Granville again. After everything he did, I think that it what is irritating people the most. He didn't even change his posting style in that man, I mean comeon!
It's just a figure of speech now to call it Neg Reps. The new Forum Software still provides Admins with auto crowd-control via a ding, warning system. Suffice it to say, you will not be surprised by an Auto-Ban...you get plenty of warnings...and they explain the auto-expire dates.
Far from it @Major and @A3PO had a good response and didn't sugar coat it, there is nobody that brings as negative as contribution as bobbo.
On the D&D site, I think the most vocal posters pretty much share a political viewpoint -- so much so that there tends to be a pile on effect to those who offer a contrary view. (And for the record, some of those more vocal posters are some of my personal favorites and they tend to be more tolerant. Others agree with their points and by sheer numbers, it seems to swamp or discourage other views.) When BTG stays away from insults, he tends to offer contrary views in a pretty high volume himself. While that might irritate those who don't share the views (or like the volume or like the delivery), it does keep the conversation flowing. (BruceAndre was filling in, but he has dropped out -- and I don't think he is an alt -- the style is too different.) There are a few brave souls who try to keep the point/counter-point going, but it seems tougher without the volume BTG provides. One might disagree vehemently with some of his positions (leave delivery aside), but without those points D&D might end up as a bunch of people just agreeing with each other. Thanks!
Bobby used hate speech aimed at my son as an instrument to insult me. Then in his comeback apology, he claimed he did what he did because I used my son to insult him which btw is the opposite when he said I used him as a shield before he went off on him. Bobby’s apology was not sincere as he insulted me while delivering it.
