[poll] munky99999

Post by **Edi** » 2006-07-06 05:11pm

So, presented before this body is the case of one munky99999, who is accused of general trolling and violating the following board rules in this thread: PR1 (in a manner of speaking, his posts are fucking garbled), DR4, 5 and 6. Additionally, he has repeatedly claimed that the board rules do not apply to him posting bullshit because, paraphrased, "it's not formal debate, it's informal, so I don't have to do shit and don't need to be logical or back anything up".

Based on this parade of bulllshit and trolling, the Senate is asked to vote on his punishment.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2006-07-06 05:13pm

Incidentally, I vote ban. Burninate the bastard.

Edi

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-07-06 05:39pm

Ah, to miss all that and pile of cheetos.

I vote ban, mostly because that was a pile of drivel and time I won't be able to have back.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-07-06 05:40pm

Title. guy is new, lets attempt rehabilitation first.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-07-06 05:44pm

Anyone who has a username which misspells a word in an incredibly non-clever/uncreative way, and then attaches a string of numbers to the end of it in an attempt to look less retarded . . . fails at life. As much as I hate to apply stereotypes, this kid seems to fit that particular stereotype so well. With that being said, I try to find something in his short posting history that might suggest that he'll be redeemable, but there's nothing I can find to that end.

Eh, ban.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-07-06 05:47pm

Ender wrote:Title. guy is new, lets attempt rehabilitation first.

Are you really, really sure about that? More of the fucking same.

Edi

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-06 06:10pm

Edi wrote:
Ender wrote:Title. guy is new, lets attempt rehabilitation first.
Are you really, really sure about that? More of the fucking same.

Edi

Its retarded and useless but I don't think he's really quite yet risen to the level of being incapable of learning to function within the board. His posts may be moronic but they display far more thought than the average fools that we've banned in the past. Its not saying much but he seems to have the occasional bouts of coherence that lend me to think we should title and put him on probation first, ban later.

Post by **Dalton** » 2006-07-06 07:59pm

Ban. I have low tolerance for this brand of fool.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-07-06 08:36pm

I knew this was coming sooner or later when he posted a 'So a <Blank> Walks Into A Bar' in the Refuge From Political Correctness thread. Fucker doesn't read rules.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2006-07-06 09:05pm

munky99999 made the mistake of catching me in the middle of a bad week, when I'm in a less forgiving mood than usual. Ban.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-07-06 09:39pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Anyone who has a username which misspells a word in an incredibly non-clever/uncreative way, and then attaches a string of numbers to the end of it in an attempt to look less retarded . . . fails at life. As much as I hate to apply stereotypes, this kid seems to fit that particular stereotype so well. With that being said, I try to find something in his short posting history that might suggest that he'll be redeemable, but there's nothing I can find to that end.

Eh, ban.

Ditto. Also, he has no taste.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-06 10:38pm

god I hate this guy.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-07 12:20am

I vote title, though chewtoy isn't an option.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-07 12:38am

well he's crude, and kinda distubing to have around but not bad enough yet to be banned. that said, something about this guy has been buzzing my instincts.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-07 01:34am

I didn't get laid on my vacation, so I'm not in a generous mood. I don't have a lot of patience for pretentious dimwits, especially those who can't be bothered to write coherently, argue properly, or select a user name without a string of numbers like a 12 year old's AIM screen name. And I don't see anything in his posts that makes me inclined to believe he'll reform. So fuck 'im. Ban.

By the way, Edi, that was a quality thread lock.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2006-07-07 04:55am

His 'arguments' sound like the proverbial steaming pile, made with deliberate malice and prior consideration. I vote to ban, but I would ask that his end be one that can amuse the crowd, let him do something really dumb before the thumb goes down.

Post by **Zaia** » 2006-07-07 11:14am

Edi wrote:Additionally, he has repeatedly claimed that the board rules do not apply to him posting bullshit because, paraphrased, "it's not formal debate, it's informal, so I don't have to do shit and don't need to be logical or back anything up".

Hmmm. He strikes me as being an thick-headed idiot more than an outright troll (although that could be because I'm only looking at his posts from without), and I'm sort of leaning towards giving him a chance to shape up and learn that the rules apply to everybody, all the time...but I don't think it'll do much good.

However, I think he deserves the chance, so I'm going to vote to title him.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-07-07 01:17pm

Quality Control for this message board calls for a ban.

Post by **Kuja** » 2006-07-07 05:35pm

I read the "Today's Kids" thread before coming here. Selective quoting of the rules, self-contradiction, wall of idiocy, and misrepresentation.

Destroy.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-07-12 08:33am

Well, maybe it says something that I went right for 'ban' without all the usual 'rehab' fluff. And I'm in a good mood.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-07-12 09:34am

Perhaps I'm feeling forgiving today, but I think he's just scraping the edge of "ban" territory. He strikes me as a moron, but I'd like to give him a third chance: title him, strip him of privileges, and put him on zero-tolerance probation.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2006-07-12 09:58am

I don't see any reason to keep him. Ban.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-07-12 06:34pm

Honestly that probably makes this the first truly contested ban poll we've done since the implementaiton of the senate structure.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-07-12 07:57pm

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-07-14 11:03am

I could only get halfway through page two of his drivel.

Get rid of him.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[poll] munky99999

Ban the fucknut?

[poll] munky99999

Re: [poll] munky99999