Re: Neil Gaiman on internet privacy [Pebkio]

[Pebkio]

I've heard this exact topic and Gaiman's opinion touted as a defense for "pirating" or file-sharing. I have to say though, that it really depends on the medium.

Books are defined by their authors. The latest book by Neil Gaiman or Dean Koontz will be bought more because it was written by Gaimon or Koontz... not because it's a story about spiders that teach us things or a truck that'll try to kill us. Oh, maybe at the premise will give us cause to try out a book, but it's the artistic styles of writing that define a book, not the characters or the settings. (Note: Yes, I know there are exceptions, but those are mostly born of different mediums, like the Star Wars EU books). So, in most cases, you'll respect the creators more than the actual book itself. Hence, why you start buying a particular artist's books.

Movies, though, are more about the story/setting/characters... and often times, in A-list movies, about the actors. You can even notice this in the advertisements featured on TV: "...from the director who brought you some other famous movie..." They don't even say the person's name. Then, to top it all off, the credits at the end list 60,000 people who also worked on the movie. Finally, let's add in the fact that, in most cases, you're going to know of the movie because it was advertised on TV or showing at a theatre, and that those ads will show you enough to know if you'll like the movie, and you have "pirating just for the sake of not paying for what you want."

Independent films get their own category and it is this: If an independent movie is something that just anyone would like, it'd get popular (see Mallrats); and thus would fall into the last paragraph. If it's something only a select group would only like that... then it'd be a select group of people all file-sharing just to save money.

Video games (and other programs) are even worse, because they're mostly known by what company made them... and it's really hard to have personal respect for an entire company. Except sometimes console games have a name attached (but you still see 60,000 names fly by at the end of the game thpppt). The only thing keeping console games from being stolen so much is that the hardware to play said games require the pirate to be somewhat motivated about ripping/using stolen games.

Music is the second easiest genre to actually respect the artist(s). However, a cd is not one medium for one big story (I know they try sometimes) with the same overall style (people hate Nickelback for trying to get away with that). It's many songs, each conveying a different message in a different style. I know that certain CDs like the Division Bell or the Good Apollo try to tie all their songs together in a story-like way, but it's not really a fluid story. Point is that you aren't going to like everything on every CD you want to buy. So you can buy single tracks now, digitally. But iTunes and Zune and Fast FM or any number of online stores really restrict your usage of the songs you buy... so much so that most turn to pirating just to avoid the hassle.

That's right I'm saying current forms of "copyright protectors" actually make people want to pay more so sue me!

---

Final point (tl;dr) is that Neil Garman's view comes from, exclusively, his experience within the Written Medium. Therefore, it cannot be used to defend or even make any strong commentary, and the problem that is "Internet Pirating".

I'm a fan though; I really like his books.

[Thanas]

Books are defined by their authors. The latest book by Neil Gaiman or Dean Koontz will be bought more because it was written by Gaimon or Koontz... not because it's a story about spiders that teach us things or a truck that'll try to kill us. Oh, maybe at the premise will give us cause to try out a book, but it's the artistic styles of writing that define a book, not the characters or the settings. (Note: Yes, I know there are exceptions, but those are mostly born of different mediums, like the Star Wars EU books). So, in most cases, you'll respect the creators more than the actual book itself. Hence, why you start buying a particular artist's books.

Movies, though, are more about the story/setting/characters... and often times, in A-list movies, about the actors. You can even notice this in the advertisements featured on TV: "...from the director who brought you some other famous movie..." They don't even say the person's name. Then, to top it all off, the credits at the end list 60,000 people who also worked on the movie. Finally, let's add in the fact that, in most cases, you're going to know of the movie because it was advertised on TV or showing at a theatre, and that those ads will show you enough to know if you'll like the movie, and you have "pirating just for the sake of not paying for what you want."

You seem to state your opinion as fact, without much to support it. For example, you often see stuff like "from the author of" in book advertisements as well. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that books and movies are radically different without something to back it up.

The rest of your statement falls within the same category.

[Pebkio]

You seem to state your opinion as fact, without much to support it. For example, you often see stuff like "from the author of" in book advertisements as well. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that books and movies are radically different without something to back it up.

The rest of your statement falls within the same category.

Easy enough to point that out, but you failed to offer a dissenting option. All you did was just point out that I have a strong opinion.

Sure, there will be exceptions to every pattern, but, in most cases, the advertisement for books will say the author's name and then list another piece he's written. Ex: "From Timothy Zahn, the author who brought you 'The Hand of Thrawn' duology..." Meanwhile, the movie advertisement rarely every mention the actual Director's name.

---

As for your complaint of my other sections, I offer you the chance to, without heavy research, tell me:

The names of the main special-effects artists who worked on the "Pan's Labyrinth" movie, what is their stereotypical lifestyle because of how they make a living working on special effects and then all the other movies in which they ever lead the special-effects artistry. (that's just one aspect of the entire movie-making project)

The names of the lead story-writers of the video game "Diablo 2", what is their stereotypical lifestyle because of how they make a living writing the stories for video games and then all the other video games that they've wrote stories for. (again... one aspect of the entire VG-making project)

---

Now, tell me, with all honesty, that you can care as much about everyone involved in the creation of a movie or a video game as much as you would care about the one or two authors that wrote a good book.

As per music, go ahead and tell me why you think watermarking and non-standard file types (some of the methods itunes and zune use to "protect the music") actually make people want to pay for digital copies of music? Also, can I assume that you're also disagreeing with me on the fact that pretty much everyone isn't going to like everything on every CD? Because I was using that to point out that people would much rather take the option of collecting songs and not entire CDs.

So yes, instead of spending all of your time trying to point out obvious things (for instance, how I can't equivocally prove my opinions on what people think), why don't you come up with some ideas of your very very own.

Edit: Like Xon did. He slapped me right across the bonce with a bit of logic and I respect him more, now.

[Thanas]

You seem to state your opinion as fact, without much to support it. For example, you often see stuff like "from the author of" in book advertisements as well. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that books and movies are radically different without something to back it up.

The rest of your statement falls within the same category.

Easy enough to point that out, but you failed to offer a dissenting option. All you did was just point out that I have a strong opinion.

I agree with Gaiman. Also, please point me to the portion of board etiquette that requires I have to offer another opinion instead of simply saying you are wrong.

Meanwhile, the movie advertisement rarely every mention the actual Director's name.

That depends on the director, really.

---

As for your complaint of my other sections, I offer you the chance to, without heavy research, tell me:

The names of the main special-effects artists who worked on the "Pan's Labyrinth" movie, what is their stereotypical lifestyle because of how they make a living working on special effects and then all the other movies in which they ever lead the special-effects artistry. (that's just one aspect of the entire movie-making project)

The names of the lead story-writers of the video game "Diablo 2", what is their stereotypical lifestyle because of how they make a living writing the stories for video games and then all the other video games that they've wrote stories for. (again... one aspect of the entire VG-making project)

To the latter, I could immediately name Chris Metzen and Schaefer.

That said, your analogy is idiotic because a book is the work of one person, a movie is made by many more. However, I bet that I could tell you the director of most blockbusters without looking them up, so your ingenious little idea of attempting to argue that I have to know the name of everybody who worked on a project in order to truly appreciate it is not only illogical but also inapplicable here.

After all, I doubt you know the name of Rembrandt's paint supplier, or the guy who presses the book.

As for the rest of your little post, you have yet to show why Gaiman is wrong.

[Pebkio]

I never said that Gaiman was wrong. I think he was right, actually... when it comes to the area of internet pirating of written works as opposed to all the other kinds of internet pirating.

I never said that you had to actually come up with an opinion, I was just suggesting that you stop wasting (even your own) time with insipid posts about the most obvious parts of human-based discussion.

Your bringing up the paint suppliers of a Rembrandt (embarrassingly, I didn't know how to spell that) or the guy who presses the books has little bearing because those people would have little to nothing to do with the artistic nature of the painting/book. Also, pirating famous paintings on the internet seems like a silly idea.

That said, your analogy is idiotic because a book is the work of one person, a movie is made by many more. However, I bet that I could tell you the director of most blockbusters without looking them up, so your ingenious little idea of attempting to argue that I have to know the name of everybody who worked on a project in order to truly appreciate it is not only illogical but also inapplicable here.

Again, movies are naturally tied to more than just one to four people (I'm accounting for famous actors to be listed with the movie as well). The point I'm trying to make is that the reason why people might buy an author's next book instead of pirating it is because the author is the big "one-and-only" affected by the sales of the books. We assume that the author receives composite checks representing how many books have been sold (talking about royalties).

We, osmosis-like, don't get that feeling from movies and video games. The people involved have already been paid in full and won't get any more money (directly). The sales of movie tickets and DvDs go directly to nameless, faceless, investors or to big Publishers (Disney or Universal, as examples). And even if it did, we'd have to feel that way about everyone who had an artistic hand in the making of the movie. That definitely leads to less loyalty and more pirating. Free movies or video games... or pirated movies and video games... don't have near the same positive affects on future sales that free (or pirated) books have on future sales of books.

Edit: Sorry, if I don't respond for a while. I'm enjoying this back-and-forth we're having, but I'm out to go help my friend pass his driving test. Try to wait up for me, okay?

[Thanas]

Your bringing up the paint suppliers of a Rembrandt (embarrassingly, I didn't know how to spell that) or the guy who presses the books has little bearing because those people would have little to nothing to do with the artistic nature of the painting/book.

On the contrary, the quality of the materials used has a direct impact on the longevity, value and artistic impact of a work.

Again, movies are naturally tied to more than just one to four people (I'm accounting for famous actors to be listed with the movie as well). The point I'm trying to make is that the reason why people might buy an author's next book instead of pirating it is because the author is the big "one-and-only" affected by the sales of the books. We assume that the author receives composite checks representing how many books have been sold (talking about royalties).

And you have not even shown any evidence of that. Besides, this generally is an argument of ignorance that assumes that people do not know that authors have publishers, agents and a whole lot of other people who depend on book sales for making it work. Tell me, do you judge wether something is worth buying by how many people worked for it or wether you enjoy it? Are you willing to pay more for a dreary book than an exciting movie?

We, osmosis-like, don't get that feeling from movies and video games. The people involved have already been paid in full and won't get any more money (directly). The sales of movie tickets and DvDs go directly to nameless, faceless, investors or to big Publishers (Disney or Universal, as examples). And even if it did, we'd have to feel that way about everyone who had an artistic hand in the making of the movie. That definitely leads to less loyalty and more pirating.

Free movies or video games... or pirated movies and video games... don't have near the same positive affects on future sales that free (or pirated) books have on future sales of books.

You have yet to show this by any concrete numbers or evidence. Were is your evidence for this phenomenon which, if you are correct, should be pretty easy to prove by you?

[Pebkio]

On the contrary, the quality of the materials used has a direct impact on the longevity, value and artistic impact of a work.

I concede that point, well done sir.

---

Really though, I have to head out, I'll be back later to cover your other points.

[Pebkio]

Okay, yes, the quality of the paint is important. However, now that I've thought about it, the paint's quality garnishes it's own reward despite what the paint is used to create. Higher-quality paint just costs more to make, therefore is generally sold for more and brings more repeat customers. The choice of where to get the paint is still left to the artist who uses

Why the hell am I talking about paint? You can't bloody pirate an original piece of art using file-sharing: thppppppppt!

Back on topic...

Besides, this generally is an argument of ignorance that assumes that people do not know that authors have publishers, agents and a whole lot of other people who depend on book sales for making it work. Tell me, do you judge whether something is worth buying by how many people worked for it or whether you enjoy it? Are you willing to pay more for a dreary book than an exciting movie?

I didn't mean to imply that people don't know what all goes into making sure that the work sells. But, even while knowing all the steps AND people involved with production and advertisement... it's harder to tie all of those people to a movie (in feeling) than it is to tie an author to a book. At any given time, a publishing company and the agents are covering several books/movies at once... even the actors and directors could be involved in many projects at once (not saying always or even often, just that it happens enough times to be believable); meanwhile the author has his one book at any given time. Until his next book is advertised, it seems that his only source of income is the one book he just put out. In that respect, you feel more loyalty towards the one man and his new book than to the entire company of people and the first thing their name went on out of the three things their working on right now. And loyalty is a big reason (I would assume) why people wouldn't pirate something.

You have yet to show this by any concrete numbers or evidence. Were is your evidence for this phenomenon which, if you are correct, should be pretty easy to prove by you?

The answer is that I walk in your dreamscape at night! Oogabooga!

Ehhhhh... I really don't want to go dig up chart after chart of polling data in which I only half-believe anyway. I guess... I'm... just spouting things that make sense in my brain-pan. Yeah, I'm going to play the "can't be buggered" card. I guess that means I'm automatically wrong, or something. You win, yay.

[Thanas]

I didn't mean to imply that people don't know what all goes into making sure that the work sells. But, even while knowing all the steps AND people involved with production and advertisement... it's harder to tie all of those people to a movie (in feeling) than it is to tie an author to a book. At any given time, a publishing company and the agents are covering several books/movies at once... even the actors and directors could be involved in many projects at once (not saying always or even often, just that it happens enough times to be believable); meanwhile the author has his one book at any given time. Until his next book is advertised, it seems that his only source of income is the one book he just put out. In that respect, you feel more loyalty towards the one man and his new book than to the entire company of people and the first thing their name went on out of the three things their working on right now. And loyalty is a big reason (I would assume) why people wouldn't pirate something.

So the answer for why you assume people do not pirate stuff is essentially "They like the author". Well, that may be true, but why does that not apply to an actor as well? You say they have multiple stuff in the works, but that really depends on the actor, doesn't it? And I wager that due to the cult of celebrities many more people will like and support a particular actor than an author. In fact, looking at your theory, the chance of people not pirating a movie because they like people who worked on it should be much higher due to the higher chance of them knowing and being fans of one of the people involved.

Ehhhhh... I really don't want to go dig up chart after chart of polling data in which I only half-believe anyway. I guess... I'm... just spouting things that make sense in my brain-pan. Yeah, I'm going to play the "can't be buggered" card. I guess that means I'm automatically wrong, or something. You win, yay.

Oh joy. My very existence has been validated.

Next time, try a theory that is at least internally consistent.

[Pebkio]

So the answer for why you assume people do not pirate stuff is essentially "They like the author". Well, that may be true, but why does that not apply to an actor as well? You say they have multiple stuff in the works, but that really depends on the actor, doesn't it? And I wager that due to the cult of celebrities many more people will like and support a particular actor than an author. In fact, looking at your theory, the chance of people not pirating a movie because they like people who worked on it should be much higher due to the higher chance of them knowing and being fans of one of the people involved.

More than "like the author", which I thought was a bit obvious. No, they're loyal to the author. Now, stop, all these things aren't separate and if you keep treating them as such then I will start breaking out obtuse and weird equations that use words instead of numbers.

Readers are loyal to the author, can tie the entire book to the author, and have the sense that book sales directly affect how much the author makes from that book.

Meanwhile, people are loyal to the actor, but the actor doesn't get 100% screen-time nor is attributed (in all but very specific cases) with the story of a movie, AND people get the sense that once a movie is already out, the actor has already made all of his money from his role. This also fits for the director, or the screenwriter (just in different terms).

So, yes, I still think that the affects of loyalty change drastically between movies and books. Especially since movies have less than 1% people working on it for which you show loyalty... and the big faces/names of the movie have already been paid in full.

---

Also, what do you mean by internally? Because what I'm writing here is what I am internally empathizing.

Personally, I don't steal movies because the download takes too long (again with the "can't be buggered") and I've been too busy with this backlog of books people keep giving to me as gifts. I still iTunes the music, but I've stagnated there because I'm getting close to the limit of "authorizations" as I've updated my OS and/or computer a few times (so I've got that ticking-death-clock feeling).

[Thanas]

More than "like the author", which I thought was a bit obvious. No, they're loyal to the author. Now, stop, all these things aren't separate and if you keep treating them as such then I will start breaking out obtuse and weird equations that use words instead of numbers.

Readers are loyal to the author, can tie the entire book to the author, and have the sense that book sales directly affect how much the author makes from that book.

Meanwhile, people are loyal to the actor, but the actor doesn't get 100% screen-time nor is attributed (in all but very specific cases) with the story of a movie, AND people get the sense that once a movie is already out, the actor has already made all of his money from his role. This also fits for the director, or the screenwriter (just in different terms).

So, yes, I still think that the affects of loyalty change drastically between movies and books. Especially since movies have less than 1% people working on it for which you show loyalty... and the big faces/names of the movie have already been paid in full.

You are apparently ignorant of the possibility that actors also get paid by percentages of the total gross.

Oh, and for the last time, put up or shut up.

[Pebkio]

Oh, I did try. I really and truly tried to find some kind of proper list of statistics and I mostly got nothing, nothing, biased garbage, and nothing (spam spam spam spam). The best estimation I've found so far is on Azoz, and what they came up with was "you can't possibly hope to come up with any factual numbers".

Also, I... would be genuinely shocked to hear that a significant amount of actors choose to be paid a percentage of the money instead of a base salary. I can imagine it for screenwriters... but not actors. I'm going to look that up now...

No wait, you're sitting there telling me to put up concrete numbers to prove all of my opinions! YOU go look up the stats on how many actors are paid percentages. Yeah, you're so demanding for definitive answers, you go tell me how many A or B list actors get paid by points rather than a base salary.

Of course I'm going to look it up anyway, because I'm not some guy who isn't actually curious about the numbers and just wants to argue. Seriously, if you really wanted to know the numbers, YOU'D go look them up to prove YOURSELF right.

Edit: Okay, here it is: Depending on the agents legwork, an actor may choose to either get paid an upfront salary or paid a small amount and get a percentage. The choice made is mostly left up to the actor and how they thing the movie will do box-office wise. Still looking for any statistics on that...

[Thanas]

No. You made the claim that what Gaiman talking about is different for movies as they are pirated differently than books. I refuse to play your idiotic spiel of getting me to prove your point.

Last warning: Put up or shut up.

[Pebkio]

Oh, and I'm working on it, but you've made several statements aimed at disagreeing with me that you feel that you don't have to prove at all. Your double-standards label you close-minded and your threats label you a fascist. Is that really what your position is for?

Here we go:
http://30ninjas.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... rrent1.jpg
http://30ninjas.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... rrent2.jpg

The first graph is for which percentage of the files available and the second graph is how often those files were used.

There, I got you some numbers, and now I'm done with you. The instant you threaten me with your position over a personal disagreement is the instant I discount you as a person worthy of any real discussion.

[Xon]

No, the rules of this forum is that if you make a claim you have to provide evidence for it. As a moderator, it is Thanas's job to enforce the rules if you make a claim and refuse to provide actual evidence.

Also those images (amusingly copied without permision from a study about copyright infirigment), really are quite meaningless. Exactly where is the demonstratable harm for a series of release bots to populate a site followed by a series of a downloader bots automatically grabbing everything, with no demonstrable correlation between the amount of material moved and actually used? Furthermore, the assumption that every act of downloading or publishing torrents actually depriving the original content owners of a sale if really bad logic. Never mind, that even if someone is copying the content, it does not mean they are illegally doing so.

Lets put it this way, how the hell can a person harm a content producer via copyright infringement if said content producer is producing works which will never be made avaliable in that person's region? This isn't some hypothetical arrangement, it happens with TV shows all the damn time. There are shows which have only shown on ad-sponsered TV decades ago and have never been repeated, and never had a DVD release. Exactly how can someone deprive the content owners of a sale when the bloody stuff isn't avalaible to begin with?

[Pebkio]

Oh, so I see that actually providing the numbers as demanded by a moderator is really just to get me to break the rules.

Yes, I know the numbers can't be as precise or non-cheated as we'd like. I also pointed out the fact, already, that the any numbers I could find anywhere wouldn't be very factual so I was just basing my statements off of empathy rather than base facts. I don't even see how I'm supposed to use actual facts to prove something as nebulous as "An author's statements on piracy seems to only apply to his area of expertise and shouldn't be used to defend piracy in general".

(Those charts, by the way, were posted on a site called 30ninjas... apparently. I just grabbed the first public charts I could find on a forum)

My point was never about how pirating stole sales or affected the industry, just that statements provided by Neil Gaiman could only be used when talking about book piracy. Your last statement is the exact reason why any piracy reports can't comment in general about how piracy affects sales.

And MY last statement in my last post was pointed at the fact that Thanas just resorted to threats instead of using any tact and a major major breach in the area of conflicted interests. And so, now, I choose to view him only as a moderator and not as anyone I can have a conversation with. I mean, how can I?

Edit: Those charts also had the original URL of where the study originated, so they got credit, I guess. Not sure how that'd be handled on this board... it's not like I was saying that I came up with those numbers or even made the image...

[Pebkio]

Now that I think of it, though, I was severely out of line with the 'fascist" comment and should suffer the consequences of my rashness...

I'll know better next time.

[slebetman]

Free movies or video games... or pirated movies and video games... don't have near the same positive affects on future sales that free (or pirated) books have on future sales of books.

Well, Joss Whedon "giving away" Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog by freely streaming it online did lead to very profitable DVD sales.

Also, most anime fans outside of Japan will tell you that they got introduced to their favorite director/studio/series by first watching a pirated version which later led to actual purchases (because once you know the name you know what to search for on Amazon). So I think pirated/free movies do have the same positive effect on future sales as pirated/free books. About the only time this isn't true is for big budget blockbusters because they spend tons of money on advertising so that almost everyone is aware of them at the time of release.

What books have in common with anime is that neither is advertised to the same level as big budget movies. Some books are advertised that way. Harry Potter for example. So my guess is that just like pirated blockbusters, pirated Harry Potter novels may actually have a negative impact on sales.

I don't think it's the medium that's important when it comes to the power of using piracy as word-of-mouth advertising. I think what's important is what percentage of the population is already aware of your product. More than 50% and piracy hurts you more than you can gain from it. Less than 5% and you gain more from piracy than being hurt by it. There must be a tipping point somewhere in between but I don't know what.

It should be noted that not all movies are advertised like blockbuster movies. The US alone produces thousands of movies each year of which probably around 100 each year is acceptably good but most of us are only aware of 10 or 20 because only 10 or 20 are advertised with big budgets. So 90% of movies are in the same position as books advertising wise and should profit from being pirated.

Also, this changes over time. The older a movie get the less people remember it so I'd say movies older than 10 years can also profit from being pirated. Watching a pirated copy of The Seven Samurai led me and my friends to discover Kurosawa and the existence of The Criterion Collection and did lead to purchases of DVDs.

[Pebkio]

Heh, y'know, it had taken a while, but "Dr. Horrible" grew on me. I like it a lot now.

---

But... you should probably go get data that irrevocably proves that:

Joss Whedon "giving away" Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog by freely streaming it online did lead to very profitable DVD sales.

And probably also go get the survey that shows that:

...most anime fans outside of Japan will tell you that they got introduced to their favorite director/studio/series by first watching a pirated version which later led to actual purchases (because once you know the name you know what to search for on Amazon).

This site demands hard evidence about:

What books have in common with anime is that neither is advertised to the same level as big budget movies. Some books are advertised that way. Harry Potter for example. So my guess is that just like pirated blockbusters, pirated Harry Potter novels may actually have a negative impact on sales.

I'm sure someone somewhere disagrees with:

More than 50% and piracy hurts you more than you can gain from it. Less than 5% and you gain more from piracy than being hurt by it. There must be a tipping point somewhere in between but I don't know what.

So you better get some hard evidence of those numbers...

---

Reminder: Posting any data that can be traced back to a copy-written source could be construed as plagiarism.

Sigh... I don't think I'm going to be liking these forums (Sorry, I don't have any hard evidence to back that up, you're just going to have to take my word). As per guidelines, that means I'm going to just go find somewhere else to voice an opinion. Can a passing moderator do me a big solid and delete this account? I can't seem to find the option in my control panel and I hate leaving my name up on places I don't go to or use.

[Edi]

Oh, so I see that actually providing the numbers as demanded by a moderator is really just to get me to break the rules.

Let me ask you just to make sure: Are you accusing Thanas of abusing his moderator position, or of trying to intentionally trap you?

The rest of your post reads pretty much like an explanation of why you can't really back up the stuff you earlier asserted as fact, just dressed up with alot of fancy words.

And MY last statement in my last post was pointed at the fact that Thanas just resorted to threats instead of using any tact and a major major breach in the area of conflicted interests. And so, now, I choose to view him only as a moderator and not as anyone I can have a conversation with. I mean, how can I?

Edit: Those charts also had the original URL of where the study originated, so they got credit, I guess. Not sure how that'd be handled on this board... it's not like I was saying that I came up with those numbers or even made the image...

So you regard demands to back your claims up as threats? Because like it or not, this board operates by iots own rules and not those of your favorite other forums and failure to back up your stuff but refusing to concede regardless is punishable here.

Furthermore, you're showing yourself up to be one fucking whiny brat with a massive entitlement complex. Seriously, go take a good look at the most relevant rules threads in the Announcements forum and then go take a stroll through Parting Shots. The latter is littered with the carcasses of those who ignored the former and then got a chip on their shoulder when called to account.

At the rate you're going, you'll run out of anyone to talk to pretty soon with your current attitude toward evidentiary demands.

[Dalton]

Request denied, Pebkio, because I'd rather enshrine you here amongst the other jackasses and idiots.

Edi, take him.

[Edi]

Request denied, Pebkio, because I'd rather enshrine you here amongst the other jackasses and idiots.

Edi, take him.

With pleasure, Dalton!

He's gone.




From here

[MKSheppard]

Slightly edited the thread title to represent who was banned.