Infraction dispute

[Fucking Moron]

Thought we were allowed to flame you cock sucking cock suckers
Don't be butt hurt cause you got punished lol.

@lo1a infracted me. But seems to have forgotten the cocksucker rules and ways.
@Ahlwong @Boombox @Flengo @gerassss

https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14434355
Original post wasn't even that "flamey" or rude. @lo1a just needs to accept his punishment. He was given cocksucker for a reason. Why give it to him if others can flame him worse then I have. Yet I'm the person whom it's take out on.
Unjust and unprofessional

[[MPGH]Flengo]

I'm not too sure about the override between CS and staff, either @Dave84311 or @arunforce can answer to that. Also, your post doesn't really seem that terrible.

[Fucking Moron]

I'm not too sure about the override between CS and staff, either @Dave84311 or @arunforce can answer to that. Also, your post doesn't really seem that terrible.

This is easily a case of power abuse. Rage and anger. I should not be the target for silents behavior. @arunforce @Dave84311

[Boombox]

idk why u mentioned me but fuck silent

[Fucking Moron]

idk why u mentioned me but fuck silent

My mistake but ye idk what he was thinking. Silent is just salty. Should not be the target for his emotions

[Silent]

It wasn't just that post post, I should have referenced the other in in the reason.

https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthrea...5#post14433335

The link I just posted was before I got CS. So his argument about insulting CS is moot.

In general (literal meaning), Mike is always stirring up people and trying to get into arguments. It just his personality. So when I got CS, it appears he has tried extra hard to get me to react and get into an argument with him. Rather than arguing on a public forum, I infracted him. I felt this was a more than fair penalty for publicly trying to provoke arguments. I would like to note again, that he was trying to provoke these arguments before I was CS - as per the post I posted above.

[[MPGH]Flengo]

I would like to note again, that he was trying to provoke these arguments before I was CS - as per the post I posted above.

This isn't really a valid argument. You replied to his post and chose not to give him an infraction for that post at that time. It seems like you're just pulling it up as an excuse to backup the infraction you gave him now. If you didn't feel bad about it 14 hours ago, don't go digging it up to get back at someone later.

In the end, currently depends on what I said earlier about CS.

[Fucking Moron]

It wasn't just that post post, I should have referenced the other in in the reason.

https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthrea...5#post14433335

The link I just posted was before I got CS. So his argument about insulting CS is moot.

In general (literal meaning), Mike is always stirring up people and trying to get into arguments. It just his personality. So when I got CS, it appears he has tried extra hard to get me to react and get into an argument with him. Rather than arguing on a public forum, I infracted him. I felt this was a more than fair penalty for publicly trying to provoke arguments. I would like to note again, that he was trying to provoke these arguments before I was CS - as per the post I posted above.

I would like to add it takes TWO people to argue silent. As well as my original post was very mildy and not at all flaming. If youre foolish enough to reply or fail for my bait that's your fault not mine. Don't get butthurt over a post I made before you had CS and then infract me for a post which as very little support and no reason behind it except for your hurt feelings. Just put a band-aid over the boo boo and move on. This is power abuse and we don't need minons representing MPGH like this. You're supposed to he professional. Not a emotional wreck seeking petty revenge.

ps provoking is not against the rules either. And if you can't deal with a joke here and there. I think you need to toughen up a bit. This is MPGH not club penguin. Lastly, you had all the power and the opportunity toto not reply or engage and you did.
@Dave84311 @Flengo

[Silent]

This isn't really a valid argument. You replied to his post and chose not to give him an infraction for that post at that time. It seems like you're just pulling it up as an excuse to backup the infraction you gave him now. If you didn't feel bad about it 14 hours ago, don't go digging it up to get back at someone later.

In the end, currently depends on what I said earlier about CS.

I choose not to infract him last night because I didn't want to provoke an argument and escalate the situation more than what it had to be. I simply let it go, as I know he was only trying to annoy me and provoke an argument. When he posted my VM and then responded to me this morning (upon finding out I got CS), I realised he wasn't going to stop until he got a reaction out of me. So rather than posting a response and giving him the reaction he wanted, I infracted him.

[Fucking Moron]

I choose not to infract him last night because I didn't want to provoke an argument and escalate the situation more than what it had to be. I simply let it go, as I know he was only trying to annoy me and provoke an argument. When he posted my VM and then responded to me this morning (upon finding out I got CS), I realised he wasn't going to stop until he got a reaction out of me. So rather than posting a response and giving him the reaction he wanted, I infracted him.

You infracted me for something that never happened though sport. And I made a post on your VM cause it's a fucking meme buddy, just like all the other members that did as well. I also don't see you being a lil baby over the huge meme @Ahmad created. Seems to me you're seeking revenge for whatever alleged hatred you have towards me and that is simply just unprofessional and not wanted here.

And saying you chose not too infract me last night, still isn't a counter-argument for the validity of this infraction.
You're arguments are filled with fallacies.

Also seems a bit actually a lot a bit hypocritical that you can insult others and call them a downer but when someone says that to you, your feelings are hurt. Don't go around making jokes and memes if you can't take any yourself.
@Flengo @Dave84311 Original post was extremely mild and inresponse to Silent's original statement.

[Silent]

I would like to add it takes TWO people to argue silent. As well as my original post was very mildy and not at all flaming. If youre foolish enough to reply or fail for my bait that's your fault not mine. Don't get butthurt over a post I made before you had CS and then infract me for a post which as very little support and no reason behind it except for your hurt feelings. Just put a band-aid over the boo boo and move on. This is power abuse and we don't need minons representing MPGH like this. You're supposed to he professional. Not a emotional wreck seeking petty revenge.

Indeed it takes two people to argue. But I'm failing to see where this argument happened. So your first sentence is irrelevant. And now you're opening admitting to trying to provoke an argument. But whatever, nothing better than a person seeking to find arguments.

And refer to my other post.

I choose not to infract him last night because I didn't want to provoke an argument and escalate the situation more than what it had to be. I simply let it go, as I know he was only trying to annoy me and provoke an argument. When he posted my VM and then responded to me this morning (upon finding out I got CS), I realised he wasn't going to stop until he got a reaction out of me. So rather than posting a response and giving him the reaction he wanted, I infracted him.

[Fucking Moron]

Indeed it takes two people to argue. But I'm failing to see where this argument happened. So your first sentence is irrelevant. And now you're opening admitting to trying to provoke an argument. But whatever, nothing better than a person seeking to find arguments.

And refer to my other post.

Buddy, do you even remember the words that you type???
And hell yeah I'm admitting to provoking arguements with you.
But I haven't done it over threads or over vm's.
I did it via chat system so that's ill regard on your end for elaborating on that.
But at the end of the day provoking is still NOT against the rules, otherwise I'd like to see every person on this site infracted cause everyone does it sport.

Would like to add @Dave84311 @Flengo my orignal post wasn't even argumentatively provoking. So again @lo1a is using more fallacies to back up his invalid arguments

In general (literal meaning), Mike is always stirring up people and trying to get into arguments.

And I really don't care what any of your arguments and thoughts of reason for the infraction. It's invalid.
Show me where i came at you and attacked you enough to call it, "flame."

I didn't flame you buddy. Just accept that okay?
You make mistakes sometimes
Everyone does, it happens.

[Silent]

And I really don't care what any of your arguments and thoughts of reason for the infraction. It's invalid.
Show me where i came at you and attacked you enough to call it, "flame."

I didn't flame you buddy. Just accept that okay?
You make mistakes sometimes
Everyone does, it happens.

You're using quotation marks wrong. Generally they're used when quoting something. The only person here who has even mentioned the world "flame" is you. My infraction reason was for Trolling and staff disrespect, not 'flaming'. If the infraction reason was 'flaming', you'd be absolutely right. But it's not.

And you're neglecting my infraction solely because you don't want an infraction? say whatever you want mate, it was for a valid reason. You were trolling and disrespecting a staff member. Sure, CS overrules the 'no staff hate' stuff, but you started this prior to me becoming CS. I'm failing to understand what you do not understand about that. It is really, REALLY simple logic.

[Fucking Moron]

You're using quotation marks wrong. Generally they're used when quoting something. The only person here who has even mentioned the world "flame" is you. My infraction reason was for Trolling and staff disrespect, not 'flaming'. If the infraction reason was 'flaming', you'd be absolutely right. But it's not.

And you're neglecting my infraction solely because you don't want an infraction? say whatever you want mate, it was for a valid reason. You were trolling and disrespecting a staff member. Sure, CS overrules the 'no staff hate' stuff, but you started this prior to me becoming CS. I'm failing to understand what you do not understand about that. It is really, REALLY simple logic.

Buddy I didn't even disrespect you.
I said your a downer and mentioned xannax
What the fuck? Are you suddenly 3 years old???????????????????????
I've seen members say ridiculous things to you and you don't infract or enforce rules on those particular members.

Should we infract you for being rude and disrespectful? Cause you are constantly
And NO this infact did not start prior to you becoming CS
and even if you did that doesn't help you for this infraction
Again with the fallacies, do you know how classical argumentative skills work?

And CS does trump staff when your name is silent and your existence is a meme lmao

PS @Flengo @Dave84311 if calling someone a downer is staff disrespect that's ridiculous cause staff are called ******s, ******s, cunts, bitches, dumbasses, etc on the daily and I rarely hear people getting infracted for those things. @lo1a needs some education on what is disrespectful/ needs to be educated on what revenge is so this doesn't happen in the future
@lo1a as for you post whatever you want, im done bickering over your insolent and petty behavior cause you were called a downer + you have CS

this is in @arunforce and @Dave84311 's hands now

[Silent]

I took 5 minutes off to take a break and think about the situation. I am going to post my entire opinion here and not respond to anymore messages (unless directly in response to administration).


So yesterday afternoon Mike made a post speaking in reference to me. The post was staff disrespect, and in general just rude. An important thing to note is that I was not CS at the time. So an infraction on this post would have been perfectly valid. But I knew that Mike was just trying to get me to get into an argument with him, so I ignored it. I went on with my day. This post comes in to my decision to issue an infraction later.


Later that day I was in general chat with Dave and Hector. Whatever we were talking about, Hector said can I have CS. Knowing full well that administration never give in to such requests, I sarcastically said it too. But Dave decided to actually did it. Which was a surprise.


So the next day comes around and I am CS. Mike posts a visitor message saying something about sucking dick, and then quoted a post of mine calling me a downer. Knowing that he was solely trying to start an argument (something he's know form), I didn't post a response. I simply infracted him for "Trolling an Staff Disrespect". Admittedly this infraction was not valid for the post I infracted, but that wasn't the only post I issued the infraction in reference to. I was also issuing the infraction in reference to the post he made the day prior, the one that was a perfectly valid infraction. In hindsight, I definitely should have explicitly referenced this post in the reason. But regardless, even if the reason was fuzzy, he still deserved an infraction.



A quick response to some of his allegations:

And NO this infact did not start prior to you becoming CS

I was not CS when you posted this. and this is ultimately what lead to me issuing infraction.
https://www.mpgh.net/forum/showthrea...5#post14433335

Should we infract you for being rude and disrespectful? Cause you are constantly

I lose respect for people once they fail to show me respect. So yes, I may be rude to people, but only after they've been rude to me first.

PS Flengo Dave84311 if calling someone a downer is staff disrespect that's ridiculous cause staff are called ******s, ******s, cunts, bitches, dumbasses, etc on the daily and I rarely hear people getting infracted for those things. lo1a needs some education on what is disrespectful/ needs to be educated on what revenge is so this doesn't happen in the future

1) I do infract people who call me a cunt, dumbass, or whatever. Which you wouldn't know, because guess what... you're not staff.
2) You didn't just call me a downer, you called me as dumb as a box of tampons. lol...
3) you're justifying yourself on the basis that i've been called worse.


I also like it how you call me a child. You're the adult here justifying yourself calling a 17yo a downer, and comparing him to a used box of tampons. Like seriously, grow up. You say you're mature in real life, but at the end of the day, you're still here arguing with children and calling them a used box of tampons.

tldr; he insulted me before and after i got cs. i infracted after i got cs in response to an insult, but the infraction was in reference to BOTH the before and after cs insults.