His post was marginally on topic if you're willing to presume that he was being charitable or speaking in good faith. Between the user's history and the wording if his particular jab at the Wii U, we have no cause to presume either of those things, and therefore can only assume it was delivered with some form of ill intent behind it. Short of being mind readers, that's how we do our job.

He is a pretty unique user. Some people view him as offering mostly unreasonable opinions in a polite manner, as he is entitled to do.

Others view it as a deliberate and highly irritating trolling campaign.

Indeed. Hence why he flew under the radar for so long.

Anyone want to explain my ban. Seems axum just came in and banned whoever called out his buddy who bragged about how he messaged him on his goalpost moving BS. No one was disrespecting him, they were just pointing out his ever changing claims/complaints. I saw his agenda and could no longer take his posts serious in that thread after seeing him change his complaint after every refuted post, and get a three day ban. It doesn't look good when a user can summon a mod at will to ban anyone who doesn't cuddle up and agree with his ever-changing nonsense, so please, explain this one to me (see my only ban for reference)

People could get annoyed about the lack of explaining what makes the game good.

I also think there is a clear difference between saying "This game is shit" and "I think this game is shit".

The point is that content is king.

The only difference between a contentless "shit" post vs. a contentless "good" post is that the shit post will "upset" someone. As a moderator, I think its key to look at the intent behind such a post before making any decision. This means looking closely at who posted it, the thread in general and closely at the people who are "upset" by such a remark.

Question: which one is more likely to get a negative response, all else equal? "Sonic Generations rules!" or "Monster Hunter sucks dog cock!"

The ethical rules with which we assign "bannable" criteria are deontological.

What's the problem with his name ?

Hey guys. My account was just banned because my name was inappropriate. It was ilovegirls69. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. As i said in the other thread there are members here with pics of girls that have almost no clothes on but my name is the thing that gets attention? I was told to make another acount but it sucks to start over. Especially for a silly reason.

So can that account get unbanned and i'll change my name that way? This account was created just to get an understanding and explain myself. I still can't really belive i was banned for that. I was member here for awhile now and this just happens?

The name, as described in the message attached to the ban, is inappropriate.

It sends out the wrong message about these forums and the posters here. We'll be taking a sterner stance on this issue moving forward, following the recent clampdown on sigs and avatars over the summer.

See rules 5 and 6 of the forum rules, usernames cannot be hidden so they also apply.