Brother I hate to be the one to tell you this, we are policing the site. That's the point.
Policing the site, and doing whatever this is? Two different things, this is beyond extreme.
Topic bans are given to cease bad behavior and shittiness on formal matters relating to a verse since the individual is believed to be incapable of doing so without threat of action.
Yes, and? If someone was topic banned from Batman, and someone asked if they liked Batman on some different thread, on a blog, or whatever, are they not allowed to say "Yeah, I like him, he's cool", even though it's hurting nobody?
If someone was topic banned, in this case, for stone walling, why does that effect blogs? This is tantamount to actual thought policing, are they really not to even do secluded shit from everyone else, put their thoughts into a blog and more because they were an asshole? The very fact it's a blog and not the thread should be reason enough. As said, at that pint it'd be us interacting with him on the topic, not him interacting with us on the topic, or should we ban everyone on the wiki from talking to people who are topic banned to so they don't accidentally say something they're not allowed to?
Calculations are formal matters relating to a verse. In this specific circumstance they are even the matter that saw the individual topic banned in the first place, what is so hard to understand about that?
What's so hard to understand about how that affects nothing at all? The only way they'd affect the verse is if a CGM let it, and at that point, it's us interacting with him, not him doing what he was banned for. They're only formal matters if someone who should know what they're doing in the first place says it's fine, or should we give them shit too for having an opinion that aligns with someone who apparently can't even think?
Also wasn't he banned for stone walling calcs? Not making them? At that point we just move past and ignore the calc if he refuses to step up and fix it, like we'd do with anyone else.
If someone who is more rational and level-headed than the topic banned person wants to present their case in a rational and level-headed way, I don't give a ****.The problem is not the information, it is the person giving it and the way with which they give it. That's the whole deal. If, however, they intend to carry on the crusade of poor behavior at the behest of the topic banned individual, then yeah, it's a problem.
Yeah no, this is just an excuse, and honestly a contradictory one to some of your points. If the problem isn't the information then what's the issue? You said
"Making calculations demands adding to the discussion, offering your own interpretation of feats, etc. That is why I would disagree./Making the calc itself demands that you present your case."
This is literally you saying it should cover blogs BECAUSE of the information presented is their information and thus adding to the discussion, but, this would be the case no matter who presented it. which is to say, what the **** are you talking about?
Ignoring that, was it behavior like you said prior? Ok fair, but if they aren't participating, aka, what the ban exists for, then them posting blogs, sandboxes, whatever, should be fine? Saying it isn't is essentially thought policing because they might have an opinion. As long as they do not go out of their way to force these into topics and discussions, what's the issue?
Why is it that you seem to be arguing that the only acceptable way of dealing with this would be to block all information from being given? How is it that you feel that is the less totalitarian view? Our issue is that the guy is banned from speaking on the topic, he's in Troll Jail until he isn't.
What? N I'm saying who gives a shit what he does as long as he isn't barging into threads he's banned from? Doing his own thing on the actual wiki isn't him barging in or whatever, at that point it's us going out of our way to interact with him, not the other way around, or should we ban everyone that wants to talk to him too?
Just think about it for a bit, homie.
I did, this is bordering on radical behavior. Like if he's so bad just ignore him? Otherwise as long as he's keeping to himself about this, and other lads just so happen to choose to interact, then that's on them.
The only way i'd say a blog ban is needed, is if they so bad they should be banned flat-out, not just from a topic.
We're not arguing sandboxes, my man.
Why not? What's the difference between a blog and a sandbox? He's still talking about it, he could make an identical sandbox and blog, same contents, but one's ok but one isn't? That's arbitrary as ****. If he put a calc in a sandbox, which many do, why's that different than a calc in a blog? He's still presenting the calc is he not? Putting that info out, adding to the discussion as you said by making his interpretation of a feat visible? If blogs aren't ok, sandboxes can't be either.
