And so it should be.A fair point. But the meaning was, no matter what he intends to throw at me, my opinion is fixed.
Mark, as I stated on the second page:
He was banned for a combination of everything he's done on this forum. Just off the top of my head, he's already amassed a pretty impressive list of offences:
Continued intellectual dishonesty in virtualy every debate.
Starting a 20 page long flame war in the Daystrom RPG because Thorin took the position he wanted.
Nearly starting a second one in the Gamma thread.
Threatening to hack someone's computer.
Made vague death threats towards a moderator.
Lied about an official warning Ian gave him in a thread where Ian was participating.
Consistantly ignored points brought up by others.
General assholishness.
Open admission to trolling.
The two points in bold (threatening to hack a computer and, depending on where you live, making death threats) are criminal offences.
The four in italics are against board rules.
The rest, particularly the one where he lied about what Ian said in a thread where Ian was posting is just general assholish behaviour.
Really, on most forums any one of those points would have led to a permanent ban. The fact that he stayed long enough to recieve four warnings and a temp-ban actualy shows we've been more than lenient with him.
No matter how much he was politely asked, ordered or warned he refused to adress his behaviour and continued on in the same old manner he did before. Hell, his first act after coming back from his temp-ban was to start bitching about how unfair we were for banning him for making death threats. He's one of those people who just refuses point blank to admit he's in the wrong, regardless of what the subject is. Whether the subject was him forgetting to change the oil in his car, or him defending his insane idea that whales are actualy aliens with uber technology that geneticaly engineered themselves to be able to send subspace messages to their homeworld, he always insisted he was in the right. At one point he even argued stubornly about military matters with Seafort and Kendall, one a military historian and the other a member of the armed forces, and still refused to even consider the possibility that the people he was arguing with might know better than him.
Even considering his recent actions shows his attitude quite clearly.
In the thread where Graham eventualy got p*ssed and called for a ban, Blackstar actualy had some strong support from forum members against his ban. At least four, perhaps more, members stated openly that they were against it. What does Blackstar do? He immediately proves what all the mods and admins had been saying was true, by arguing with Graham, blatantly lying to Ian about something Ian himself wrote, treating it as though it were a court case and arguing that he didn't understand the definition of "jerk".
Despite that there was still some support for him when he did inevitably get banned. Yourself, Tsu, Reliant, Hal and (surprisingly) Deep all stated they were against the ban. What does Blackstar do? He destroys whatever support and respect still remained for him on the board by ranting against DITL and threatening revenge against us. When I pointed out what he was doing to the rest of the board, he immediately removed the articles in question and began making his profile private, so we couldn't view it. His last action, which you can see further up the page, consisted of him once again lying about what happened (still convinced he did nothing wrong) and making a personal attack against Reliant; someone who had continualy expressed his support for Blackstar.
Put simply: he's one of those people who just won't change. I've met plenty of them in my life, and he's a perfect example of one. We could let him back onto the board this time next year and I'd put real money on him bitching about how wrong we were to ban him being his first act after coming back.
Now, after reading that, answer me this one question: are we really any worse off with him gone?
