Does anyone know where the claim that this is "an art community" came from?

I'm going to clear things up, or at least what I can directly speak about regarding my on view on the situation. Bandarr WAS warned, except this warning was done on Friday circa 6pm my time by myself. This was a warning intended to warn them to take a step back from the thread and to please gather their thoughts before coming back because it was very clear that they seemed out of sorts with their comments and believing they were likely to get themselves banned at that point in time.

At no point at the time did I consider banning them myself, but it was brought up that behavior like this while other people were trying to have a proper argument wasn't something we want to encourage at all, so a temp ban was given for the sake of making it clear this was made acceptable at all. If this was simply a one off occurrence I wouldn't have agreed with it myself, but Bandarr has constantly treated this argument in a bad faith manner enough times to make a ban warranted in my own view.

almost everyone in this community looks at you like you're a big fat meanie who disrespects artists if you disagree that mods are art, and then tries to convince you that you are in the wrong for thinking that way

they are forcing it upon you by making you think that you are wrong, and make others think that your way of thinking is wrong. if it isn't "force" then it most definitely is "manipluation" which i wouldn't have used that word but you forced my hand

Complaining that we're trying to make this a place where people can freely share their stuff without people acting like asses towards them, and then strawmanning this by saying that we're demanding all art be taken on the same level as stuff in museums is absurd and helps nobody at all. If you seriously think this kind of arguing is respectable, then I can only say we deeply disagree on the matter and would not want to see a board filled with these kinds of argument sin the first place, especially when you start complaining about how people disagree with you after the fact.
 
I'm going to clear things up, or at least what I can directly speak about regarding my on view on the situation. Bandarr WAS warned, except this warning was done on Friday circa 6pm my time by myself. This was a warning intended to warn them to take a step back from the thread and to please gather their thoughts before coming back because it was very clear that they seemed out of sorts with their comments and believing they were likely to get themselves banned at that point in time.

At no point at the time did I consider banning them myself, but it was brought up that behavior like this while other people were trying to have a proper argument wasn't something we want to encourage at all, so a temp ban was given for the sake of making it clear this was made acceptable at all. If this was simply a one off occurrence I wouldn't have agreed with it myself, but Bandarr has constantly treated this argument in a bad faith manner enough times to make a ban warranted in my own view.



Complaining that we're trying to make this a place where people can freely share their stuff without people acting like asses towards them, and then strawmanning this by saying that we're demanding all art be taken on the same level as stuff in museums is absurd and helps nobody at all. If you seriously think this kind of arguing is respectable, then I can only say we deeply disagree on the matter and would not want to see a board filled with these kinds of argument sin the first place, especially when you start complaining about how people disagree with you after the fact.
It isn’t acceptable but I will say this:
Art is what you make it. If you make something and say it isn’t art but something else you must respect that. That person doesn’t consider that art and you must truly respect that. If it is a doodle don’t call it art, call it a doodle.
Art is truly what you make it and to argue over that is sad.
 
Well, just call it what you wanna call it. And let other people call it what they wanna call it. You argue, you just make it worse.
It isn’t acceptable but I will say this:
Art is what you make it. If you make something and say it isn’t art but something else you must respect that. That person doesn’t consider that art and you must truly respect that. If it is a doodle don’t call it art, call it a doodle.
Art is truly what you make it and to argue over that is sad.
 
I'm going to clear things up, or at least what I can directly speak about regarding my on view on the situation. Bandarr WAS warned, except this warning was done on Friday circa 6pm my time by myself. This was a warning intended to warn them to take a step back from the thread and to please gather their thoughts before coming back because it was very clear that they seemed out of sorts with their comments and believing they were likely to get themselves banned at that point in time.
This still doesn't address my concerns over whether or not Bandder could have even realized he was warned without going out of his way to view the specific post that received the warning.
 
Would you like to show use this warning perhaps? It shouldn't be a problem considering you already know the day and time it happened
I'm going to clear things up, or at least what I can directly speak about regarding my on view on the situation. Bandarr WAS warned, except this warning was done on Friday circa 6pm my time by myself. This was a warning intended to warn them to take a step back from the thread and to please gather their thoughts before coming back because it was very clear that they seemed out of sorts with their comments and believing they were likely to get themselves banned at that point in time.
 
This still doesn't address my concerns over whether or not Bandder could have even realized he was warned without going out of his way to view the specific post that received the warning.
Would you like to show use this warning perhaps? It shouldn't be a problem considering you already know the day and time it happened
This.

Idk if I can trust chasesp if there is no proof that he actually was warned. Just the date isn't enough
The warning in question.

1732504067993.png
 
Nice to know that he wasn't banned for no reason (Besides being aggressive).
He was never banned for no reason. The reason is on the post Roy made, with a full explanation of the ban for everyone to see.
 
Not sure why you quoted me because I was asking a different question. I trust that you guys sent a warning, I just want to know if Bandder received any kind of notification over it.
All warnings come with notifications on them, though given the time we decided to change the punishment to a ban, there's a high chance he did not get to see the warning anyway, which makes the discussion of whether there was a warning or not beforehand very pointless.
 
All warnings come with notifications on them, though given the time we decided to change the punishment to a ban, there's a high chance he did not get to see the warning anyway, which makes the discussion of whether there was a warning or not beforehand very pointless.
I appreciate the explanation and the test warning. Unfortunately, I did not get a notification.

nonotif.png
 
The question was never were they banned for no reason, it was 1. Was the ban deserved in the first place and 2. What was this warning supposedly sent in the first place.
 
I appreciate the explanation and the test warning. Unfortunately, I did not get a notification.
That may be Xenforo dying on us, or just being obscure about whatever this option does exactly, but it's sure something to look into. Thanks for letting me know.

XK5Ha6a.png
 
The warning in question.

View attachment 148786
Wait why did you even warn him at Friday, pretty much 40 minutes before Roy Kirbs just banned him, there were no posts from bandder in Friday.

Seems fishy, why warn him when he was gonna be banned anyways?
Post automatically merged:

Wait why did you even warn him at Friday, pretty much 40 minutes before Roy Kirbs just banned him, there were no posts from bandder in Friday.

Seems fishy, why warn him when he was gonna be banned anyways?
Or maybe roykirbs didn't read the warning or something, which is fair ig
 
Wait why did you even warn him at Friday, pretty much 40 minutes before Roy Kirbs just banned him, there were no posts from bandder in Friday.

Seems fishy, why warn him when he was gonna be banned anyways?
This was explained:
At no point at the time did I consider banning them myself, but it was brought up that behavior like this while other people were trying to have a proper argument wasn't something we want to encourage at all, so a temp ban was given for the sake of making it clear this was made acceptable at all.
All warnings come with notifications on them, though given the time we decided to change the punishment to a ban, there's a high chance he did not get to see the warning anyway, which makes the discussion of whether there was a warning or not beforehand very pointless.
Basically, it looks like they initially went forward with a warning, but then after further consideration decided that this would be too soft handed of an approach and went with a temp ban instead to make it clear that they do not condone the behavior in question. Because of how quickly this happened, it's likely that the warning wasn't even seen before the ban happened but this wasn't something they considered to be a priority over what they saw as properly punishing the behavior. The behavior apparently being bad faith arguing and being a jerk to other people over difference in opinion. They likely went with a temp ban to make it clear that they aren't outright against the discussion and contrary viewpoints, only the particular way Bandder was going about it.
 

Who is viewing this thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Back
Top