ORIGINAL: Jim_McIntyre
Ah! It's a conspiracy thing!
From my viewpoint, Jason built his site with a different model in mind than many of the more commercial sites like this one. RCCanada appears to be modelled on the social environment, kind of like the rec room of the 70's. Although not everyone may agree, and have different methods of verbalizing their disagreements, everyone is expected to to respect the views of other. When someon gets out of hand, and it's drawn to his attention, he has to evaluate if the parties involved are simply blowing off steam or are truly there to cause trouble. When a dispute arises, and you find one participant has a legacy of posts with a particular theme (Sh*t disturbing), I suspect it's a simple choice. I do know ... he warns you before booting you.
Cmon Jim, admit that things were said in that topic that should have been deleted......
I must admit over the past year I have noticed that a number of posts from certain people have gone unchecked when they should not have. As someone way out on the fringes who knows none of the individuals involved in the discussions personally I find that there has appeared to be some bias for dealing with "unruly" characters....I am sure Jason does the warning thing but there are a few unmentionables that should have received enough warnings (IMO) to lose their right to post.
I hate to agree with Marc (good thing I didnt have lunch yet or I might lose it right now
).....but in this case I think his argument of selective banning has some merit.
In all fairness I have probably said some things over the years on public forums that should have earned me a "ticket straight to banville" (Xbox Live term sorry
)....however I never received one