1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
    Dismiss Notice

Comments on Profile Post by RavensDFan

  1. View previous comments
  2. RavensDFan
    RavensDFan
    One comment met that criteria of disrespect that I made. . The other comment I made was removed because I called out the BS. No other reason. But one comment remains that meets that criteria. And it isn't a post I made.
    Nov 16, 2017
  3. RavensDFan
    RavensDFan
    The only reason this done on RavensMania profile 1. it was his request that was ignored. 2. Couldn't find the private convo button thingy when I went to do it. 3. Yep did not have the patience to play around to attempt to locate it either at that time.
    Nov 16, 2017
  4. RavensDFan
    RavensDFan
    Easy fix that should have been handled the right way in the first place and the great resistance to do so speaks volumes.
    Nov 16, 2017
  5. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Said Admin doesn't actually feel sorry for you anymore after all this. He actually felt bad until you pulled this entire fiasco instead of leaving it alone. But since you have a bad memory and want to continue this, here we go.
    Nov 18, 2017
  6. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    It was a figure of speech. We can't afford to spend on the offense is not literally true. The Ravens have cap they can afford to spend every single year. As I said, it jus isn't the wisest allocation of resources when the offense hasn't shown that investments often make a significant difference.
    Nov 18, 2017
  7. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    I'm so hungry I could eat a horse.

    I'm not literally going to eat a horse. Just really hungry. See how that works?
    Nov 18, 2017
    RavensMania likes this.
  8. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Here's me actually bringing up investments in the offense via FA. Sure, I didn't say "cap hits" exactly, but I mentioned the money being spent. Again, this is the issue with semantics that caused me to cut it short. https://imgur.com/a/UJHuq
    Nov 18, 2017
  9. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  10. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Actually, you never brought up drafting a receiver twice in three years and I DID address your notion that they don't draft the offense in the first three rounds.

    I'm going to pull a you, though. You asked when they showed the offense love by drafting players high. You didn't say receivers explicitly, so you weren't talking about that. https://imgur.com/a/dtpU3
    Nov 18, 2017
  11. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  12. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  13. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    But the entire time, I was talking about the spending that went into the offense because... https://imgur.com/a/ntlte

    In my original post, I'm talking about investing in the offense as a whole, not just the draft. You tried to focus it down to the draft and I said that wasn't the whole story and gave examples.
    Nov 18, 2017
  14. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    I didn't "post 5 more offhanded comments." In fact, this is what I said about stopping the conversation short. https://imgur.com/a/lKO0Y
    Nov 18, 2017
  15. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  16. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  17. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Oh, you said nothing further, eh?

    https://imgur.com/a/9ygFh

    If we really wanted to issue warnings for you ignoring mod requests (which we did not issue you), we could do so since you didn't take your post down and you'd actually be temporarily banned, if you want to go down that road.
    Nov 18, 2017
  18. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    We weren't going to actually remove either of the two posts. You all were discussing Ravens football and not in any real violation of the rules. Personally, all mods agree that we didn't care if you two discussed.
    Nov 18, 2017
  19. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    The reason we asked you to stop is a few members found the topic to be overbearing and made it not worth posting in the thread anymore, essentially. We want all members to post and be active, so we asked you both to stop.
    Nov 18, 2017
  20. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  21. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    I'm going to leave that post clear as day up here so that when someone questions why you got a warning, they can see that post right there. THAT is why you got a warning. Read it over and tell me you didn't deserve on. If you did, then stop arguing because that's why you got one.
    Nov 18, 2017
  22. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    But much like in the thread, if you cannot understand why you received a warning, then I'm done here. I'm not going to discuss any further. The admins and mods don't understand why this is such a big deal to you. Read the post you made.
    Nov 18, 2017
  23. 29BmoreBird22
    29BmoreBird22
    Nov 18, 2017
  24. RavensMania
    RavensMania
    RavensDFan, this is the one post I’m going to make on this topic. When I asked for the conversation to end, it was merely a suggestion. Nowhere in that post did I warn anyone if they continued the conversation. It is he reason posts stayed up anyway. That’s it, if you reply to this I will not respond. The End
    Nov 18, 2017
    Lost_In_The_Sauce likes this.
  25. Truth
    Truth
    The message could not possibly have been intended for anyone else. There are three administrators. You explicitly stated, “Note to mod.” The exact ending quote stated, “Both Bmore and Tru came back running their yaps after your request and you did nothing.” You explicitly stated that he did nothing after his request, and your defense is to claim that the words “you” and “your” were intended for different objects.
    Nov 20, 2017
  26. Truth
    Truth
    That is an unmitigated fabrication. The very same goes for the argument that you, a long-standing member of the BaltimoreRavens forum, could not locate the Inbox button on a highly similar interface, the difference being that the current interface clearly states “Inbox” as opposed to the former’s message symbol.
    Nov 20, 2017
  27. Truth
    Truth
    The current inbox system states “Start a Conversation” when hovered over. In addition, there were no issues with locating the apology from the admin that was mentioned above. There were no issues with accessing another member’s profile, which has a “Start a Conversation” button within one of its tabs.
    Nov 20, 2017
  28. Truth
    Truth
    Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to hold faith in the conveniently coincidental occurrence of the sudden oncoming of technologically ineptitude.
    Nov 20, 2017
  29. Truth
    Truth
    With respect to the apology, I’ve spoken with the admin, and I was told that it essentially exclusively applied towards the “woman” remark stated twice by Tru11, as the usage was potentially derogatory. If your issues lie with its usage, then you have every right to be offended and profiled.
    Nov 20, 2017
  30. Truth
    Truth
    Personally, I was uneasy when coming across the terms. We were initially instructed to avoid warning members for remarks that could be derogatory but also may not be intended as such. However, the fact that the term was repeated placed its usage under review for the retroactive possibility of disciplinary action by taking the matter straight to the top.
    Nov 20, 2017
  31. Truth
    Truth
    Unfortunately, the chances of a repercussion were basically torpedoed after your “Little boys” remark. In fact, none of the three potentially derogatory terms were deleted nor docked for their existence.
    Nov 20, 2017
  32. Truth
    Truth
    Of the three, your last post was deleted for the public berating of the moderating for a presumed lack of reasonable action (While eluding to the incorrect notion from the previous post), which again makes the explanation about hoping to privately share the complaints with the moderator even harder to fathom. That aside, the content of any subject-related discussion is irrelevant.
    Nov 20, 2017
  33. Truth
    Truth
    In your opinion, you were unquestionably correct. In their opinion, they were unquestionably correct. That’s the entire nature of the forum, to share a commonplace with members with potentially differing opinions and engaging in debates. What angle is this meant to serve from the standpoint of moderating?
    Nov 20, 2017
  34. Truth
    Truth
    Should posts concerning football-related topics be deleted or taken action against because of their content, their beliefs, or the inflexibility of said beliefs? That would be absurd. In his alleged continued yapping, none of 29BmoreBird22’s comments following the informal request were aimed at either side.
    Nov 20, 2017
  35. Truth
    Truth
    His initial comment condemned the progression of the argument, mentioning that neither side was willing to concede. His second requested that nobody reply to either of the two members involved in the parting argument. If you take issues with Tru11’s final remark that questioned your understanding of the subject-related matter, let’s take into account your comment on the previous page.
    Nov 20, 2017
  36. Truth
    Truth
    It read:
    “Or perhaps you're doing what you always do, even on the old boards. Smoke and bullshit because you don't want to answer the question.”
    Nov 20, 2017
  37. Truth
    Truth
    It wasn’t deleted. It didn’t receive a warning. And it was objectively more personal and offhanded given that it belittled a member’s history as a poster, not just taking aim at the current matter at hand. No issues were raised by either party. No contempt for the absence of action and censorship, setting a clear precedence for relative leniency, which has been the basic standard on this forum.
    Nov 20, 2017
  38. Truth
    Truth
    As is stands, both you and Tru11 have active posts that were partially inflammatory to some degree but were deemed minor enough to avoid being formally warned and removed. Both posted after the request and weren’t punished for simply doing so.
    Nov 20, 2017
  39. Truth
    Truth
    Therefore, expecting the moderators to randomly alter or abandon the set-precedence in order to delete Tru11’s second post following the request, one that was at worst no more egregious than your currently-active post from earlier, is tantamount to outright hypocrisy. And it cannot be had both ways.
    Nov 20, 2017
  40. Truth
    Truth
    The end result was objectively lenient. Had we warned and deleted every single possible infraction in every post, we would’ve granted multiple additional warnings for both you and Tru11. Both would’ve been hit with two separate 1.19.1s, specifically for failure to ignore the instructions of the staff, and a combination of 1.5s and 1.6s for the derogatory, slanderous or disrespectful remarks towards each other.
    Nov 20, 2017
  41. Truth
    Truth
    There would also be an additional 1.19.1 for abuse of staff members given to your second deleted post. That end result would’ve given suspensions to both accounts. Specifically in your instance, your account would’ve been dealt by far the biggest blow, with a full calendar month suspension. Both members were fortunate enough to make similar infractions that were politely cancelled out due to their coexistence.
    Nov 20, 2017
  42. Truth
    Truth
    That was done with unabated fairness to both sides. Your first post alone had three separate and clear violations. It was docked for two. The time stamps are indeed there. Your first post came at 6:04 PM EST on Sunday. His first response came at 12:32 PM EST on Monday, after noon. The time difference was 18 hours and not 6 hours. Which fell on a work day.
    Nov 20, 2017
  43. Truth
    Truth
    I can say for a fact that I wasn't aware of the conversation at the time nor was I online due to work schedule. RavensMania was gearing up for his bowling league that comes after his work on Mondays. I can't speak for 29BmoreBird22 whereabouts, therefore I can't presume them.
    Nov 20, 2017
  44. Truth
    Truth
    Additionally, there are only three of us rostered. None of the posts were reported to bring this to our attention, which isn’t just a tangible action for members to alert moderators to potential violations and add personal feedback; it’s the absolute best method. No complaints were extended privately.
    Nov 20, 2017
  45. Truth
    Truth
    However, instead of reporting the post, you chose to bypass either option in favor of a profanity-filled tirade, and then doubled down on the sentiments afterwards with a second post. In the history of this forum, there has never been a situation where a member was asked only once to cease debating/arguing about a subject-related matter and was immediately warned for the following post.
    Nov 20, 2017
  46. Truth
    Truth
    From speaking with the moderators, I can confirm that there have been exactly two instances, both occurring after a plethora of repeated ignored warnings. Therefore, there was zero active precedence for an out-of-the-blue alteration to the approach.
    Nov 20, 2017
  47. Truth
    Truth
    There were several back-and-forth condescending remarks that were allowed to fly. Therefore, there was no active precedence for penalizing comments of equal or lesser extent. Your retort was a clear outlier, extending far beyond the line, even when using the recently submitted posts as a barometer.
    Nov 20, 2017
  48. Truth
    Truth
    Finally, let this be clear. It is unfathomable to argue that the blame behind a blatant, willful and avoidable violation of the rules falls onto the moderators for not uncovering a perceived issue and taking action within a 5-6 hour span on a work day with no prior reported posts by any member.
    Nov 20, 2017
    Lost_In_The_Sauce likes this.
  49. Truth
    Truth
    It’s akin to two classmates stepping on each others’ shoes, one classmate waiting around without contacting a teacher, returning to assault their counterpart a few hours later, and then telling the teachers to give themselves detention for failure to prevent the act. It is conceivably one of the most childish deflections of personal fault that I’ve come across in recent memory, with no semblance of accountability.
    Nov 20, 2017
  50. Truth
    Truth
    In any case, adhering to an unspoken deadline selected for the moderators, a deadline that makes it reasonable to pin willful violations on the moderators, regardless of whom was aware of any issue, regardless of whom was notified, is downright deplorable. Furthermore, your assessment of the handling and merits of its actual handling are by no means parallel. The resistance speaks volumes of our agreement in unison.
    Nov 20, 2017
  51. Truth
    Truth
    If you have a concern, present it; provide a hint of an indication of personal uneasiness, especially when there have been multiple jabs traded on both sides. What is unacceptable, however, is for any member to operate by their own choosing as to whether to follow the rules based on personal assumptions, and then fault the moderators while holding themselves unaccountable. It is not reasonable, nor will it ever be.
    Nov 20, 2017
  1. There are currently no users chatting.

You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.