@brainbomb, just go over to vDip and talk to him if you want too. The mods here cannot help you get in touch with him, that'd be violating his privacy/information rights. He's a cool dude, I'm sure he'd talk to you if you asked him over there.

As for unbanning, it is rare and is always case by case. The mods do not lightly ban someone, and Zultar certainly does not. So you just have to trust that they randomly didn't just decide to become banning nutcases. I can pretty positively say that yes, the mod team would have tried to talk down a member asking to be banned. It is extremely rare for members to ask for it, and is never done without a discussion.

I have his email. I have kept in touch with people like krellin as well. Hes in my familys fantasy football league. I realize unbanning is rare but i think he has a history of dramatically losing his cool.and taking an absurdist stance against the rules albeit in mafia, the forum, maybe even in life who knows.

Those are the types of people worth appreciating. People with emotions who arent soulless boring shells of human beings. There are plenty of people with baclward views that are given free reign to express them without repurcussions. And yea he was in the wrong, but I cant imagine if someone had simply told him to chill out that he wouldve dug deeper like that

But what do I know, im just some asshole troll liberal right.

"I realize unbanning is rare"

Not really. It's just that the banned person is always the one who plays a role in being unbanned, and anyone else petitioning on their behalf gets nowhere.

Well, rare, I as far as there are a majority of people banned never come back, but most aren't the sort to want back because they'd only be cheating.

If someone in Jamie's case wanted to stay on the site, he never would've asked for the ban. If someone in Jamie's case came to realize he made a mistake, he'd go to the mods privately to discuss being unbanned.

The problem is the mistake isnt what he was banned for. He asked to be banned. Couldnt somebody have just said "were not banning you but if you wanna stop comibg here just stop coming here"

Simple as fuck.

He seemed to be of the impression that by being banned the website believed in hosting or creating a safe space for intolerance. So by giving him what he wants, banning him arent we basically validating that nonsensical belief?

Jamiet wanted to post things that broke the webDip rules.

Jamiet was told that those things broke the webDip rules and so he should post them somewhere that wasn't webDip.

Jamiet continued to post things which broke the webDip rules and demanded that he be allowed to post them on webDip, because they were morally justifiable.

Jamiet was informed that although his posts may be morally justifiable, that does not mean they are not against the webDip rules, so if he wanted to post them they should be somewhere which does not have the webDip rules (i.e. not webDip).

Jamiet posted more things that were against the webDip rules.

Jamiet was informed that if he kept posting things that were against the webDip rules on webDip, he would be banned from webDip.

Jamiet said that he would continue to post things against the webDip rules on webDip unless he was banned from webDip.

Jamiet was banned from webDip.

Jamiet then found many other places on the internet which were not webDip, and did not have the webDip rules, and was able to post many things which broke the webDip rules on those websites without being banned because they were not webDip. As a result, he lived happily ever after.

The End.

I think you meant to say:

As a result he lived perpetually angry ever after. The End.

Do you feel anyone on webdip, whatsoever, felt compelled to commit acts of violence because Jamiet went off the deep end and encouraged it. Was anyone specifically feeling unsafe, uneasy, or threatened by his call for violence? Was there any actionable ability for Jamie to fly to the US, join antifaand start punching secret webdip nazi party members?
Was Jamie actively threatening any group or religion that should be afforded protection under webdiplomacy standards.

That doesn't matter, bb. He broke the webDip rules. The webDip rules are not equivalent to 'Did this cause someone to go out and punch someone? If so ban, if not don't do anything.'

Reading what you just wrote makes me want to kill myself... does that count?

funny how a website built around a game of war is frequented by people who have trouble with violence

one of the descriptions of my time in the service was:

Manager of Violence

I wrote a long message reply but realized nobody cares. Carry on.

once in a planning mission for a classroom project on amphibious/expedititionary warfare the briefer said we have two classes of mission: one to 'kill em'' the other to 'feed em'. today's mission is: to 'feed em' (AKA humanitarian mission).

nobody listens, nobody cares.

You ruined my life!

No, I didn't.

Oh, yes, you did! Oh, yes, you did! Y'know, you got them bad eyes, like a gypsy, and I don't know why I didn't see it yesterday. Bad luck! That's what it is. Is that all I'm ever gonna have? I should have taken a rock and killed myself years ago!

Jamiet is back already...under a pseudonym.




He's not (that I know of) but thought it'd be a laugh if he was.

@bb some people do care.

@captainmeme is it not a case of begging the question. Jamie claims the rules are not moral, and that you should not enforce them. You reply, these are rules we have all agreed to, so morality doesn't matter.

BB asks the question, was anyone harmed directly or indirectly.

You reply, doesn't matter Jamie broke the rules.

The question here isn't whether Jamie broke the rules (he did), it is whether the rules are right. Or whether we should break rules which are morally reprehensible in principle?

And you could say 'we all agreed to this set of rules when we signed up to webdip' - except we didn't i certainly was never asked to agree to this set of rules. Nor was there any notification of a change in the rules sent to me.

I think the issue is the original thread was thought by many to be tacit approval to go out on the streets and attack the far right. However, from a British perspective I believe it was more about resisting the philosophies behind the worst genocide in human history. I don’t think this would be limited to Nazis and would include any group from the left, right or religious fundamentalists that effectively wants the elimination of another group that they see as sub-standard. I think that Jamie’s anger was the fact inaction in the past has led to the rise to power and that we are seeing this today. It’s a case of standing up to these ideas, even if it’s just words on a forum.
I understand that the owners of the site need to ensure that they are protected legally and no-one even Jamie would want to see a person actually hurt as a consequence of the posts. The repugnant ideas that aim to dehumanise certain section of society however need to be fought tooth and nail.
So, Jamie, please talk to the owners and say that you happy to punch the ideas not the people.

How many great players and personalities have we lost because of the "rules"? Why are the rules so fucking boring? Is it not clear that this site isn't as popular and fun to be on as it once was when the "rules" that you're all jerking off to weren't enforced in such a way?

Isn't it clear to the people running this site that this site would be better off without those rules? Why are you so hell bent on shutting people up? I remember when I joined the forum was full of people getting into interesting and insulting conversations it was super entertaining. I also remember you could get games started a lot faster than you can now and there were definitely more people playing. Strange coincidence that the moment the mods and owners decided to make things "polite and civil" the site got more and more boring.

Bringing Jamie back wouldn't mean anything. Draugnar, krellin, Jamie, and all those other lost souls found a place were they could be themselves and you took that away from them and us. Why? Are you happy with the outcome? I hope you are really. I'm not trying to insult the owners or anything, but is the site really better now than it was back then?

Instead of starting a petition to get Jamie back, there should be a petition to turn this site back into what it was during its Golden Age. Send out the emails to the exiled ones and they will return. It'll be like it once was.

The owners' wish to make the forum more civilized so that the site can seem more attractive to new comers was a failure. Let's go back to how things were. Let them come back.

Fuck man back in the day if you opened up the forum you could find people talking about literally any kind of topic I learned so much here. Having people from opposing sided just throw facts and obscenities at each other (with fucking sources and links as well it was brilliant) was both highly educational and entertaining. Now, it's just people advertising games, asking for replacements, and discussing Donald Trump. There is a very obvious decline and I'm willing to bet that the decline of the forum is directly linked to the decline of people playing. Let's be honest. Who the fuck would want to play this game? Like I said earlier the reason the forum became the regulated thing we see today was because of the desire to make the site more attractive to potential new comers. But who the hell is going to enjoy a game like this? Not normal people. Normal people don't enjoy a game where the highlight is stabbing someone you were friends with in the back and taking what was theirs. If anything, the forum served as a way to ATTRACT new comers. Real new comers who wouldn't play one game and leave when they realize how sickening it is.