I nominate Rocinante for a TWO MONTH ban!!!

Insofar as Rocinante is an insufferable scoundrel, attempting to make himself seem all important and attention whoring by attempting to ban a fellow Geronte for insufficient cause, I hereby Motion that, in the event the Vote to Ban Tanfan shall fail then Rocinante shall be banned from Spartan Swill for a period of Two Months beginning immediately on the close of a vote in support.

Do I have a Second and Third in Support of this Motion?

He can be pretty fucking hilarious , but since he started banning

BAN HIM!

THIRDS!!!!

LOL.  this should be interesting. Rocinant vs Tanfan. Who do you want banned?

Rook wrote:LOL.  this should be interesting.

Except it doesn't really work like that, but I respect your attempt.  

Why not? My motion to ban you, if the votes support it, would only be effective IF the vote to ban tanfan failed.

I say no bans, but we create new forum for what will be exiled posters. For whatever period of time, they can only post in that forum.

Rook wrote:Why not?  My motion to ban you, if the votes support it, would only be effective IF the vote to ban tanfan failed.

Oh I get it. I thought you meant if the vote for the tanfan ban failed, my banning would ensue automatically.

Either way, my third stands.

Rook wrote:Insofar as Rocinante is an insufferable scoundrel, attempting to make himself seem all important and attention whoring by attempting to ban a fellow Geronte for insufficient cause, I hereby Motion that, in the event the Vote to Ban Tanfan shall fail then Rocinante shall be banned from Spartan Swill for a period of Two Months beginning immediately on the close of a vote in support.

Do I have a Second and Third in Support of this Motion?

I can't join in this. For I am a martyr

Rocinante wrote:

Oh I get it.  I thought you meant if the vote for the tanfan ban failed, my banning would ensue automatically.  

Either way, my third stands.

Somebody's BUTTHURT because I no post here enough. Waaaaa.   

Tanfan! wrote:

Somebody's BUTTHURT because I no post here enough. Waaaaa.   

Is that why Trevor let you back?

Tanfan! wrote:

Somebody's BUTTHURT because I no post here enough. Waaaaa.   

you need to step yo game up fool. You ain't got the chops no mo' and you jus scared cuz this young buck gonna knock yo punk ass of yo throne ya wobbly old bastad.

Damn. Nigel is inexplicitly right. I don't have a third since HutHut is not Geronte. NEED A THIRD YET. Rocinante is mearly a second.

I'll third it. Lol

Now if only Nigel will actual do what the Charter requires.

We should put Nigel up for banning. I nominate Nigel for a two week ban in place of me and roc

Rook wrote:Now if only Nigel will actual do what the Charter requires.

I think I've heard that before...

Tanfan! wrote:We should put Nigel up for banning. I nominate Nigel for a two week ban in place of me and roc

I will disallow that at this time.

I'd like to stir the pot here. Thirded.

Rocinante wrote:

you need to step yo game up fool.  You ain't got the chops no mo' and you jus scared cuz this young buck gonna knock yo punk ass of yo throne ya wobbly old bastad.

Old people do not understand such modern lexicon.

Turtleneck wrote:I say no bans, but we create new forum for what will be exiled posters. For whatever period of time, they can only post in that forum.

Now this...is a good idea. It'll be like tSwill's own little Australia.

Stugots wrote:

Old people do not understand such modern lexicon.

Say what?

Stugots wrote:

Now this...is a good idea. It'll be like tSwill's own little Australia.

The swill is Australia, only the inmates are now turning on themselves. You guys have allowed corporate America and 247 to win. Congrats.

Tanfan! wrote:


Say what?

What country you from?? "What" ain't no country I ever heard of. They speak English in "What"?

InTenSity wrote:

The swill is Australia, only the inmates are now turning on themselves. You guys have allowed corporate America and 247 to win. Congrats.

So this is like a prison riot, but without guards?

I think it'll all iron itself out. Too bad it's all Tanfan's fault.

Rook wrote:LOL.  this should be interesting.  Rocinant vs Tanfan.  Who do you want banned?

Why the f uck not both?

Second, third, fourth, Nigel won't do his job because he's a little bitch. Like Obama.

Once this is carried, I will vote yes, but I want a 1 hour warning so's I can go out in a blaze of glory.

Turtleneck wrote:I say no bans, but we create new forum for what will be exiled posters. For whatever period of time, they can only post in that forum.

Call it "The C unt Farm"

tTito wrote:Second, third, fourth, Nigel won't do his job because he's a little bitch. Like Obama.

Does Tanfan carry you around in his pocket? Or a backpack, maybe?

Stugots wrote:

Old people do not understand such modern lexicon.

This is 90s jive at best

Repeat. What is the point is that list of rules for this board if Nigel refuses to follow them.

Repeat. What is the point is that list of rules for this board if Nigel refuses to follow them.

Can you point out to me the (IF) function in the charter?

Can you point me to the limitation on how a ban proposal must be worded?

How about the proposed ban on Nigel? No mixing of words there, yet no compliance.

Just goes to show this "concept" of member rule is nothing but BS farce.

Rook wrote:How about the proposed ban on Nigel?  No mixing of words there, yet no compliance.  

Just goes to show this "concept" of member rule is nothing but BS farce.

And yet, none of it is going to pass or happen anyway and no bans will happen, because there won't be enough votes. Are you really, truly that upset about this, or am I missing a /s somewhere?

Rook wrote:How about the proposed ban on Nigel?  No mixing of words there, yet no compliance.  

If a temporary ban motion meets the standards necessary to bring it to a vote, then a vote will occur.

NigelUno wrote:

Does Tanfan carry you around in his pocket?  Or a backpack, maybe?

**** TanFan.

NigelUno wrote:

If a temporary ban motion meets the standards necessary to bring it to a vote, then a vote will occur.  

And what are these "standards" you are imposing? A reason was stated, it was seconded and thirded. That is the extent of it. What am I missing here Nedgo?

Rook wrote:

And what are these "standards" you are imposing?  A reason was stated, it was seconded and thirded.  That is the extent of it.  What am I missing here Nedgo?

There has to be a reason.  Calling me names isn't a reason.

For the record, nedgo would have banned you for even asking questions like this. So, your analogy is poor.