Off topic & small talk: Chatterbox (Page 1288)

Falke wrote on 09.09.2024 at 00:06:

Tell me, are you serious right now? You complained a lot about them in the other thread and demanded harsh consequences. Only 10 minutes later they were both banned. So you may even have incited Julian to ban them. And now you want to say something about objectivity and that you don't judge by sympathy?


And actually, you should be banned at the same time. Or was it very objective when you accused him of leading such an unhappy life? That he's so unhappy with himself? So you were just as inciting and Blubbo even defended himself to some extent. And then Blubbo of all people is banned?

No, nothing was objective here. Neither from you nor from Julian.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 09.09.2024 at 00:14:

The friendly user is called Julian and doesn't even manage to reply here himself. I've seen messages like that from him too. And just shows once again how right I am with my criticism here.


Instead of facing up to the criticism, he prefers to write to other users telling them to stop replying. And that in a forum that is logically ONLY about exchange. And yes, Frapi, I'll put my hand in the fire that it was Julian. We all know that the only thing that can stop you from writing is such a high authority.

It's also very questionable when a member of GJ's staff rages against other users in the chat messages.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

frapi07 wrote on 09.09.2024 00:15:

No, it's not called that. He is offline.

Lionking wrote on 09.09.2024 at 00:20: A certain "spice" has now been taken out with the exclusion, that's for sure.
I too have had one or two disputes with an excluded regular user, but I don't hold grudges and can stand up to anyone.

But it is also a fact that some members were intimidated by this regular user and preferred to refrain from expressing an opposing opinion, even a like was better omitted in order not to get into the line of fire.

Everyone is different, one person prefers to keep any trouble at bay and the other is literally looking for it.
I tend to be the one who doesn't avoid confrontation and always likes to stand up for the weaker party.
Perhaps some members are now really blossoming.

But who knows, a new account and new nickname can be created quickly.

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 09.09.2024 at 00:32:

GUTS, deleted my post. You confirmed it to me again via PM. Sorry, then I was quite wrong.


.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 09.09.2024 at 00:32:

As you write yourself, there are different views on this. But a ban was not justified in any case. I explained why and how in my first post here.

But well, GJ is only hurting himself. Sure, if you have a lot of users, you think that one or two users won't leave. But that adds up and the spice, as you call it, makes it more and more boring for other users.

In any case, I for one have already lost a large part of my enjoyment here with this action. A forum lives from its users and not the other way around. And it should also be clear that many here at GJ are only here because of the lottery. That's not meant to be an attack or anything else. It's just completely logical that many users are only here because of the lottery

And these two were at least two regular users who certainly weren't here just for the lottery. It's users like them who keep the whole place going. It would be interesting to see how much would still be going on here if there were no lotteries. Who would be left then? Yes, that's right. Almost only the regular users. And the thanks for that is that they are simply blocked.
.

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically