"He's discussing/whining about the changes made to the game. "
I used the thread itself as an example, and wrongly named Demtok because he fathered the thread, however the posts in that thread
regarding personal attacks, etc., are still visibile and unchecked.
"As for VIP staff, we don't have a collective opinion in general. Every VIP does what he thinks is the best, although there are some internal discussions too. VIP staff has also changed over the years. "
You do however have a posted rules but not a terms of service. PM privacy, or the lack thereof, inconsistent rules enforcement, bullying, and intended humiliation, however,
are all things that are not addressed and allowed to continue. This is from the VIP staff, and allowed by the VIP staff as well, until the staff takes a post personal, rather than
enforcing forum conduct from the get go.
"As for your ban, NbM banned you to make it clear that behaviour like that Pro-bashing thread will not be tolerated."
This is incorrect. The ban was not for the pro thread, as that was already in discussion as to its nuances. The ban, the post the ban was for, and the explaination, was for me posting "No, your're wrong, Big time NT" and not until, but only after, was I banned and explained by NBM that that was what it was for, and as reflected on this website. There was no rule being broken when I used someone as an example for an idea to get a sense of grounding. Pro-bashing threads are all over this forum and have not been removed, nor the "offenders" reprimanded.
NBM got pissy that I was arguing a point, nothing more. If you can tell me what my intentions of a post are I should be able to say no, you're wrong, without getting banned. In actuallity, that is exactly what happened.
"I did consider lifting it and letting you go with a warning of not repeating the folly of the deleted post, but didn't care enough to act."
Furthering my point of selective enforcement. You take/do not take action with your position based on personal bias, not policy. That is
the majority of my argument but not its entirety.
" Based on your posts, it the Pro-bashing post could be deemed as intentional abuse per rule 2, so perhaps his call was the right one. If you've been around since 99 (that's longer than Dio's, I think), you should know the rules by now."
I do know the rules, and I didn't make a personal attack. I used information that is common knowledge in this community, ie Pro characters telling people how to roleplay their characters in game. Anyone that knows or has interacted with Pro knows this to be one of his biggest tells back in the day. Now, if I said Pro, you are a fucking douchebag, like a similar thread directed at Valg, then yes that would be a personal attack. This did not occur, either.
" Also, what handle did you post with before making this one? Your actions reminded me of how Deathweaver acted back in the day, due to his complaints being ignored, deliberately breaking rules after that and getting banned as a result. "
I'm not Deathweaver, but from this sentence alone it sounds to me like the VIP staff again, was a contributing factor to disruptive posting and either through ignoring a parties complaints, or blatantly overlooking them, you helped someone drive them self to having to create another handle. I haven't broken any rules here. I will defend my opinion as I am entitled to on any topic I am part of, and respond equivocally