Quote
daurwyn
Then Stevers and others decide to start posting "Kevin" with a picture of Kevin Bacon (honestly... nothing to do with Nivek guv!) or leaving out a letter.
how can you not laugh at that?
anyway...
Quote
The fact is, it was offensive, and by continually posting along the same theme he is failing to recognise that.
So to address your question more specifically, I guess it depends:
a) If you are posting purely to prolong the issue, then that's not good. At this stage, that's pretty much how I'd interpret a bunch of posts about the merits or otherwise of Nivek.
b) You might also want to recognise that he's no longer in a position to defend himself.
I think Nivek was silly in his faggot policy. And, no, I am not saying his policy was a faggot. His policy ON faggots. More specifically, on the word faggot. Instead of using the word "faggot" it just seemed easier to say Nivek. I was never calling Nivek a faggot. I don't think he is. If he is, I don't care. It doesn't matter. The faggot policy was his policy. The faggot policy was Nivekian -- it was the nivek policy. Instead of calling people "Nivek Policies," it was much more efficient to shorten that down to "Nivek." I was never directly, or indirectly, calling him a faggot.
He shouldn't have to defend himself because I am not attacking him. All I know is that he doesn't like the words "nigger" and "faggot" (probably didnt like the combination "nigger faggot" either). That is his preference, which is fine with me. It isn't fine with me that he started banning because of his preference, rather than because of rules.
Hope this sheds a little bit of light on the Nivek policy.
pls respond