KSF members are hypocritical?

[Ninpo]

synki you act like a muslim yourself. muslims dont care about people's rights exactly like you. (my other post is on the first page)

[Sacred]

synki you act like a muslim yourself. muslims dont care about people's rights exactly like you. (my other post is on the first page)

[Ninpo]

thx cornfirming it urself, sacred

[Nyannix]

[Rickzter]

Almost everyone hated gmmbearz ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[wild]

download.jpg ˡᵒˡ ᶦᵗˢ ˢᵒ ˢᵐᵃˡˡ ʸᵒᵘ ᶜᵃⁿᵗ ᵉᵛᵉⁿ ˢᵉᵉ ᶦᵗ

[Juxtapo]

this thread is a total throwback to the good ole report threads by jabra with all of the muslim analogies

[THERAPIST]

Not going to respond much further about the other cases because I didn't investigate any of them and don't know full details and of course you have documented nothing.

I will say that I very much doubt there were any cases of admins initiating the contact with gmmbearz especially until after he had numerous warnings/bans.

You should be smart enough to realise that gmmbearz has gone from getting banned multiple times a day to rarely/not at all since you were de-adminned - because he was intentionally going out of his way to do things that he knew would get him banned while you were an admin because I imagine he found it funny to make you come in and ban another admin for no reason.

That you still defend his cases in particular just shows how unfit you are to institute the changes you propose, when he is by anyone else's definition a textbook example of what you can do (short of cheating) in order to get (justifiably) banned.

You have a perverted moral. The majority isnt an excuse to justify actions. A gang muslims could justify to rape a girl with same logic.
The rules are. The fact is we a have a certain rule set on our server, if admins have the right to make arbitrary rules outside the rule set, then there is no point of a certain rule set. Therefor admins cant have rights to make arbitrary rules outside the rule set, because that would contradict the idea about making a certain rule sets. If you have dont have a right to x, it implies a consequence if you claim x, because rights are always enforced. It's pure logics.

BUT I ADMIT, as you criticize me for. They way I determined the consequences, was completly singlehandedly carried out by myself. This is not good morals, I agree.

It's not necessarily cool to be revolutionary, so I'm fine with that, lol.

For all the law books you claim to have derived your rules from, I am unconvinced that actually know how democracy works. Again; if the author's last name is Hitler or Stalin, chances are the books you're reading are a little bit out of date.

Nonetheless - A brief overview of the system we have in place in most of the modern world is that since it would be impossible to have every member of the public vote on every single issue - each area elects their own member of parliament to represent their interests and vote on their behalf. These MP's for the most part guide the way the country is run as well as many laws. So in effect it quite literally does apply a 'majority rules' system and everything is in fact decided with the majority of society's best interests in mind.

If a group of people (of any ethnicity or religion, in fact) were to gang up and rape someone then actually it would still be against the law and they would get punished because the vast majority of society is against such acts. The same principle applies on KSF, where if one shitty admin and mr.gmmbearz gang up on another admin for doing their job, the rest of the law enforcement (other admins) will quickly step up and jail the criminals in order to protect the rest of our little society.

That's not true at all, I'm not against dialogue. I have in this thread already admitted my faults, none of you ever admitted your faults. My point is to display the hypocrisy of some KSF members, which you, yourself Rapist, already done singlehandedly regarding to Synki.

And sorry Blink, I will find the examples soon in night.

If you weren't against dialogue you would have attempted to institute your changes by actually communicating them to the public and letting others vote on what they thought best for KSF rather than enforcing it on your own without thought to others input. You would also not be trying to tell us that 'it doesn't matter what the majority thinks' - because I'm pretty sure that saying your own view is correct regardless of what everyone else thinks is in fact a very clear way of stating that you are, in fact, against open dialogue.

Have you heard of ISIS? It's an organization I'm aware of that has roughly the same views as you regarding 'revolutionaries' and 'changing society for the better'. You might be able to get some pointers or find some like-minded souls there - the muslim thing might be a bit of a deal breaker though. I am at least certainly starting to see that your issue here has less to do with KSF and more to do with democracy and society in general. Is this a trial run before you embark on your course as a revolutionary in real life perhaps?

[Blink]

And sorry Blink, I will find the examples soon in night.

Are you still working on this?

These 2 cases being completely different I'm eager to see what you come up with and hoping you're not mentioning my name in this thread for no reason.

[Ninpo]

Not going to respond much further about the other cases because I didn't investigate any of them and don't know full details and of course you have documented nothing.

I will say that I very much doubt there were any cases of admins initiating the contact with gmmbearz especially until after he had numerous warnings/bans.

I have minor documentation of what I have said, whilst you can absolutely nothing document.
https://pastebin.com/sVV7RmRi
This is one example. Mr.gmmbearz didn't even speak to Synki, but Synki kicked him, mr.gmmbearz rejoined and Synki started speaking to him, and mr.gmmbearz replied -> ban.
http://ksfclan.com/forum/showthread....-Admin-Abuse-3
Rapha and Synki approaching mr.gmmbearz

And there're ofc a lot of examples with myself.

You should be smart enough to realise that gmmbearz has gone from getting banned multiple times a day to rarely/not at all since you were de-adminned - because he was intentionally going out of his way to do things that he knew would get him banned while you were an admin because I imagine he found it funny to make you come in and ban another admin for no reason.

That you still defend his cases in particular just shows how unfit you are to institute the changes you propose, when he is by anyone else's definition a textbook example of what you can do (short of cheating) in order to get (justifiably) banned.

Neither do I see Cow get banned any longer, there can be many other reasons. And the fact that mr.gmmbearz can trigger admins to make them ban him, already proves that they are not mature enough to be admins, but are silly SJW's.
EDIT: Rather I think the reason was that the admins knew they could get away with anything as long as I opposed it, because whatever I would oppose, people would oppose me opposing it.

For all the law books you claim to have derived your rules from, I am unconvinced that actually know how democracy works. Again; if the author's last name is Hitler or Stalin, chances are the books you're reading are a little bit out of date.

Nonetheless - A brief overview of the system we have in place in most of the modern world is that since it would be impossible to have every member of the public vote on every single issue - each area elects their own member of parliament to represent their interests and vote on their behalf. These MP's for the most part guide the way the country is run as well as many laws. So in effect it quite literally does apply a 'majority rules' system and everything is in fact decided with the majority of society's best interests in mind.

If a group of people (of any ethnicity or religion, in fact) were to gang up and rape someone then actually it would still be against the law and they would get punished because the vast majority of society is against such acts. The same principle applies on KSF, where if one shitty admin and mr.gmmbearz gang up on another admin for doing their job, the rest of the law enforcement (other admins) will quickly step up and jail the criminals in order to protect the rest of our little society.

But you forget we have constitutional rights as well which are the most essential for our democracy.

If you weren't against dialogue you would have attempted to institute your changes by actually communicating them to the public and letting others vote on what they thought best for KSF rather than enforcing it on your own without thought to others input. You would also not be trying to tell us that 'it doesn't matter what the majority thinks' - because I'm pretty sure that saying your own view is correct regardless of what everyone else thinks is in fact a very clear way of stating that you are, in fact, against open dialogue.

Have you heard of ISIS? It's an organization I'm aware of that has roughly the same views as you regarding 'revolutionaries' and 'changing society for the better'. You might be able to get some pointers or find some like-minded souls there - the muslim thing might be a bit of a deal breaker though. I am at least certainly starting to see that your issue here has less to do with KSF and more to do with democracy and society in general. Is this a trial run before you embark on your course as a revolutionary in real life perhaps?

I dont think it doesnt matter what the majority believe. My point is that majority is not an argument for morals, but it's necessarily for the sake of pragmatism.
At the same way the regime of China is not respecting basic human rights, then even though there're individuals getting opressed, it wouldnt make sense to make enforce changes because of their culture, but this doesn't justify the people getting opressed.

I'm not saying that rights in that sense are being violated on KSF. Ofc. not, KSF is not a society. It's just an analogy and a way to explain it.

Regarding to the pragmatic of my project and my self-appointed way to determine the consequences were dumb.
But regarding to the morals I defended and my postulates about the major hypocrisy and inconsistency among some KSF members, I'm still right. And I have already proved that.
Btw, relax, KSF is private property ...