Dylanthekid Nomination for the Hall of Shame - Poll Included 12 12

[thehumantorch]

3 hours ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

4 hours ago, Funnybooks said:

4 hours ago, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Just got up-to-date on this thread. 

It would have been much more preferable to open up voting after both parties were able to present their sides of the story.   

People voted after hearing only one side of the story, which isn't optimal.  It's like buying a car without driving it first.  

It won't matter...if/when Dylan decides to respond, it will only result in a disaster...anyone that has previously read the book of Dylanthekid, already knows how it ends...

In this case, I agree with you.

But in the future, we need to let the jury hear from the defense before they make a decision. 

And Dylan can reasonably argue we used a kangaroo court to destroy him.  Can you imagine his instagram posts?

[Funnybooks]

Just now, thehumantorch said:

And Dylan can reasonably argue we used a kangaroo court to destroy him.  Can you imagine his instagram posts?

You can do better than imagine if you are on IG...

[wombat]

1 minute ago, Funnybooks said:

You can do better than imagine if you are on IG...

What is his name on IG?

[thehumantorch]

59 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Nothing is ever going to be optimal.  But getting removed from the HoS list is a very simple task. 

Someone (who is not me) would simply need to draw up another poll and then list the reasons why Dylan should not be on the list.  If that poll gets a majority of the votes......then off he comes.

If someone would like to do that when this is all over then I say go ahead.........I dare you. 

 

That could be a whole passel of fun.  

[Domo Arigato]

Notice:  The following message has been sent to Dylan at the email address listed on his website.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Domo Arigato

[Domo Arigato]

And before anyone asks......if he does reply......I will simply copy and paste his entire response as he typed it.

However, I will not do so with any profanity....insults.....name calling.....etc.

If skypinkblu, comicdonna, or one of the other moderators would prefer......I could simply PM them any reply I receive and they could make the final call on whether to post it or not.

 

[comicdonna]

On 3/21/2021 at 6:01 PM, Domo Arigato said:

 

If skypinkblu, comicdonna, or one of the other moderators would prefer......I could simply PM them any reply I receive and they could make the final call on whether to post it or not.

 

You should be able to post it, as long as his reply doesn't violate any posting guidelines.  ...

Edited March 29, 2021 by comicdonna

[JollyComics]

Umnn, I voted.

[Funnybooks]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

What is his name on IG?

I no longer see his account outside of the one he rarely posts to...comicdylan...

[Terry JSA]

Reading that was insane. Not only was he harassing someone but he sounded as if he was entitled to the book.

[ttfitz]

7 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

I don't know about Green Goblin, but maybe Mr. Mxypztlk with a dash of Don Quixote and Cat Woman. Maybe he'll surprise us one day, like a few of the other long time shills who reformed and blended in. I'm doubtful at this point, but there is always hope.

 I joined long after Stu had been banished, so my only experience with him has been his drive-by shill appearances. I can't decide if he really isn't interested in being here, or just can't help himself - he generally lasts less than a day with his shill accounts, so easy it appears to be to identify him.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

34 minutes ago, Funnybooks said:

I no longer see his account outside of the one he rarely posts to...comicdylan...

Wonder if he got himself nominated over there as well.  

[ttfitz]

5 hours ago, kav said:

I guess theoretically if he has some amazing Perry Mason moment that changes everyone's mind we could redo the HOS poll since this is an informal proceeding.

[Domo Arigato]

1 hour ago, Domo Arigato said:

Notice:  The following message has been sent to Dylan at the email address listed on his website.

 

Dylan has sent the following response:

Thank you for reaching out

I hope Architect and or other mods can chime in and help answer these questions explicitly to prevent misinformation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some judicial process questions, this is not my defense whatsoever, purely attempting to understand how these rules work and what they even are. I will kindly communicate my defense to you after these rule questions are answered via email-so that it’s clear. I am assuming that you are acting as a representative of the boards as a whole. 

Am I allowed to mount an offense as to further my HOS/PL thread against Polonsky in addition to my public statement in regards to this thread against me?  If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed? Is a new thread opened against him? How would the timer on a poll work on a new HOS thread against Polonsky work because having a clock that expires on his hypothetical thread AFTER my thread isn’t logical. I believe I should have nominated Polonsky for PL not HOS and for that I apologize. You believe Polonsky did nothing wrong because I was not able to post my arguments before I was banned. Granted, I should have been less hasty and organized first but that should not minimize my argument although it clearly does because the forum was taken down and I'm currently banned for a few days. My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned. I shouldn't have then get a thread against me UNTIL I have the legitimate opportunity to post one unhastily because it sweeps my claim against Polonsky under the rug.

Now, isn’t this entire preceding prejudicial because people need to decide whether they like Dylan or Polonsky more vs who’s wrong in this scenario? If you say no that’s ridiculous, why were multiple comments made in the thread against me pertaining to other issues such as past grading, CGC destroying my AF15s, the character label thing, me being super blunt and not caring how I come across, etc etc? Those are highly prejudicial comments and have nothing to do with the specific accusations against me. Those other topics could easily be started in a separate thread. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the thread is purely reserved for comments directly related to the claims against them, not hearsay from anywhere else. If you would like to discuss anything else, start another thread. I could further argue that making comments not directly relating to the specific accusations against me on an HOS thread. against MY BUSINESS are directly interfering with MY business; Therefore, many people would be HOS’d according to those rules set by the boards

 Being that I have not been voted into HOS yet, I find it against the best interest of truth, justice, and me that Polonsky could post but I could not. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the complainant has a set amount of time to mount a case against the accused NOT they get banned, everyone votes while they are banned, and they can’t post anything until the vast majority of votes are in. I thank you for reaching out now, but I still think it's unfair. Someone should have reached out immediately-it's not your personal responsibility but it is someone's-Maybe a mod for the future?

How can we create a fair and impartial system for judging whether the alleged offense was committed if I’m banned from posting for a week BECAUSE of the HOS thread I posted against Polonsky? Many boardies have already casted their vote, so I almost believe there is no point in responding because minds are already made up and the process is highly Un American. 

Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios the accused can post but only in the thread where they are accused IF they are banned. It’s moronic for them not to be able to do so. However it’s wonderful if you want to find more people guilty regardless of whether they deserve it or not

Is this current system good that an HOS that is deemed improper can then go after the person who accused them? Granted, if I somehow win this vote, does that mean I can nominate Polonsky and Domo for interfering with my biz by posting a then improper thread against me? When would the chaos end?

There’s a lot to swallow there. Let me know if you need anything at all. I cannot post my defense (or rather communicate to you) until I understand the CGC boards judicial processes and quite frankly I don’t even think most of the boardies do either! How can you make a fair decision on a process you don’t 100% understand? Again it becomes do we like or dislike Dylan poll, not is he guilty or not; I hope that one day changes and there is a much fairer system

You might want to start a different thread in comics general about these rules instead of clogging the one against me but

would you please make sure it is clear, maybe at the top of Domo's post to "see this thread..." also with a link as well as at the

bottom for the almost 150 people who have voted without seeing all the facts yet. "I've seen enough" is not a valid response. It's a valid we hate Dylan response, but it's not a valid Dylan is actually guilty response.

Candidly,

Dylan

[kav]

2 minutes ago, ttfitz said:

Every episode ol Mason did what as far as i know has never happened in a courtroom-guilty person shouts I DID IT!!!!
Just an amazingly skilled attorney.

[kav]

5 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Dylan has sent the following response:

Thank you for reaching out

I hope Architect and or other mods can chime in and help answer these questions explicitly to prevent misinformation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some judicial process questions, this is not my defense whatsoever, purely attempting to understand how these rules work and what they even are. I will kindly communicate my defense to you after these rule questions are answered via email-so that it’s clear. I am assuming that you are acting as a representative of the boards as a whole. 

Am I allowed to mount an offense as to further my HOS/PL thread against Polonsky in addition to my public statement in regards to this thread against me?  If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed? Is a new thread opened against him? How would the timer on a poll work on a new HOS thread against Polonsky work because having a clock that expires on his hypothetical thread AFTER my thread isn’t logical. I believe I should have nominated Polonsky for PL not HOS and for that I apologize. You believe Polonsky did nothing wrong because I was not able to post my arguments before I was banned. Granted, I should have been less hasty and organized first but that should not minimize my argument although it clearly does because the forum was taken down and I'm currently banned for a few days. My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned. I shouldn't have then get a thread against me UNTIL I have the legitimate opportunity to post one unhastily because it sweeps my claim against Polonsky under the rug.

Now, isn’t this entire preceding prejudicial because people need to decide whether they like Dylan or Polonsky more vs who’s wrong in this scenario? If you say no that’s ridiculous, why were multiple comments made in the thread against me pertaining to other issues such as past grading, CGC destroying my AF15s, the character label thing, me being super blunt and not caring how I come across, etc etc? Those are highly prejudicial comments and have nothing to do with the specific accusations against me. Those other topics could easily be started in a separate thread. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the thread is purely reserved for comments directly related to the claims against them, not hearsay from anywhere else. If you would like to discuss anything else, start another thread. I could further argue that making comments not directly relating to the specific accusations against me on an HOS thread. against MY BUSINESS are directly interfering with MY business; Therefore, many people would be HOS’d according to those rules set by the boards

 Being that I have not been voted into HOS yet, I find it against the best interest of truth, justice, and me that Polonsky could post but I could not. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the complainant has a set amount of time to mount a case against the accused NOT they get banned, everyone votes while they are banned, and they can’t post anything until the vast majority of votes are in. I thank you for reaching out now, but I still think it's unfair. Someone should have reached out immediately-it's not your personal responsibility but it is someone's-Maybe a mod for the future?

How can we create a fair and impartial system for judging whether the alleged offense was committed if I’m banned from posting for a week BECAUSE of the HOS thread I posted against Polonsky? Many boardies have already casted their vote, so I almost believe there is no point in responding because minds are already made up and the process is highly Un American. 

Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios the accused can post but only in the thread where they are accused IF they are banned. It’s moronic for them not to be able to do so. However it’s wonderful if you want to find more people guilty regardless of whether they deserve it or not

Is this current system good that an HOS that is deemed improper can then go after the person who accused them? Granted, if I somehow win this vote, does that mean I can nominate Polonsky and Domo for interfering with my biz by posting a then improper thread against me? When would the chaos end?

There’s a lot to swallow there. Let me know if you need anything at all. I cannot post my defense (or rather communicate to you) until I understand the CGC boards judicial processes and quite frankly I don’t even think most of the boardies do either! How can you make a fair decision on a process you don’t 100% understand? Again it becomes do we like or dislike Dylan poll, not is he guilty or not; I hope that one day changes and there is a much fairer system

You might want to start a different thread in comics general about these rules instead of clogging the one against me but

would you please make sure it is clear, maybe at the top of Domo's post to "see this thread..." also with a link as well as at the

bottom for the almost 150 people who have voted without seeing all the facts yet. "I've seen enough" is not a valid response. It's a valid we hate Dylan response, but it's not a valid Dylan is actually guilty response.

Candidly,

Dylan

This is very well written and argued Dylan.  I'm open to changing my mind here.  Especially the part about past incidents having no bearing on this matter.

[thehumantorch]

21 minutes ago, Terry_JSA said:

Reading that was insane. Not only was he harassing someone but he sounded as if he was entitled to the book.

I think entitled is the key, not sure about the book part

[Funnybooks]

Meh

[ttfitz]

11 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Dylan has sent the following response:

Thank you for reaching out

I hope Architect and or other mods can chime in and help answer these questions explicitly to prevent misinformation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some judicial process questions, this is not my defense whatsoever, purely attempting to understand how these rules work and what they even are. I will kindly communicate my defense to you after these rule questions are answered via email-so that it’s clear. I am assuming that you are acting as a representative of the boards as a whole. 

Am I allowed to mount an offense as to further my HOS/PL thread against Polonsky in addition to my public statement in regards to this thread against me?  If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed? Is a new thread opened against him? How would the timer on a poll work on a new HOS thread against Polonsky work because having a clock that expires on his hypothetical thread AFTER my thread isn’t logical. I believe I should have nominated Polonsky for PL not HOS and for that I apologize. You believe Polonsky did nothing wrong because I was not able to post my arguments before I was banned. Granted, I should have been less hasty and organized first but that should not minimize my argument although it clearly does because the forum was taken down and I'm currently banned for a few days. My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned. I shouldn't have then get a thread against me UNTIL I have the legitimate opportunity to post one unhastily because it sweeps my claim against Polonsky under the rug.

Now, isn’t this entire preceding prejudicial because people need to decide whether they like Dylan or Polonsky more vs who’s wrong in this scenario? If you say no that’s ridiculous, why were multiple comments made in the thread against me pertaining to other issues such as past grading, CGC destroying my AF15s, the character label thing, me being super blunt and not caring how I come across, etc etc? Those are highly prejudicial comments and have nothing to do with the specific accusations against me. Those other topics could easily be started in a separate thread. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the thread is purely reserved for comments directly related to the claims against them, not hearsay from anywhere else. If you would like to discuss anything else, start another thread. I could further argue that making comments not directly relating to the specific accusations against me on an HOS thread. against MY BUSINESS are directly interfering with MY business; Therefore, many people would be HOS’d according to those rules set by the boards

 Being that I have not been voted into HOS yet, I find it against the best interest of truth, justice, and me that Polonsky could post but I could not. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the complainant has a set amount of time to mount a case against the accused NOT they get banned, everyone votes while they are banned, and they can’t post anything until the vast majority of votes are in. I thank you for reaching out now, but I still think it's unfair. Someone should have reached out immediately-it's not your personal responsibility but it is someone's-Maybe a mod for the future?

How can we create a fair and impartial system for judging whether the alleged offense was committed if I’m banned from posting for a week BECAUSE of the HOS thread I posted against Polonsky? Many boardies have already casted their vote, so I almost believe there is no point in responding because minds are already made up and the process is highly Un American. 

Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios the accused can post but only in the thread where they are accused IF they are banned. It’s moronic for them not to be able to do so. However it’s wonderful if you want to find more people guilty regardless of whether they deserve it or not

Is this current system good that an HOS that is deemed improper can then go after the person who accused them? Granted, if I somehow win this vote, does that mean I can nominate Polonsky and Domo for interfering with my biz by posting a then improper thread against me? When would the chaos end?

There’s a lot to swallow there. Let me know if you need anything at all. I cannot post my defense (or rather communicate to you) until I understand the CGC boards judicial processes and quite frankly I don’t even think most of the boardies do either! How can you make a fair decision on a process you don’t 100% understand? Again it becomes do we like or dislike Dylan poll, not is he guilty or not; I hope that one day changes and there is a much fairer system

You might want to start a different thread in comics general about these rules instead of clogging the one against me but

would you please make sure it is clear, maybe at the top of Domo's post to "see this thread..." also with a link as well as at the

bottom for the almost 150 people who have voted without seeing all the facts yet. "I've seen enough" is not a valid response. It's a valid we hate Dylan response, but it's not a valid Dylan is actually guilty response.

Candidly,

Dylan

I have to say, I'm impressed. I've read many a wall-of-text messages in my day, but never one so long that said so little.

For those who didn't bother, the tl;dr - "It isn't fair for me to be blocked from posting while this is going on. I had more to say on my original complaint, but was blocked for it."

[Buzzetta]

13 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

Dylan has sent the following response:

Thank you for reaching out

I hope Architect and or other mods can chime in and help answer these questions explicitly to prevent misinformation.

I’d like to take this opportunity to ask some judicial process questions, this is not my defense whatsoever, purely attempting to understand how these rules work and what they even are. I will kindly communicate my defense to you after these rule questions are answered via email-so that it’s clear. I am assuming that you are acting as a representative of the boards as a whole. 

Am I allowed to mount an offense as to further my HOS/PL thread against Polonsky in addition to my public statement in regards to this thread against me?  If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt my claim was proper against Polonsky then are the charges against me dismissed? Is a new thread opened against him? How would the timer on a poll work on a new HOS thread against Polonsky work because having a clock that expires on his hypothetical thread AFTER my thread isn’t logical. I believe I should have nominated Polonsky for PL not HOS and for that I apologize. You believe Polonsky did nothing wrong because I was not able to post my arguments before I was banned. Granted, I should have been less hasty and organized first but that should not minimize my argument although it clearly does because the forum was taken down and I'm currently banned for a few days. My punishment for posting a hasty thread against Polonsky was being banned. I shouldn't have then get a thread against me UNTIL I have the legitimate opportunity to post one unhastily because it sweeps my claim against Polonsky under the rug.

Now, isn’t this entire preceding prejudicial because people need to decide whether they like Dylan or Polonsky more vs who’s wrong in this scenario? If you say no that’s ridiculous, why were multiple comments made in the thread against me pertaining to other issues such as past grading, CGC destroying my AF15s, the character label thing, me being super blunt and not caring how I come across, etc etc? Those are highly prejudicial comments and have nothing to do with the specific accusations against me. Those other topics could easily be started in a separate thread. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the thread is purely reserved for comments directly related to the claims against them, not hearsay from anywhere else. If you would like to discuss anything else, start another thread. I could further argue that making comments not directly relating to the specific accusations against me on an HOS thread. against MY BUSINESS are directly interfering with MY business; Therefore, many people would be HOS’d according to those rules set by the boards

 Being that I have not been voted into HOS yet, I find it against the best interest of truth, justice, and me that Polonsky could post but I could not. Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios that the complainant has a set amount of time to mount a case against the accused NOT they get banned, everyone votes while they are banned, and they can’t post anything until the vast majority of votes are in. I thank you for reaching out now, but I still think it's unfair. Someone should have reached out immediately-it's not your personal responsibility but it is someone's-Maybe a mod for the future?

How can we create a fair and impartial system for judging whether the alleged offense was committed if I’m banned from posting for a week BECAUSE of the HOS thread I posted against Polonsky? Many boardies have already casted their vote, so I almost believe there is no point in responding because minds are already made up and the process is highly Un American. 

Instead of merely complaining against the current system, my suggestion would be in future scenarios the accused can post but only in the thread where they are accused IF they are banned. It’s moronic for them not to be able to do so. However it’s wonderful if you want to find more people guilty regardless of whether they deserve it or not

Is this current system good that an HOS that is deemed improper can then go after the person who accused them? Granted, if I somehow win this vote, does that mean I can nominate Polonsky and Domo for interfering with my biz by posting a then improper thread against me? When would the chaos end?

There’s a lot to swallow there. Let me know if you need anything at all. I cannot post my defense (or rather communicate to you) until I understand the CGC boards judicial processes and quite frankly I don’t even think most of the boardies do either! How can you make a fair decision on a process you don’t 100% understand? Again it becomes do we like or dislike Dylan poll, not is he guilty or not; I hope that one day changes and there is a much fairer system

You might want to start a different thread in comics general about these rules instead of clogging the one against me but

would you please make sure it is clear, maybe at the top of Domo's post to "see this thread..." also with a link as well as at the

bottom for the almost 150 people who have voted without seeing all the facts yet. "I've seen enough" is not a valid response. It's a valid we hate Dylan response, but it's not a valid Dylan is actually guilty response.

Candidly,

Dylan

@kav  I called this and I know where this is going as I told you this afternoon.