General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:20 pm From time to time we permanban people on CEO. It's always a tough call. Our only objective is to keep this place fun and friendly with good members. After thoroughly reviewing numerous posts by him both here and elsewhere, we firmly believe he is not a character we ever want on CEO. Some have even pointed out that he sometimes speaks in a 'coded' way, and at first I thought that was absolute tin hat conspiracy nonsense, but after looking at the whole picture, that would not actually surprise me. We encourage all sorts of points of views on CEO, but there is a line and I believe Ricky Bobby crosses it and will continue to cross it if permitted to stay active on here. And by no means do I want this to turn into a witch hunt, but many people have pointed out (both publicly and privately) some of the strange stances he takes on certain issues, and although a few people wrongly had him identified as someone else, I am positive he has now been identified as someone with a history of going online to push a very sick and twisted narrative, and CEO is not a place for that.

I am in no position to say more, but to those who first got on his track, thanks for bringing it to our attention even though you had him wrongly identified, but since then he has been identified, and I think we can agree that he's simply bad news. And I personally apologize for not acting quicker, but you guys did have him wrongly identified, so it was difficult to see your point of view, knowing for sure you were already wrong about who he even was. And to those who don't follow this all and might think this seems a bit harsh/over the top to ban him, I can only say that I truly think that if you saw the whole picture you would have no issue whatsoever with our decision.

And I'm only addressing this as I consider this to be one of those rare times that we have to make a crucial decision for the good of the community and aren't able to reveal more info about it, so I do understand if it seems 'odd' that we would feel the need to do ban someone who has often seemed like a great contributor by some.

That is all.

violet wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:33 pm I'm interested in knowing how you can know for sure that rickybobby wasn't a named person and yet need some time to figure out who he really was.

If it isn't because you didn't know who ricky bobby was for the longest time then the logical conclusion is that you have been in contact with the person posters did think he was.

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:44 pm

violet wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:33 pm I'm interested in knowing how you can know for sure that rickybobby wasn't a named person and yet need some time to figure out who he really was.

If it isn't because you didn't know who ricky bobby was for the longest time then the logical conclusion is that you have been in contact with the person posters did think he was.

That's a pretty simple situation. If someone told me that 'Violet' was 69 year old geezer from Algeria, stated it like it was a fact, and then also said some other stuff, I would know they were completely wrong about the first part, casting serious doubt on the later part, right? Much easier to eliminate who someone certainly is not than it is to positively ID them. Again, some people raised some red flags but also said he was someone he wasn't. He was later identified, and then the whole, big picture made a lot more sense.

violet wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 3:07 pm

General Mackevili wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:44 pm

violet wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:33 pm I'm interested in knowing how you can know for sure that rickybobby wasn't a named person and yet need some time to figure out who he really was.

If it isn't because you didn't know who ricky bobby was for the longest time then the logical conclusion is that you have been in contact with the person posters did think he was.

That's a pretty simple situation. If someone told me that 'Violet' was 69 year old geezer from Algeria, stated it like it was a fact, and then also said some other stuff, I would know they were completely wrong about the first part, casting serious doubt on the later part, right? Much easier to eliminate who someone certainly is not than it is to positively ID them. Again, some people raised some red flags but also said he was someone he wasn't. He was later identified, and then the whole, big picture made a lot more sense.

Ok. So you knew who he was . Had he told you that? As rozzieoz said, he'd only met her from the forums.


As for him being a spy. They say that about plenty of people. Take comments like that with a pinch of salt