Bannings and Warnings: Daydizzle - 2 Week Ban

Good call. Read it the fact it was shit didn't do it any favours either.

Dizz has requested a review of Nigma's decision by a senior mod...this is the result of my review:

Dizz objected on 2 counts: 1) he didn't break any rules, 2) he hasn't been warned previously and therefore 2 weeks is excessive

My review:

These are the site rules that are available to all to read:

www.lyricalassault.co.uk/about/rules.htm

In my view Dizz's OM has broken to a greater or lesser extent rules 4, 5, and 8

In order of strength of violation:

Number 8 - when Chain originally posted about Sick he had his brothers express permission to do so. Just because it becomes on the site does not make it "fair game". His brother deserves to have his privacy respected around the death of a family member & Sick's right to privacy in arguably THE most private moment of his life does not expire when he expires from this world.

Number 5 - flaming is not tolerated. We specifically say material which is vulgar / violates privacy is not permitted. Bottom line there are two elements which I find unacceptable: 1) writing in the voice of an actual deceased person in a way intended to be disrespectful to both the person who died & the person the OM is written to; 2) specifically making punchlines mocking way that person died.

Number 4 - this is the weakest one as you can argue it wasn't JUST to annoy people (I.e. It rhymed and was in verse form) but in my view the only reason you're writing and dropping that is to illicit this exact reaction...I.e. The wider community response & to specifically troll Chain.

I find that number 4 alone is sufficient justification to take the piece down. Given the aggravating factors of further more blatant rule violations & given this is not the first time you've had a piece taken down in similar circumstances I believe that the ban is the right course of action at this time & the 2 week ban is at least the minimum you should receive in light of previous bans you have had in the past.




Edited by Cuba - 02 June 2016 at 7:58pm

Well done Cuba.

This shit is fucking sickening and has no place in LA as a community. There are many many many other ways to get attention in the proper form and going waaaay over the line isn't one of them.

Day, go seek professional help man. Do yourself that favor

Damm Cuba! You went supreme court justice on that muthafukkah lmaooo. Coulda sworn i heard the gavel drop lol.

Good call Nig and Cube

DjFlame wrote: I don't get why you'd take the piece down, just lock it. I would have liked to make my own decision, rather than everyone telling me that it was sickening. I don't care how it happened, nobody should ever be suspended because they wrote a verse. It's the community's responsibility to either ignore it, not condone it, or treat it like a normal verse and give it feed. The staff shouldn't take care of us. /Rant.

If he wrote the OM and it MAYBE if it was done skillfully then maybe we'd be singing another tune. But because the piece was too dry and sucked he gets banned. Thats a great decision imo. Nobody should talk about soneones dead relatives. That is a boundary you just cant cross.

Djflame: The rules are there for a purpose and any violation would attract punishment.

DjFlame wrote: Never even asked for those who used it in a battle to delete it. I get that you dont write often, so it's hard for you to understand that there's a difference between something in a verse and just saying something blatantly. There are some rules that already apply to verses, such as the surname clause, which I'm fine with. Most of us are grown Scotty. The staff have to tell us what's wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt the site rules apply to every post on the site. Hence the name, site rules.