Why was I warned?!!!

To the mod/admin who sent me a warning:

Please let me know why I've been warned for reposting Kurt Pelligrino's post challenging Danny Ives to a match. Specifically, I would like to know the specific provision in the forums terms of use that I supposedly ran afoul of.

Kurt's post is published all over the internet and is not, itself, insulting towards Danny Ives. Kurt merely challenges Danny for some percieved insult. Not only has Kurt posted his challenge on this site, but on numerous other sites.

Obviously, I couldn't have offended Kurt -- he posted his challenge on the internet himself.

Also, there is no rule against posting challenges.

Finally, I don't see how i, merely by reposting Kurt's original post, offended Danny Ives. Since it was Kurt's post, not mine, I could not have personally offended Danny -- nor was that my intention.

I just don't see how merely reposting Kurt's post -- which was a perfectly legitimate challenge under the rules of this forum (and much more respectful than the majority of challenge-posts, for that matter) -- is impermissible.

The only conclusions that I can draw is that Danny Ives doesn't like to be called out in public and has again asked Chris Palmquist to delete my post, as Chris has admitted he deleted Kurt's post at Danny's explicit request and w/o consulting w/ Kurt.

If that is the case, I still don't understand why my post was removed and I was warned. I have broken no forum rules and nor has Kurt's original post.

I'd have kicked you off talking smack about Matt Hughes, but that's just me.

what smack? That he's a paper champ until he beats BJ? Sorry, but that just reporting the news! Matt is a great, great fighter; and he was a great champ, but BJ beat him bad, real bad. Matt is the one who refuses to give BJ credit.

That's not a personal attack on Matt, so I don't think that its a bannable offense under the rules.

"That he's a paper champ until he beats BJ?"

Gee, my bad, you're obviously a deep reservoir of respect.

I'm just shittin' with ya. Matt's the man IMO.

LOL at paper champ. Not too many fighters with a more impressive resume. It's not Hughs' fault that Penn got booted out of the UFC. He has earned every accolade given to him.

Dana, make it happen.

Matt Hughes was and is a great Champion, nuff said.


Well, how about we quit talkin about what Famine said about Hughes and get back on topic! How does a moderator warn you? Do they send you a message or somethin? And Famine... are you sure you were warned over reposting what Pellegrino said... like were you given a reason for being warned?

Mod is a paper champ!

LOL... No DOGGx0, back to Hughes now, K?

Hahaha, I guess it would'nt be the UG if we did'nt hijack the thread with a different topic


guess we have to define what "paper champ" means

I don't think paper champ necessarily means shitty fighter, but rather someone who is not the "real" champ, but it just says so on paper

meaning bj beat hughes for the title, so bj is the champ...bj leaves, hughes fights someone for the title and becomes champ again

but you know, what the fuck else could hughes do?

so to call him a paper champ is a bit harsh...he'll fight anyone IN THE UFC

Why is everyone getting warned and threads deleted for things that haven't broken rules?

I don't know Kurt or Danny but it truly looks as though Chris is deliberately shielding Danny. Chris, I don't know you either, but it just doesn't mesh. This is the fourth thread on the topic, and as a fighter and casual participant on the UG, it doesn't seem that a deletion was warranted whether at Danny's request or otherwise, unless topics are moderated by interest bearing subject matter instead of just content as the rules describe. It seems like you are taking sides by... taking sides.

The UG's general consensus about "no rules being violated that would warrant a thread deletion" seem to heavily outweigh "Danny's request to delete the thread" with all things being considered. Regardless of whether Kurt or Danny are right or who has a more valid point, or who's honor was bruised or whatever. The point seems to be more about free speech within the boundries of the rules than about the specific thread topic. So what gives? Are challenges from and to certain people now off limits? Regardless of the situation...


I mean...how simple can a concept be?

Hey there TheAx,

I don't have a problem, so I can only assume you were not directing your comment at me.

As for the simple concept, to me it is a simple matter indeed. The concept which is simple to me is that any MMA related topic may be broached without worry of reprimand given it follows forum guidelines. If no rules are broken, why can something not be discussed?

Do you have to do that oversize letter thing?