Mordack wrote:I agree with the fundamental point which has been reissued repeatedly in this thread; questioning mod decisions in a thread has always been considered spam. Many of you have gone off on considerable tangents, but I believe the core of the issue boils down to that staple fact.
Given that both ombudsman are in agreement, and that this thread has turned into a trainwreck, I'll be closing it within the next twenty-four hours. If you can't contain your urge to add a 'final thought', then I'd recommend posting it during said time.
Closing comment -
Empy was unjustified in giving a "warning" when it was not necessary, the point is that it is not clear enough that it was a warning. Therefore the fundamental line is that he was not clear enough in the warning. This has been said repeatedly mentioned but failed to be acknowledged adequately.
The policy of issuing warnings and then reacting to spam as a result of warnings is not defined enough.
Renegade was trying to help and give positive comment on the situation. He was not being an idiot or flipant in my opinion.
I think there has been a complete break down in the acceptance in this and the failing to see that ~Empy was unjustified in warning in advance before anything went wrong. Which I would argue happened ONLY as a result of improper modding.
It is wrong and as moderators or admins you are required to give the benefit of doubt and issue warnings as a last resort.
The issuing of warning or bans is a power that you hold and should not be misused, I believe in this instance was extremely harsh and could have been averted if protocol was adhered to.
If you wish to complain about my posts, feel free - I have been respectful and helpful every step of the way during this "investigation". I am giving an opinion to the defence of Renegade.
my first sigging. I sigged you too. <3