Bad warning is bad

[Jack]

Semper Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:29 pm The following warning was issued to this user
» disobeying a mod's warning to keep a thread clean.


I did no such thing.

[Jim]

What thread is this referring to?
Does anyone have more details?

[Jack]

That's all the details, hence why it is a bad warning(given for no real reason). I'd like it removed, please.

[semper]

viewtopic.php?f=77&t=156520&start=45

point, set and match.

It is not your position to question the details given to the report. The relevant details were on display for you in the thread.

You continued to post in arguing after being told not to do so. It was going off topic (was not relevant to saying goodbye.. it was relevant to a separate issue) and ergo spam. The continued arguing was also unnecessary, as you so eloquently made the point in the past you have ample other solutions to answering Clarkey without having to resort to that arguing and you were given ample warning (which you replied directly to) not to do it.

Further Edit: No, this is not the same as the Gunz case.

[Jim]

The warning seems valid to me. Though perhaps not enough details were given on the warning. I understand mods can be rushed sometimes but it would be best if proper details are always submitted in the logs.

[semper]

The warning seems valid to me. Though perhaps not enough details were given on the warning. I understand mods can be rushed sometimes but it would be best if proper details are always submitted in the logs.

Yes.. at the time I was trying to do coursework.. (which is no secret) so I was a little rushed. Rocky also pm'd me informing I should post with more info, however as I told him then.. I was busy busy busy.. so was doing 'modding lite'

Jack, AA and Clarkey are smart chaps and were informed in the thread that they had been warned for continuing after being asked to stop so I merely assumed a very simple 'dot to dot' would have followed.

[Jack]

http://talk.gatewa.rs/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=156520&start=45

point, set and match.

It is not your position to question the details given to the report. The relevant details were on display for you in the thread.

You continued to post in arguing after being told not to do so. It was going off topic (was not relevant to saying goodbye.. it was relevant to a separate issue) and ergo spam.

Oh princess, it is my place to question details for being given a warning.

Now, you claim that the warning was given for my posts in the Clarkey thread, but allow me to remind you...

Edit 2: This one is for you mods. Keep in mind, this is not actually a quitting thread or he wouldn't have posted a wall of text flamebait trying to justify himself, so don't crack down on the people that are refuting his totally unbiased opinions.

I am inclined to agree with this sentiment. I hope that the moderators of this section will bear in mind the provocative nature of Clarkey's initial post when moderating responses.

I had the support of Mordack.

Now as I've stated, there were no rules about arguing with someone in their quitting thread or playing nice. My posts were on topic, the original post dictated the topic, which was only partially about Clarkey quitting. And mostly about Clarkey's feud against me.

Further Edit: No, this is not the same as the Gunz case.

Semper Semper Semper, this is precisely the same as the Gunz case. You made up rules on the fly, which you falsely accused me of, I have proven this already.

You then warned me for "disobeying a mod" while posting on topic. You said that Gunz should have been allowed to do what he was doing because there were "no rules against it"(which itself is a lie and again, I have proof for) and that I should have never even told him to stop. Well guess what, I had the blessing of an admin. Which is far more I could say for Gunz, yet you insisted that because his cause was just in your opinion, that he should have been allowed to continue unabated even after receiving ample warning from mods.

So you see, Semper, it is very much the same thing. But hey, that might be a bit inconvenient to your argument, so let's just not talk about it.


P.S. How dare you assume AA is an intelligent individual.

[zeekomkommer]

okey first off all, jack do not adress semper as 'princess' in the ombudsman forum. that sort of things do not belong here and after the weekend i'll make up some rules with jim wich will be known as the posting code for the ombs section

secondly: having the support of mordack on this does not mean 1 thing to me as far as rules go:

1: mordack did not most in his admin colour, earandil did post in his mod colour
2: mordack is not a forum admin anymore so cannot make laws in thread, earandil however can.

even tough sempers post in your usernotes was very short (due to lak of time) it doesn't mean the warning itself wasn't given fairly. now a forum staff member has putted down the law in that thread and 2 posts later you go to ignore it.

if a mod says that all discussion should be kept in a certain way all posts in another way are spam and spam is a warnable offence:

[spoiler]Section 4: Spam
b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users.

Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point[/spoiler]

[spoiler]earandil:

*looks and doesn't see GG around*

This is a goodbye thread not a debate or conversation thread. Some people liked him, others did not and they're not mocking you for liking him, SO keep it out of here[/spoiler]

now i see that as a polite not from a moderator to everyone to tone it down.

with that said you posting anything afterwards that is off topic is concidered a repeated event.


anything you want to say in your defence jack ?

[Jack]

He called me out, Zeek, what was I supposed to do? The mods decided the flamebait was ok, I only responded to what the mods already deemed acceptable.

[Mordack]

If you're going to admonish Jack for addressing Semper as Princess, then can you also ask Semper to tone down the frankly condescending and sarcastic nature of some of his posts in this section? Perhaps it's been lost on you, as you're not a native English speaker.

[dastupy]

At the time of the warning (2/12/09)
Mordack was still an Admin.

[Mordack]

At the time of the warning (2/12/09)
Mordack was still an Admin.

Zeek is right, though. I wasn't giving an order, or speaking officially, I was just attempting to give them some advice and hopefully avoid more warnings. As it turns out, none of them listened to me. But hey, what are admins for?

The king is dead, long live the king. The warning is valid, even if the whole fiasco could have been avoided if we all hadn't underdosed on common sense. Well done all.

[zeekomkommer]

If you're going to admonish Jack for addressing Semper as Princess, then can you also ask Semper to tone down the frankly condescending and sarcastic nature of some of his posts in this section? Perhaps it's been lost on you, as you're not a native English speaker.

i was making an example of things that will not be tolerated once the rules are written all posts that are made after the code of cunduct is made will have be in order with it.

crently the ombuds cournour and forum rules stil aply

and yes even if mordack was still admin then it doesn't mather cuz he was not acting as one. an admin has the right to a personal opinion next to his official statements

[deni]

For which post exactly was Jack warned for?

[zeekomkommer]

He called me out, Zeek, what was I supposed to do? The mods decided the flamebait was ok, I only responded to what the mods already deemed acceptable.

It is ironic that you would be the one complaining about flamebait.

but what the mods tolerate or not is not my descision. once the rules for a topic are set in place they stay in place. as former GM you should know that. baited or not there were other ways of settleing it:

pm, making a topic in a discussion forum,...

with your years of forum experience i asume you are mor then aware of these options jack