this is ridiculus

[animal father]

i didnt do anything yet eary has banned me..... im not shure ho its not perm..... but wth i didnt do anything

[animal father]

by the way.... im prety darn shure the only warning ive recieaved since my last ban was yesterday band was being overturned....

[Psyko]

i didnt do anything yet eary has banned me..... im not shure ho its not perm..... but wth i didnt do anything

Let me clear this up for you.

Your second warning is still up for discussion with the Admins. Therefore, you still had two warnings when you posted about drug use and were issued a warning. That makes 3 warnings currently placed on your account. The punishment for that is a 2 week ban.

Sorry, but you should have been more careful with the content of your posts. That's the whole intention behind the 3 strike warning policy. If you get 1 warning you should wise up, if you get a second you should be more careful not to violate rules, and if you get a third you're out of luck.

If the Admins determine your second warning could have been a verbal your warning count will return to 2 and you should be unbanned. They are still deliberating, so you will be banned until a decision is made or your 2 weeks are up.

[Quina Quen]

You deserve to be banned for this awful attempt at an appeal.

[Psyko]

You deserve to be banned for this awful attempt at an appeal.

I don't believe this was an appeal. It sounded more like a request to know why he was banned. I do not believe people are told why they are banned, unless it is via PM and they cannot read that until their ban is over.

[Quina Quen]

If that's the case, he/she/whatever it is making my eyes bleed surely should have contacted the admin in question instead of posting here.

Are you and Juliette still Ombudsmen or actually Ombudspeople or Ombudswomen? I'm a little confused.

[Psyko]

If that's the case, he/she/whatever it is making my eyes bleed surely should have contacted the admin in question instead of posting here.

Not if he feels persecuted by the Admin in question. This is the reason for the Ombudsman position.

If your eyes are bleeding over his problem with the staff, you should probably refrain from reading this thread. It is, after all, an issue unrelated to you.

[Quina Quen]

Not if he feels persecuted by the Admin in question. This is the reason for the Ombudsman position.

If your eyes are bleeding over his problem with the staff, you should probably refrain from reading this thread. It is, after all, an issue unrelated to you.

True about the Ombudsman section, which technically makes his posting here makes an appeal (not a very good one, but an appeal all the same).

All being said though you're right. None of my business. Cheerio.

[~kinky king~]

i didnt do anything yet eary has banned me..... im not shure ho its not perm..... but wth i didnt do anything

Let me clear this up for you.

Your second warning is still up for discussion with the Admins. Therefore, you still had two warnings when you posted about drug use and were issued a warning. That makes 3 warnings currently placed on your account. The punishment for that is a 2 week ban.

Sorry, but you should have been more careful with the content of your posts. That's the whole intention behind the 3 strike warning policy. If you get 1 warning you should wise up, if you get a second you should be more careful not to violate rules, and if you get a third you're out of luck.

If the Admins determine your second warning could have been a verbal your warning count will return to 2 and you should be unbanned. They are still deliberating, so you will be banned until a decision is made or your 2 weeks are up.

it was a thread about drug use..... i certainly hope i wasnt the only one warned

[Psyko]

i didnt do anything yet eary has banned me..... im not shure ho its not perm..... but wth i didnt do anything

Let me clear this up for you.

Your second warning is still up for discussion with the Admins. Therefore, you still had two warnings when you posted about drug use and were issued a warning. That makes 3 warnings currently placed on your account. The punishment for that is a 2 week ban.

Sorry, but you should have been more careful with the content of your posts. That's the whole intention behind the 3 strike warning policy. If you get 1 warning you should wise up, if you get a second you should be more careful not to violate rules, and if you get a third you're out of luck.

If the Admins determine your second warning could have been a verbal your warning count will return to 2 and you should be unbanned. They are still deliberating, so you will be banned until a decision is made or your 2 weeks are up.

it was a thread about drug use..... i certainly hope i wasnt the only one warned

I suggest you PM Jack (Dovahkiin) about the details.

Your animal father account was banned for posting outside the Ombs section. Please stick to posting here and PMs while your account is banned, otherwise the multi accounts will also be banned.

[Clarkey]

im actualy trying to be a some what usefull contributor to this forum

and im shure youve noticed ive been trying to be a good boy

I've not seen any evidence of this, and your latest post about the drug cocaine is evidence of your intent to stir feathers on this forum. Anyway as I told you your next ban wasn't a perma. I do sure hope people get bored of your complaining soon and you'll fade away.

[Juliette]

Come now, no need to harass people who contact the ombudsman expecting a free exchange of opinions and facts.

Good.

Animal Mother; stick to this thread and PMs, until a decision is made on your ban/warning. Psyko told me about your conversation. Please talk to me in PM, like we did a few days ago.
Others; either contribute, or stay cool.

[ƒëmmë]

You deserve to be banned for this awful attempt at an appeal.

I don't believe this was an appeal. It sounded more like a request to know why he was banned. I do not believe people are told why they are banned, unless it is via PM and they cannot read that until their ban is over.

sadly that is the case,

so I guess the whole drug debate taking place in the debate section shouldn't be happening either? and the siggies/avies with marijauna on them (also illegal in many countries)?

not advocating for drug use, just for consistancy on forum

[The Doctor]

Talking and promoting are different.

I would agree with this, but I have also noted the sigs with marijuana in them, which I personally see as promoting, albeit subtly.

But the debate seems OK as long as it stays on the "talking" side.

[~kinky king~]

Talking and promoting are different.

I would agree with this, but I have also noted the sigs with marijuana in them, which I personally see as promoting, albeit subtly.

But the debate seems OK as long as it stays on the "talking" side.

i agree, though i assert that i had not intended to promote, i see how it was taken that way, so do what you must, but i dont want to be seeing anymore drug related siggies and avvys if this is the case