StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:19 am**

ROCKY wrote:for all interested its in Doc's profile and the dump,

Doc, how can you possibly justify that?, rl insults are against the forums rules, i don't care if you call someone a crappy masser, a pathetic poster or a parasite on the forums, that is not a rl insult, what you said is.

edit zeek explained it better.

again read what he said.

"loser"

rl insult thanks

you parasite

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:23 am**

can you post more information about the warning recived:

what was your post
wich topic ? (link)
why you think it was unfair
...

to all other in the topic, please cut down the number of posts a lill, only paste when you want to ad something of value to the discussion or bring something to my antention. otherwise this threa dwil derail to fast

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:24 am**

Doc wrote:@ zeek
im not compalinging he didn't get a warning im complaining against Rocky not giving me a verbal warning before, and only giving me a warning for calling her coma. so i should only have a verbal warning
thanks

The way I have always modded and some others do too is that if the Users User Notes are empty upon their first "issue" and it is not an extreme issue then a verbal warning is given. This verbal warning is then recorded on the user notes of that person. Next would be an official warning. If the same user ends up in another "issue" then they get an official warning because their user notes are not clean and they have a history of breaking forum rules and previous warnings. Therefore the verbal warning bit is bypassed.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:38 pm**

Mikgamer wrote:
SuperSaiyan wrote:
Mikgamer wrote:
Aesthetics of Hate wrote:perhaps you didnt think, maybe someone close to clarkey has been, or is in a coma. maybe you wouldn't like some "joking" about something liike that if u were in the same situation.

I hate seeing people use the word rape or joke about cancer. By your logic I should go report every one of those posts? Nope, try again. Sorry but one Jack on these forums is enough...Real life affecting how one mods is just asking for abuse.

you want us to mod without using RL? without taking context into consideration? good then lets go permaban half the forum

Maybe you quoted the wrong post or read this one wrong because I really do not see how you interpreted my post the way you did.

it is impossible for RL and forum to be seperacted complety, we are all humans and are guided by emotions and experiences both of those come from RL. state of mind affects modding and the way things are looked @. mods generaly do a great job keeping it ceperate and keeping to the rules and we should respect that.

now that discussion is closed in this topic, further discussion about this is spam and will be warned for. want to discuss it more:

quote it and post it in the forum discussion

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:39 pm**

from now on only the warning give to DOC will be discussed it:

wheter it was fair ?
should mod have issued verbal warning ?
...

nothing more nothing less

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:32 pm**

so i took the time to sleep on it and came with the following line of tought

however low, painfull and directed to remind universe of a painfull past that posts is, it doesn't actualy breack rule 5C. it is a suckerpunsh to this i agree but: universe did fake a coma (for what ever reason she did it doesn't mather), when you have done something like that means that you have to live with the consequencs of that. it isn't realy a RL atack either becausse it discusses something that happend on this forum.

now i have been told that doc has recieved verbal complaints before, but they are not listed in his usernotes. the mod in question is rocky now rocky i haven't seen you post here saying that you were absolutely sure this user had gotten verbal warnings in the past.

i think this is somewhere down the line of the totoro "i'm killing baby's" post. somewhere down the lin it isn't good for the forum but it doesn't realy breack the rules. henc why totoro didn't get a warning for his first post about it. splitting it of and giving a verbal warning (wich is displayed in usernotes).

so unless a mod can prove to me that doc got a verbal warning about something in that topic before i'm sorry to conclude that he should have gotten a verbal warning for this. if he got a verbal warning before the incident then yes a warning is correct.

but things we can learn from this:

mods: when giving verbal warnings do ad them to usernotes, they come in handy later. you guys might know who you verbaly warn but i don't know that if it's not in the usernotes or posted in a public topic.

doc: you are fairly new to this forum concerning your postcount yet this was your second warning since the new administration. if you want some guidance regarding how you should properly act on the forum please contact me for this. the forum culture of sgw takes some time getting used to and i don't want to lose a potentialy honourable and respected poster. you still have the chance to not build up a bad reputation wich will actualy increase your fun level onthe forum since mods won't be on your ass every 10 seconds.

topic will remain open for couple more days to alow for new arguments and facts to arise

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:20 pm**

Mikgamer wrote:So do all warnings (such as my 2nd one) now get revoked involving coma posts?

no

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:27 pm**

Thank you for clearing that up zeek, and thank you for the advice which i will take into due consideration.

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:37 pm**

Mikgamer wrote:
deni wrote:
Mikgamer wrote:So do all warnings (such as my 2nd one) now get revoked involving coma posts?

no

Ahhh yes, because that makes perfect sense... .

Considering that the ombudsman cannot revoke warnings but just put forward his suggestions to the Admins, it does make perfect sense

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:48 pm**

deni wrote:
Mikgamer wrote:
deni wrote:
Mikgamer wrote:So do all warnings (such as my 2nd one) now get revoked involving coma posts?

no

Ahhh yes, because that makes perfect sense... .

Considering that the ombudsman cannot revoke warnings but just put forward his suggestions to the Admins, it does make perfect sense

not to mention that i haev not been handleing your case. the complaint was filed by DOC about his warning. you should make a topic about your complaint if you want me to look into it.

the ombudsman cornour rules clearly state that there is only 1 complaint per topic, and 1 topic per person

and perhaps my tougth proces about your warning is different cuz i do look @ the post that was warned for. now this topic will remain open for 48hours. that should be enough for new elements to drop in wich could give other light into this case. if no new input is done by then i will make my recomandations to the admins who will then descide to suport them or not

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:10 am**

already know clarkey's input

i suggested he be excluded as it will be seen as bias. (no affense here clarkey, but obviously you don't like me by insulting me, so...)

Posted: **Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:40 pm**

since no further elements have take their entrence in this case i have brought the case before the admin team with my recomendation.

you will have your awnser in a timely manner

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:15 am**

the admins have reached the descision to suport my verdict. you warning his herby changed to a verbal warning. this verbal warning will however in the future hav a bigger effect when you make insults on ppl since you have now officialy been warned not to.

zeekomkommer
topic will be closed tomorow

StarGateWars Forums

Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey

Re: Clarkey