Page 2 of 3
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:35 am
by zeekomkommer
deni wrote:For which post exactly was Jack warned for?
Antistatic wrote:
[spoiler]Whos more immature, the person saying **Filtered** off in a quitting thread or the person saying he is quitting?
Justify that one[/spoiler]
jack reply:
[spoiler]Your question is quite misleading. Allow me to fix it for you.
Antistatic wrote:
Who's more immature? The person whom got pissed off and blew up half of the forum because he didn't get his way, then evaded a ban to come back and flaunt what he did, or the people telling him to **Filtered** off?[/spoiler]
that would be the post
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:49 am
by deni
zeekomkommer wrote:deni wrote:For which post exactly was Jack warned for?
Antistatic wrote:
[spoiler]Whos more immature, the person saying **Filtered** off in a quitting thread or the person saying he is quitting?
Justify that one[/spoiler]
jack reply:
[spoiler]Your question is quite misleading. Allow me to fix it for you.
Antistatic wrote:
Who's more immature? The person whom got pissed off and blew up half of the forum because he didn't get his way, then evaded a ban to come back and flaunt what he did, or the people telling him to **Filtered** off?[/spoiler]
that would be the post
Would that be the post he was warned for or IS it the post he was warned for?
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:59 am
by zeekomkommer
deni wrote:zeekomkommer wrote:deni wrote:For which post exactly was Jack warned for?
Antistatic wrote:
[spoiler]Whos more immature, the person saying **Filtered** off in a quitting thread or the person saying he is quitting?
Justify that one[/spoiler]
jack reply:
[spoiler]Your question is quite misleading. Allow me to fix it for you.
Antistatic wrote:
Who's more immature? The person whom got pissed off and blew up half of the forum because he didn't get his way, then evaded a ban to come back and flaunt what he did, or the people telling him to **Filtered** off?[/spoiler]
that would be the post
Would that be the post he was warned for or IS it the post he was warned for?
semper quoted that post and used his mod colour to issue a warning for that in that topic so i'm asuming that yes that is the warning. semper should have quoted it in the usernotes tough
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:55 am
by semper
I need say no more.
Warning is Valid. Thank you Mr Ombudsmen.
Love you too Jackipoo's...
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:14 am
by Jack
zeekomkommer wrote:semper quoted that post and used his mod colour to issue a warning for that in that topic so i'm asuming that yes that is the warning. semper should have quoted it in the usernotes tough
Then why was the warning issued three hours later?
zeekomkommer wrote:It is ironic that you would be the one complaining about flamebait.
Who said I was complaining?
zeekomkommer wrote: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:
Yes, not only as a former GM, but as the section head for Misc, I know there were no rules against what I did. And as Semper so nicely stated himself....
Semper wrote:You may write up the rules in misc but you need an admins permission..
He obviously didn't have that.
zeekomkommer wrote: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.
I love how you change your tone so quickly.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:17 pm
by semper
Dr. House wrote:zeekomkommer wrote:semper quoted that post and used his mod colour to issue a warning for that in that topic so i'm asuming that yes that is the warning. semper should have quoted it in the usernotes tough
Then why was the warning issued three hours later?
I am not Omnipresent..or Omniscient and someone can be busy for a length of time longer than 3 hours or shorter, not to mention I am sure you didn't reply within 0.000000001 seconds of me posting...
Jack wrote:zeekomkommer wrote:It is ironic that you would be the one complaining about flamebait.
Who said I was complaining?
You're here challenging the issue? What else is complaining?
Jack wrote:zeekomkommer wrote: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:
Yes, not only as a former GM, but as the section head for Misc, I know there were no rules against what I did. And as Semper so nicely stated himself....
Indeed.. you were posting off topic and ergo it was Spam. Clarkey did not begin the topic by opening a debate.. he said his goodbyes and stated his opinion... which as far as the matter with him could go, was an opinion. You had no place arguing in that thread, no matter what was on display as clarkey did not ask for opinions, nor arguments... he just posted to inform you of his departure and within the boundaries of common sense.. returning that by saying farewell (and NOT arguing) is on topic. You were warned to stop arguing, you persisted and were given a board warning for spamming.
What you did with Gunz... was allow a highly controversial topic to continue that had plenty of opinion sharing on a certain issue, which in itself was against the rules (the topic, not the opinion sharing), it was in the spam section (where by definition there is no such thing as off topic posting...) you then rudely attacked the individual and created rules to benefit your position and now, by your own admittance... you know you were wrong to do so.
I on the other hand gave you a polite warning not to argue and go off topic in a goodbye thread. You spammed.. you were a former GM mod of the spam and misc sections no less and you should have known better.
Jack wrote:Semper wrote:You may write up the rules in misc but you need an admins permission..
He obviously didn't have that.
I didn't create any rules. They're there in the forum rules... it's also universal knowledge that challenging a mod repeatedly on board issues in a topic outside here, after you've been asked not to do so... is highly frowned upon.
----~----
This issue is settled, Mr Ombudsman has given his ruling.. why is it still open?
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:20 pm
by deni
The ombudsman makes recommendations (even if he prefers to calls them "ruling"). The final word is the admins'.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:23 pm
by semper
deni wrote:The ombudsman makes recommendations (even if he prefers to calls them "ruling"). The final word is the admins'.
That still doesn't remove the fact the Ombudsman has given his recommendations...and so this is now just leaving it open for potential further slanging on a closed issue (by accident...). The admins can post into a locked thread/unlock it.
Or am I wrong?
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:26 pm
by deni
Semper wrote:deni wrote:The ombudsman makes recommendations (even if he prefers to calls them "ruling"). The final word is the admins'.
That still doesn't remove the fact the Ombudsman has given his recommendations...and so this is now just leaving it open for potential further slanging on a closed issue (by accident...). The admins can post into a locked thread/unlock it.
Or am I wrong?
Any mod action including posting in a locked thread is warnable here. So if the admins want to get themselves warned, they could probably do it.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:39 pm
by zeekomkommer
deni wrote:Semper wrote:deni wrote:The ombudsman makes recommendations (even if he prefers to calls them "ruling"). The final word is the admins'.
That still doesn't remove the fact the Ombudsman has given his recommendations...and so this is now just leaving it open for potential further slanging on a closed issue (by accident...). The admins can post into a locked thread/unlock it.
Or am I wrong?
Any mod action including posting in a locked thread is warnable here. So if the admins want to get themselves warned, they could probably do it.
first off all the topic is still open becausse i didn't make my ruling or verdit of what ever we wanne call it yet. i have made my counter arguments and have given jack the time to defend himself. once that is done this thread will be locked and i'll make my official recomandations to the forum admins.
and i woudn't warn admins since we still report to them. only when they do a mod action wich is not needed. most of the time the admins do prefere not to undertake any mod actions in this section
EDIT:
jack this will remain open till i get on tomorow morning wich is aprox 12 hours from now. you have till then to make your arguments on why you didn't breack the rules
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:05 pm
by Jack
Semper wrote:What you did with Gunz... was allow a highly controversial topic to continue that had plenty of opinion sharing on a certain issue, which in itself was against the rules (the topic, not the opinion sharing),
Ok so opinion sharing is NOT against the rules? Thank you, that's all I needed.
Dear Ombudsman, you have here Semper admitting that sharing one's opinion is NOT against the rules, therefore I submit to you that the warning is invalid as I was warned for sharing my opinion which Semper did not like, therefore Semper warned me in bias(simply because he did not like my opinion which is not against the rules). I would appreciate it if my warning was removed now. Thank you for your time.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:03 pm
by semper
Dr. House wrote:Semper wrote:What you did with Gunz... was allow a highly controversial topic to continue that had plenty of opinion sharing on a certain issue, which in itself was against the rules (the topic, not the opinion sharing),
Ok so opinion sharing is NOT against the rules? Thank you, that's all I needed.
Dear Ombudsman, you have here Semper admitting that sharing one's opinion is NOT against the rules, therefore I submit to you that the warning is invalid as I was warned for sharing my opinion which Semper did not like, therefore Semper warned me in bias(simply because he did not like my opinion which is not against the rules). I would appreciate it if my warning was removed now. Thank you for your time.
Read the post Jack... I add in brackets.. (as is in your quote) that I mean the topic NOT the opinion sharing.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:14 pm
by Jack
Semper wrote:Dr. House wrote:Semper wrote:What you did with Gunz... was allow a highly controversial topic to continue that had plenty of opinion sharing on a certain issue, which in itself was against the rules (the topic, not the opinion sharing),
Ok so opinion sharing is NOT against the rules? Thank you, that's all I needed.
Dear Ombudsman, you have here Semper admitting that sharing one's opinion is NOT against the rules, therefore I submit to you that the warning is invalid as I was warned for sharing my opinion which Semper did not like, therefore Semper warned me in bias(simply because he did not like my opinion which is not against the rules). I would appreciate it if my warning was removed now. Thank you for your time.
Read the post Jack... I add in brackets.. (as is in your quote) that I mean the topic NOT the opinion sharing.
Yes, you said the topic was against the rules but that opinion sharing was not. Again, thank you for confirming this.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:39 pm
by semper
Dr. House wrote:Semper wrote:Dr. House wrote:Semper wrote:What you did with Gunz... was allow a highly controversial topic to continue that had plenty of opinion sharing on a certain issue, which in itself was against the rules (the topic, not the opinion sharing),
Ok so opinion sharing is NOT against the rules? Thank you, that's all I needed.
Dear Ombudsman, you have here Semper admitting that sharing one's opinion is NOT against the rules, therefore I submit to you that the warning is invalid as I was warned for sharing my opinion which Semper did not like, therefore Semper warned me in bias(simply because he did not like my opinion which is not against the rules). I would appreciate it if my warning was removed now. Thank you for your time.
Read the post Jack... I add in brackets.. (as is in your quote) that I mean the topic NOT the opinion sharing.
Yes, you said the topic was against the rules but that opinion sharing was not. Again, thank you for confirming this.
As you'll also note.. it also specifies the spam temple. I am sure I don't need to go over the details again?
Obviously the point is you cannot just express your opinions anywhere else if they're off topic as that's spam.
Which is what you did.
Re: Bad warning is bad
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:46 pm
by Jack
I agree, Semper! Good thing my opinions were about the opinions put forth by the OP and sanctioned by the mods!
Unless you're going to say that disagreeing is a crime now? Not that it matters anyway, it wasn't a crime then.