StarGateWars Forums

Eärendil wrote:Clarkey quit spamming about nonsense.

I just read the topic where the Sig rule was talked about, and defined, by including you, who seemed eager in the thread for it.

No where does it state a time limit at all.

i am not spamming.
The rule states: Those violating the signature rules without rectifying when informed of violation, will risk:
This ruling was backed by Zeratul, myself and Mordack. We ALL agreed on it.

You did NOT inform femme of the violation in a sufficient manner. You gave her NO opportunity to amend her sig inline with that rule.

ƒemme ƒatale wrote:explain why JP has been allowed to have a siggy breaching the so called rules for months..

I shall find other examples if you like

I doubt if mine did so for 24hrs

Finding other examples doesn't help anything... at all. Just report them and they'll be handled. I don't even know who "JP" is.

I just note his keenness to enforce the rules does not apply to others he sees breaking the same rule..

I shall be going through forum users and reporting ALL breakers of siggy rule, I expect the same thing to have been applied to their forum accounts as happened to mine... seeing their posts have been up for days breaking said rule.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:

ƒemme ƒatale wrote:explain why JP has been allowed to have a siggy breaching the so called rules for months..

I shall find other examples if you like

I doubt if mine did so for 24hrs

Finding other examples doesn't help anything... at all. Just report them and they'll be handled. I don't even know who "JP" is.

JockPrincess, and I have reported it already

and will they be handled the same way they have been when others have reported offending siggies? Ie ignored?

Eärendil wrote:lol?

You were online, I saw the sig, I acted.

/done.

then are you totally blind to all the other siggies breaking the rules? go act on them now

Well anyways... other people breaking the rule is immaterial to how you breaking the rule was handled. Completely.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:Well anyways... other people breaking the rule is immaterial to how you breaking the rule was handled. Completely.

how is it.
I am asking to be treated exactly the same as others.. ie recieve a fair warning and opportunity to act.. I got neither in this case.
Eary if you thought I was online would it have hurt you that much to do the curetsy of sending me an pm advising me I was breaking rule? As I have repeatedly stated I have siggies turned off on here, I cant see them.

same as the warning I got for the song link, no verbal warning nothing, just a straight out forum warning for a word that is still on these forums as posted by others in a masked state. (many. many times in fact)

signature was removed yes, but you were not warned for it.

Zeratul wrote:signature was removed yes, but you were not warned for it.

You are missing the point. femme was punished for it when the Admin did not handle it inline with the rules.

ƒemme ƒatale wrote:

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:Well anyways... other people breaking the rule is immaterial to how you breaking the rule was handled. Completely.

how is it.
I am asking to be treated exactly the same as others.. ie recieve a fair warning and opportunity to act.. I got neither in this case.
Eary if you thought I was online would it have hurt you that much to do the curetsy of sending me an pm advising me I was breaking rule? As I have repeatedly stated I have siggies turned off on here, I cant see them.

same as the warning I got for the song link, no verbal warning nothing, just a straight out forum warning for a word that is still on these forums as posted by others in a masked state. (many. many times in fact)

Don't ask to be treated the same as others, ask to be treated as the rules state. Also it doesn't matter if you had sigs turned off, perhaps you should not have had a sig at all then? Your previous warning is again immaterial to the case. Simply look at the rule, read it, and decide if it was followed. If not, state why.

by warning, I mean advicement. Not Forum Warning.

I would have liked to have received some sort of advicement of my breaching rule, before my siggy was removed.

Eärendil wrote:You agreed that “StarGateWars Forums” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit. A notice is a courtesy.

Why are you talking about removing, editing, moving and closing topics? We are talking about sigs and the sig rule process.

And femme may have been around, but Earendil you still fail to prove the verbal warning was witnessed by femme.

viewtopic.php?f=129&t=172632

Eary your prejudice towards me is showing loud and clear. Why not admit you are acting solely out of hatred towards me?

Aspects of this thread have gone too off-topic. No warnings this time, but I'd like everybody to watch what they say. Grudges, whether real of imagined, are immaterial to the issue at hand. It is also frowned upon to refer to the ombudsman as a 'ponce.' I have to go to ballet class for a few hours now, but rest assured that I'll be reading through the entire thread once I get back and see if anybody has added anything pertinent.

Zeratul wrote:we were aware of the signature being above the limit (we measured its height), but due to real life, we did not have time to deal with it.
Since you were, according to the online users list, posting a reply to the thread in question, both we and Eärendil assumed you would get the notice posted in that thread. That is the reason that thread was picked, rather than a PM, as would normally have been done.

With 20/20 hindsight, that was of course a mistake, but there is (unfortunately) no time machine available to use in correcting that.

:s
Only thing is I was not responding to that thread at all, I posted the thread at 1.50pm, posted in the recruitment thread around 3.30pm ish and then come back to that thread at 4pmish to post once I had been told by another user about Eary's post.

I request seeing Zera admits a mistake was made that my siggy privileges be reinstated please.