StarGateWars Forums

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Zeratul wrote:that is one of the things the PM system is for...

asking such questions...

so if the mod wanted to specificly reply to the user why no PM??

It was a "thread-wide" verbal warning, but also mentioned bebita for what ever reason.

If Solus had only PM'd bebita then there would not have been a verbal warning for anyone else.

if its thread-wide warning then why add specific user name(s)? Im sorry but I completely disagree, publicly direct someone, expect a public reply, its seems rather logical.

bebita wrote:i made my mind clear
can topic be closed i don't want to see more clarkey hurt feelings around me

No hurt feelings. Just trying to help you understand why it was spam.
And if you wanted to defend yourself there is the PM function, which you yourself said you chose not to use.

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Zeratul wrote:that is one of the things the PM system is for...

asking such questions...

so if the mod wanted to specificly reply to the user why no PM??

It was a "thread-wide" verbal warning, but also mentioned bebita for what ever reason.

If Solus had only PM'd bebita then there would not have been a verbal warning for anyone else.

if its thread-wide warning then why add spific user name(s)? Im sorry but I completely disagree, publicly direct someone, expect a public reply, its seems rather logical.

ifrit don't bother with clarkey
i am his greatest nemesis if i spelled well

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Zeratul wrote:that is one of the things the PM system is for...

asking such questions...

so if the mod wanted to specificly reply to the user why no PM??

It was a "thread-wide" verbal warning, but also mentioned bebita for what ever reason.

If Solus had only PM'd bebita then there would not have been a verbal warning for anyone else.

if its thread-wide warning then why add specific user name(s)? Im sorry but I completely disagree, publicly direct someone, expect a public reply, its seems rather logical.

Because that will bring the thread off the topic at hand and people don't want to have to read a lengthy conversation in the middle of their thread when the conversation is not directly related.

Its always been like this. why change it now because one person wants to have it all his own way?

Iƒrit wrote:how is it spam when someone directs you with a post, I have every right to post a reply if they are not PMing me, but posting in a thread towards me. That is it, good day.

I said that 2 years ago with nothing said back to me, and I said it to a mod so how recently did this change??

Iƒrit wrote:how is it spam when someone directs you with a post, I have every right to post a reply if they are not PMing me, but posting in a thread towards me.

If they were addressed BY NAME, then you might have a point. But the warning Solus gave was generic, to ALL in the thread. Don't tell me you'd actually expect us to allow EVERYONE who posted in that thread to reply to that remark?!

Juliette wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:how is it spam when someone directs you with a post, I have every right to post a reply if they are not PMing me, but posting in a thread towards me.

If they were addressed BY NAME, then you might have a point. But the warning Solus gave was generic, to ALL in the thread. Don't tell me you'd actually expect us to allow EVERYONE who posted in that thread to reply to that remark?!

im confused was he not directed by name??

Iƒrit wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:how is it spam when someone directs you with a post, I have every right to post a reply if they are not PMing me, but posting in a thread towards me.

If they were addressed BY NAME, then you might have a point. But the warning Solus gave was generic, to ALL in the thread. Don't tell me you'd actually expect us to allow EVERYONE who posted in that thread to reply to that remark?!

im confused was he not directed by name??

That is exactly why we're having this whole thread. He was not.

Juliette wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:how is it spam when someone directs you with a post, I have every right to post a reply if they are not PMing me, but posting in a thread towards me.

If they were addressed BY NAME, then you might have a point. But the warning Solus gave was generic, to ALL in the thread. Don't tell me you'd actually expect us to allow EVERYONE who posted in that thread to reply to that remark?!

im confused was he not directed by name??

That is exactly why we're having this whole thread. He was not.

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Zeratul wrote:that is one of the things the
PM system is for...

asking such questions...

so if the mod wanted to specificly reply to the user why no PM??

It was a "thread-wide" verbal warning, but also mentioned bebita for what ever reason.

If Solus had only PM'd bebita then there would not have been a verbal warning for anyone else.

this is why i had the presumption he was directed specificly...so he was not?

in his post was something like this
bebita u have a verbal warning stop with what u are doing (here is another story because all i was doing was answering to other provocations regarding me)
but my question is
where solus post disseapeared
and why my warning is valid if all evidence disseapeared?

Duderanch wrote:The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=62&p=2115054#p2115054 .

and another funny thing

Information

You are not authorised to read this forum.

because its in the dump.

and i read the thread, the quote in question does not mention anyone in particular, it is a general thing.

And i'm sure the ombs can confirm this. if this still is a case for the ombs or just another rant for no real reason.

Maddog wrote:because its in the dump.

and i read the thread, the quote in question does not mention anyone in particular, it is a general thing.

And i'm sure the ombs can confirm this. if this still is a case for the ombs or just another rant for no real reason.

please don't lie to me in front
i know to what i answered
srry if i don't have prints but i never think it was the case

bebita wrote:

Maddog wrote:because its in the dump.

and i read the thread, the quote in question does not mention anyone in particular, it is a general thing.

And i'm sure the ombs can confirm this. if this still is a case for the ombs or just another rant for no real reason.

please don't lie to me in front
i know to what i answered
srry if i don't have prints but i never think it was the case

the person who replied to it and the person reporting it saw it yet other mods are claiming it did not occur

well i clicked that link and the message from solus mentions no names.

and I assume that its just the spam off an other thread that was/still in the GC.


but just to confirm, this thread is to have your warning revoked?

Iƒrit wrote:

bebita wrote:

Maddog wrote:because its in the dump.

and i read the thread, the quote in question does not mention anyone in particular, it is a general thing.

And i'm sure the ombs can confirm this. if this still is a case for the ombs or just another rant for no real reason.

please don't lie to me in front
i know to what i answered
srry if i don't have prints but i never think it was the case

the person who replied to it and the person reporting it saw it yet other mods are claiming it did not occur

I'm sure the ombs can back me up on this. And i seen this thread 20 seconds ago, while everyone else seen it 7 days ago.
so i'll leave you the option to listen to who you want.