StarGateWars Forums

J-ronimo wrote:1. TTF was never lead by you, so i don't why you think he was reffering to you.
Read again:

It clearly says that the one who is leading TTF is *what says above*.

2. What decency are you talking about? You are trying overthrow my words and proves that i have provided in any way possible to save your chair.
If you do something wrong, stand after it.

What is issue with timestamps. I have recieved that via my mail as notification that it was closed, he was not warned at that time, quoted it and used it to address mod. Then warning was made after the pm exchange. What do you not compute?

3. Do you not understand picture material that i have attached. Let me do it again and i will try to explain it's meaning:

[img]http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac121/beliblisk/Eärendil.png[/img]

Meaning that anything besides TAF vs. Fuall things do not belong in here. So it is considered as off-topic or spam.

[img]http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac121/beliblisk/Eärendil.png[/img]

Here is confirmation of Eärendil's words by another mod, and it clearly states that it is TAF vs. Fuall, no TTF mentioned.


It clearly says in 2nd sentence that off-topic post gets warned. Based on images above from Eärendil and Tekki which clearly shows what it is off-topic, it should be sanctioned with warning.

What you are doing now is exactly the same thing Eärendil did at that time.

At this point, i would like to invite anyone from mods to share their thoughts and ideas about this matter, as material presented in this post that is somehow summed up, clearly shows on mods being biased and can't admit being wrong.

Thank you.

deni wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:
1. TTF was never lead by you, so i don't why you think he was reffering to you.
Read again:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
It clearly says that the one who is leading TTF is *what says above*.


I do not see REK mentioning TTF in the above post.

As posted in my previous post, REK himself says he was referring to me in this post:

REK wrote:whats the point I called deni an 80 year old drunk cause she was stuttering and robe felt I was seaking about her so had Eärendil 's crybaby ass warn me for it then I made a thread pointing out robes abuse of power since she felt offended by me calling deni and old drunk since and im only speculating that robe truely is an old drunk she deleted my thread and every post I talk about it in lol this place is a joke

Where does it "clearly" say that it is about a female TTF leader?


2. What decency are you talking about? You are trying overthrow my words and proves that i have provided in any way possible to save your chair.
If you do something wrong, stand after it.

What is issue with timestamps. I have recieved that via my mail as notification that it was closed, he was not warned at that time, quoted it and used it to address mod. Then warning was made after the pm exchange. What do you not compute?


It seems you are either unable or simply refuse to read my post.

A pm "exchange" is by definition at least 2 pm's being sent both ways. The warning (according to the timestamps) was given BEFORE there was any exchange.




3. Do you not understand picture material that i have attached. Let me do it again and i will try to explain it's meaning:
[spoiler][img]http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac121/beliblisk/Eärendil-taf-fuall.png[/img][/spoiler]
Meaning that anything besides TAF vs. Fuall things do not belong in here. So it is considered as off-topic or spam.

[spoiler][/spoiler]
Here is confirmation of Eärendil's words by another mod, and it clearly states that it is TAF vs. Fuall, no TTF mentioned.

[spoiler][/spoiler]
It clearly says in 2nd sentence that off-topic post gets warned. Based on images above from Eärendil and Tekki which clearly shows what it is off-topic, it should be sanctioned with warning.

What you are doing now is exactly the same thing Eärendil did at that time.


Again. TAF is a sub entity of TTF. A treaty made with TTF would cover TAF. Thus posting about a possible treaty with TTF is automatically posting about a possible treaty with TAF. This NOT off topic.

The post you reported did not mention "other battles", nor was it a discussion about multiing.




At this point, i would like to invite anyone from mods to share their thoughts and ideas about this matter, as material presented in this post that is somehow summed up, clearly shows on mods being biased and can't admit being wrong.

Thank you.

I would like to hear other opinions too. Maybe J-Ronimo will listen to someone else who he has not a personal issue with.

deni wrote:I would like to hear other opinions too. Maybe J-Ronimo will listen to someone else who he has not a personal issue with.

Jedi~Tank wrote:I am late to this thread..go Deni!!!!

Tetrismonkey wrote:Nobody forces us to do anything...

Your points are mute. You have thus far only provided speculation to attempt to prove your points that mods of a ceartain faction/allinace are being biased when preforming there mod duties against there enemies.

It has been said serveral times, all there is to stop the biased is mods acting mature, in which almost every case, a mod is. There is no real justification to change the mod team or staff to what you beleive should be the more ethical approach because atm, there isnt a problem with mods being biased, but more, users unhappy with the outcomes of mods actions, even though we are only doing our jobs.

sTrUmF666 wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Nobody forces us to do anything...

Your points are mute. You have thus far only provided speculation to attempt to prove your points that mods of a ceartain faction/allinace are being biased when preforming there mod duties against there enemies.

It has been said serveral times, all there is to stop the biased is mods acting mature, in which almost every case, a mod is. There is no real justification to change the mod team or staff to what you beleive should be the more ethical approach because atm, there isnt a problem with mods being biased, but more, users unhappy with the outcomes of mods actions, even though we are only doing our jobs.

Let's continue after a bit more of J-Ronimo vs Deni, perhaps it will enlighten us through the hands we are pressing over our eyes

Sarajevo wrote:Well it was still somewhat confusing but, what I got from your post was. You issue a report on a post, and in your opinion the post should get a warning or something like that. The Moderator dealing with the report has a contrary opinion. For example, they don't warn the person and you think they should be warned.

I don't much understand.. >_<

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well...

You hold valid points, however, this matter needs to be discussed between the Admins because it just so happends to be a GM you are speaking about.

knight37 wrote:J-ronimo,

Just because it was handled one way in the past does not mean that it will be handled that way by the current Mods.

J-ronimo wrote:[spoiler]

Sarajevo wrote:Well it was still somewhat confusing but, what I got from your post was. You issue a report on a post, and in your opinion the post should get a warning or something like that. The Moderator dealing with the report has a contrary opinion. For example, they don't warn the person and you think they should be warned.

I don't much understand.. >_<

[/spoiler]

Which part you don't understand, as some does? your whole point

[spoiler]

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well...

You hold valid points, however, this matter needs to be discussed between the Admins because it just so happends to be a GM you are speaking about.

[/spoiler]

Thanks.

[spoiler]

knight37 wrote:J-ronimo,

Just because it was handled one way in the past does not mean that it will be handled that way by the current Mods.

[/spoiler]

I have brought old stuff up, cause i needed to back up my words. That mods seems to be still active, so it is current Mod.

Current events are like a week old, so it represents actions of current Mods.

knight37 wrote:

J-ronimo wrote:[spoiler]

Sarajevo wrote:Well it was still somewhat confusing but, what I got from your post was. You issue a report on a post, and in your opinion the post should get a warning or something like that. The Moderator dealing with the report has a contrary opinion. For example, they don't warn the person and you think they should be warned.

I don't much understand.. >_<

[/spoiler]

Which part you don't understand, as some does? your whole point

[spoiler]

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well...

You hold valid points, however, this matter needs to be discussed between the Admins because it just so happends to be a GM you are speaking about.

[/spoiler]

Thanks.

[spoiler]

knight37 wrote:J-ronimo,

Just because it was handled one way in the past does not mean that it will be handled that way by the current Mods.

[/spoiler]

I have brought old stuff up, cause i needed to back up my words. That mods seems to be still active, so it is current Mod.

Current events are like a week old, so it represents actions of current Mods.

What is handled a certain way today does not mean that it will be handled the same way tomorrow, the next day nor does it mean it will be handled the same way next year.

What part do you not understand? Do you think you should be able to warn forum users? Then run for Mod.

zeekomkommer wrote:if you realy warn users you should run for ombudsman, you can make your own rules

apart from that:

J, i know is aid i was going to take a look ad it but i'll be doing that in the begining of febuary, i'm to busy with studying for my last 5 exames

*goes off to walk the dog cuz the noisy kids are comming home from school*