StarGateWars Forums

Jedi~Tank wrote:Very good mod.

I think you say that because I haven't warned you for a while Just kidding, cheers

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:So I should follow the forum guidelines, but mods don't?

What do you mean? Since when are any Mods not following Forum Guidelines, and not receiving a warning for it?

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:And I can ask anyone anything I want in a pm, especially a threatening one. I have NO RIGHT to ask sumthing that is an option in the damn reports?

You can ask if it was closed or not, and whoever you asked will probably answer. That's what the email you get will tell you if you check the box (as other people already said).

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:Man you just can't ever get over yourselves even for 2 seconds to say, ya know what dex, ur right. Maybe you got a point. Nawh, i forget im dealing with people who have had power trips since they were 12 and are now 17 or whatever

You don' have a point though.

Empy wrote:

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:And I can ask anyone anything I want in a pm, especially a threatening one. I have NO RIGHT to ask sumthing that is an option in the damn reports?

You can ask if it was closed or not, and whoever you asked will probably answer. That's what the email you get will tell you if you check the box (as other people already said).

Or if you forgot to check the box to receive a notification, you can also click the report button for said post. If it comes up with "This post has already been reported" it hasn't been closed.

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:And I can ask anyone anything I want in a pm, especially a threatening one. I have NO RIGHT to ask sumthing that is an option in the damn reports?

You can ask if it was closed or not, and whoever you asked will probably answer. That's what the email you get will tell you if you check the box (as other people already said).

Or if you forgot to check the box to receive a notification, you can also click the report button for said post. If it comes up with "This post has already been reported" it hasn't been closed.

I think there's things to learn from this on both sides. However, Haz, i think the most important bit you should take away from this is to make reports that contain the following:

The automatic link to the post being warned for.
Copy paste of the text from the post being warned for.
Copy paste of the rule that was broken.

Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that Dexter Morgan™ said your name therefore specifically referring to you as a Mod is nothing, you shouldn't use the warning to respond to such a thing. Keep all personality and personal messages out of the warnings. If you didn't like the fact he singled you out then PM him about it. But try and keep the warnings to the content mentioned above which has been explained before here: viewtopic.php?f=268&t=188176

Obviously I can't tell you what to do, but I know for a fact that personality should always be removed from issuing warnings which includes the message you put in the warnings. Take this situation for instance, Dexter Morgan™ has accused you of threats or something, may not have any grounds for it, but he did it because of your message in the warning. If you had kept all personality out of the warning and used the format as I mentioned which has also been posted before by the admins then he would not have had that ammo to use against you, even if it does turn out to be rubber bullets.

EDIT: It was more than likely the verbal warning he was referring, but meh it's still good advice me thinks.

Clarkey wrote:

Haz wrote:

Empy wrote:

Dexter Morgan™ wrote:And I can ask anyone anything I want in a pm, especially a threatening one. I have NO RIGHT to ask sumthing that is an option in the damn reports?

You can ask if it was closed or not, and whoever you asked will probably answer. That's what the email you get will tell you if you check the box (as other people already said).

Or if you forgot to check the box to receive a notification, you can also click the report button for said post. If it comes up with "This post has already been reported" it hasn't been closed.

I think there's things to learn from this on both sides. However, Haz, i think the most important bit you should take away from this is to make reports that contain the following:

The automatic link to the post being warned for.
Copy paste of the text from the post being warned for.
Copy paste of the rule that was broken.

Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that Dexter Morgan™ said your name therefore specifically referring to you as a Mod is nothing, you shouldn't use the warning to respond to such a thing. Keep all personality and personal messages out of the warnings. If you didn't like the fact he singled you out then PM him about it. But try and keep the warnings to the content mentioned above which has been explained before here: viewtopic.php?f=268&t=188176

Obviously I can't tell you what to do, but I know for a fact that personality should always be removed from issuing warnings which includes the message you put in the warnings. Take this situation for instance, Dexter Morgan™ has accused you of threats or something, may not have any grounds for it, but he did it because of your message in the warning. If you had kept all personality out of the warning and used the format as I mentioned which has also been posted before by the admins then he would not have had that ammo to use against you, even if it does turn out to be rubber bullets.

I didn't intend for him to interpret it as a threat, but his interpretation was probably my fault, due to the usage of blue colour as opposed to making it plain colour. But you are right, I should have kept the warning plain, and PMed him separately about being called out, therefore separating me as a user apart from my mod duties.

Sorry for the misleading message Dexter.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Horrible mod. Bias and unworthy of the title of modship.


Thank you for constantly bashing me and putting me in my place. I'm glad someone is.

One thing I would like to see different, is to take things a little less stringent. Relax a bit. Not everything has to be black and white.

Awesome mod. I like you. Time for cookies, yes?

Bashing you? O_O

And I tend to read things black and white so as to avoid the "grey areas" in rules. see what I did there?
But I know that it isn't always the best way to approach things. I'll try to be less strict, where I can.

And you'll get cookies once you've finished my sig

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Haz wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Horrible mod. Bias and unworthy of the title of modship.


Thank you for constantly bashing me and putting me in my place. I'm glad someone is.

One thing I would like to see different, is to take things a little less stringent. Relax a bit. Not everything has to be black and white.

Awesome mod. I like you. Time for cookies, yes?

Bashing you? O_O

And I tend to read things black and white so as to avoid the "grey areas" in rules. see what I did there?
But I know that it isn't always the best way to approach things. I'll try to be less strict, where I can.

And you'll get cookies once you've finished my sig

Which one?
The bashing sentence wasn't meant to be taken literally. k?

The CV sig And I was worried there for a bit.

Hes a great mod, when ever he gives me a warning of any kind. We always have a good conversation in PMs(at least I think so).

Sometimes, I think I cause him stress when I reply back with something witty.

Rudy Pena wrote:Hes a great mod, when ever he gives me a warning of any kind. We always have a good conversation in PMs(at least I think so).

Sometimes, I think I cause him stress when I reply back with something witty.

Yeah good conversations...you sometimes worry me when you are drunk though And never really get stressed lol

Haz wrote:

Rudy Pena wrote:Hes a great mod, when ever he gives me a warning of any kind. We always have a good conversation in PMs(at least I think so).

Sometimes, I think I cause him stress when I reply back with something witty.

Yeah good conversations...you sometimes worry me when you are drunk though And never really get stressed lol

Lol Ah, Hopefully I wont be getting drunk for quite a while. And thats good to hear...at least one of us can stop worrying.

No worries Haz.
As my fearless leader JT has said. "Great Mod"

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:Bad mod, trivial. Takes warnings too far.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:You take your modding responsibilities too far. You need to be more relaxed and not verbal warn over anything and everything.

Z E R O wrote:some of your decisions can be a little OTT, and your modding can be slightly overzealous. I just think you could benefit from giving a little bit more leeway.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:he is too rigid would be better suited to market..
Haz, loosen up a little..

Tetrismonkey wrote:One thing I would like to see different, is to take things a little less stringent. Relax a bit. Not everything has to be black and white.

I don't think i have ever, in over 20 years of frequenting forums, newsgroups and the suchlike, been given a warning for anything at all. What you gave me a warning for was entirely ambiguous as is the rule you used to warn me with. I do not think that your poor soul is to blame for any of these above opinions, it is the rule that you are enforcing which is to blame.

When you have a job to do its not always possible to be anything other than black or white and if the rule says no chickens are we allowed hens? Best to keep hens to an absolute minimum too in my opinion. I'm not happy about the warning you gave me, i would have been much happier if you'd have scanned quickly my posts over the last few days, realised i had not been here for years and politely but sternly pointed me in the direction of this "masking" malarky.

Masking is a can of worms to be sure, its not your fault. That word could have been ship, shine, shoot, shape, and a plethora of other words. Fact is it was not and you quite rightly removed the word. Did you have to remove almost entirely the whole post for 3 illegal letters?

Next we'll have an outright ban on Cyanistes caeruleus and Constable's paintings!

-Goo™

Hes the best Mod ever , how could come up with such quotes???

note: dont reply me here , u get warned, use pm system

GhostyGoo wrote:

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:Bad mod, trivial. Takes warnings too far.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:You take your modding responsibilities too far. You need to be more relaxed and not verbal warn over anything and everything.

Z E R O wrote:some of your decisions can be a little OTT, and your modding can be slightly overzealous. I just think you could benefit from giving a little bit more leeway.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:he is too rigid would be better suited to market..
Haz, loosen up a little..

Tetrismonkey wrote:One thing I would like to see different, is to take things a little less stringent. Relax a bit. Not everything has to be black and white.

I don't think i have ever, in over 20 years of frequenting forums, newsgroups and the suchlike, been given a warning for anything at all. What you gave me a warning for was entirely ambiguous as is the rule you used to warn me with. I do not think that your poor soul is to blame for any of these above opinions, it is the rule that you are enforcing which is to blame.

When you have a job to do its not always possible to be anything other than black or white and if the rule says no chickens are we allowed hens? Best to keep hens to an absolute minimum too in my opinion. I'm not happy about the warning you gave me, i would have been much happier if you'd have scanned quickly my posts over the last few days, realised i had not been here for years and politely but sternly pointed me in the direction of this "masking" malarky.

Masking is a can of worms to be sure, its not your fault. That word could have been ship, shine, shoot, shape, and a plethora of other words. Fact is it was not and you quite rightly removed the word. Did you have to remove almost entirely the whole post for 3 illegal letters?

Next we'll have an outright ban on Cyanistes caeruleus and Constable's paintings!

-Goo™

As told to you in PM, the other words were removed as they only related to the masked word. And as the masking rule states:

Consequence:
When only minor profanity is used, only a Verbal Warning may be issued. In all other cases a Board Warning will be issued. In the case of Masking a Board Warning will always be issued.

Most people ain't gonna see the significance of this post, but the staff certainly will. lol

I have to side with Haz here, he was right on the money. The rule is pretty clear and the punishment is largely set in stone. Your post was pretty blatant ta boot.