StarGateWars Forums

lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ oh my god

thats to funny

way to funny

OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

the rules are somewhat relaxed when being discussed...

had it been any other sort of topic and situation, then yes, he would have been warned...

Edit: urgh... need some sleep. Fast. Was totally wrong

u guys started it

we are just helping u

u set the standard that we will hold u too

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

Put it in a PM, the guy who got the warning in the other thread couldn't get it overturned and he needed the screenshot to prove it as well. ~T~

BenjaminMS wrote:

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

What the point is here, is the comparison. Deni warned McRandom for posting evidence for his point in another topic - and Deni got backed by the admin/mod-team. However, now Jack does about the same it is allowed? Sorry but it just doesn't fit in
-Ben

Edit: also, last time I checked the usernotes are meant for mod&admin view ONLY - use for things outside that is an offence in itself. I could be wrong though

Zeratul wrote:the rules are somewhat relaxed when being discussed...

had it been any other sort of topic and situation, then yes, he would have been warned...

Ya know, at first I thought you were just misinformed, Ben, but now it seems that you have a grudge against me too, drawing at straws to try and get me in trouble.

BenjaminMS wrote:Edit: also, last time I checked the usernotes are meant for mod&admin view ONLY - use for things outside that is an offence in itself. I could be wrong though

You're about half wrong, in this instance, it's a pieace of information that is required to further the discussion in an intelligent and insightful manner. And as you can see, the parts of the usernotes which were not required for such, have been censored.

Jack wrote:

BenjaminMS wrote:

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

What the point is here, is the comparison. Deni warned McRandom for posting evidence for his point in another topic - and Deni got backed by the admin/mod-team. However, now Jack does about the same it is allowed? Sorry but it just doesn't fit in
-Ben

Edit: also, last time I checked the usernotes are meant for mod&admin view ONLY - use for things outside that is an offence in itself. I could be wrong though

Zeratul wrote:the rules are somewhat relaxed when being discussed...

had it been any other sort of topic and situation, then yes, he would have been warned...

Ya know, at first I thought you were just misinformed, Ben, but now it seems that you have a grudge against me too, drawing at straws to try and get me in trouble.

BenjaminMS wrote:Edit: also, last time I checked the usernotes are meant for mod&admin view ONLY - use for things outside that is an offence in itself. I could be wrong though

You're about half wrong, in this instance, it's a pieace of information that is required to further the discussion in an intelligent and insightful manner. And as you can see, the parts of the usernotes which were not required for such, have been censored.

No, I don't hold a grudge Jack - although IMHO you're wrapped in that much cases where your position it at least a bit weird if not sometimes discussable, that I don't know what to think of it all anymore.
-Ben

BenjaminMS wrote:

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

What the point is here, is the comparison. Deni warned McRandom for posting evidence for his point in another topic - and Deni got backed by the admin/mod-team. However, now Jack does about the same it is allowed? Sorry but it just doesn't fit in
-Ben

Edit: also, last time I checked the usernotes are meant for mod&admin view ONLY - use for things outside that is an offence in itself. I could be wrong though

I have not warned McRandom.

Get your facts straight before posting instead of just jumping on the band wagon.


If you have not realized,we are discussing masking here. Not a pm someone sent to someone else ingame.


Note the difference, if you are able to.


Thank you

~Thamuz~ wrote:

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

Put it in a PM, the guy who got the warning in the other thread couldn't get it overturned and he needed the screenshot to prove it as well. ~T~

And he posted the screenshot in his complaint threat.

Should I warn him for that?

This is what you are suggesting, isn't it?

There was no warning issued to mcRandom in that thread, even though he reposted an screenshot he has been warned for earlier...

Deni - it was relevant to the difference in rulings. And no need to insult me either. Whether you 'only' reported it or also handled it, you were involved. If I misinterprented the screenshot earlier in this thread - the one made by Jack - then I apology and I'll edit my post, but my point still stands.

deni wrote:

~Thamuz~ wrote:

Radiance wrote:](*,) OMG. How is he supposed to answer your bloody questions without that information!?
Bloody censorship fanatics.

Put it in a PM, the guy who got the warning in the other thread couldn't get it overturned and he needed the screenshot to prove it as well. ~T~

And he posted the screenshot in his complaint threat.

Should I warn him for that?

This is what you are suggesting, isn't it?

But the complaint thread was for a warning he recieved while posting proof of a pm he recieved, The screenshot that jack posted didn't need to be posted at all he could of just pm'd papa with it and problem solved. or at least blocked out most of the word with paint as was suggested to the guy in the other thread. ~T~

as we said earlier, when used for example in a thread discussing the rules on it, the rules are somewhat relaxed...
it would be highly impractical to discuss rules if we had to warn each other each time an example of a rule violation is shown...

ok

back to my point

frankly, jack should not be warned for posting that, but it is nice to know that finely people other than a few of us are taking notice of this MASKING issue


so flak ok not ok ?

from the US supreme court(for what it's worth):

"Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. "Unprotected speech," means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express.

Justice Potter Stewart said:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "