getting a board warning

[jabujabu]

Recently I had a signature saying :

It's Kikaz **Filtered** says:
I waited until he was totally asleep right
and I pulled down his pants
and I got a picture
of his wiener in my mouth

and i have been issued a board warning for not adhering to knight's request to remove it.

I have no memory of knight asking me to remove it...and I talked to Zeratul about it. He says he believes knight, yet he has produced no log...I think this is a bit too reckless. Zeratul still believes knight, but innocent until proven guilty...

[Zeratul]

the content in question did not belong on forums... and should never have been put there in the first place...

The warning was mainly for the content... the signature in question was reported 13 days ago, so time to think it over was plenty.

See rule # 5 sections B and D.

[Clarkey]

I'd also like to point out that "wiener" is another word for a filtered word.

[Juliette]

Recently I had a signature saying :

It's Kikaz **Filtered** says:
I waited until he was totally asleep right
and I pulled down his pants
and I got a picture
of his wiener in my mouth

and i have been issued a board warning for not adhering to knight's request to remove it.

I have no memory of knight asking me to remove it...and I talked to Zeratul about it. He says he believes knight, yet he has produced no log...I think this is a bit too reckless. Zeratul still believes knight, but innocent until proven guilty...

There's no PM logging system, man. And we were talking to Knight when he said he PMed you.. *grin*

[Empy]

Well what you had breaks a rule but it certainly is not the non-existent rule of "not listening to a Moderator" (just to clarify that). Zeratul referred to the rules your quote broke. It really doesn't matter if knight warned you or not, to be honest. Although I suppose a verbal warning would have been nice before a Board Warning.

[jabujabu]

Well what you had breaks a rule but it certainly is not the non-existent rule of "not listening to a Moderator" (just to clarify that). Zeratul referred to the rules your quote broke. It really doesn't matter if knight warned you or not, to be honest. Although I suppose a verbal warning would have been nice before a Board Warning.

ah that sounds nice...zeratul kept changing his mind between warning me because of not listening to knight on april 20 about the sig, and then to violating rules from the sig itself...

[Mordack]

The warning is listed in the user notes as such:

Content of signature violation after repeated messages to remove said content...

To me, it looks as though the warning was for the signature violation. This would make it a valid warning. Although it is polite to warn people first, and in my opinion matter of common courtesy, the staff are under no obligation to do so. It's a practice which varies from moderator.

I have no way of checking whether or not PMs we or weren't sent. Nor do I have a method of checking whether or not the reasoning behind a warning has been altered somehow. Based on the evidence in front of me, which is what I have to work with, then I think the warning is valid and should stay.

[Angnoch]

'tis simple courtesy that you are requested prior to being warned for your sig to be removed, and Knight sent you a PM not his fault if you didn't read it, there is nothing he can do about that. He gave you more than ample time to remove your questionable sig material, your failure to comply can be seen as an open disregard of the rules and as such you suffered the consequences, ie the warning. Next time instead of coming here saying you did not know you were breaking any rules, or that you weren't informed check up on some legal precedence, ignorance of the law is no excuse and therefore by setting "foot" on the premise of these e-floors you are bound in an agreement to adhere to any and all rules that are established by the forum staff. Take your warning as a learning experience and p'raps read up on the rules before putting something else on the board that will earn you further warnings.

[Clarkey]

Simple way to end this.... both people involved screenshot their respective PM boxes (Knight - Sentbox / jabujabu - Inbox). Then screenshot the actual message. Unless you're very skilled it is easy to notice a faked screenshot.

The one that doesn't clearly is hiding something, unless you both claim to have deleted the message from your inbox and sentboxes.

[Clarkey]

Clarkey, I'm sure the Oms can handle this themselves.

Of course. Just offering up a different avenue of resolution.

[Jack]

Simple way to end this....

You're absolutely right, there is a simple way to end this.


Jabu was told multiple times by various people that his sig was in violation of the rules, I was there when he was told. Now I don't doubt that he doesn't remember, he probably ignored everyone, but that's our problem.

[jabujabu]

#-o 'tis simple courtesy that you are requested prior to being warned for your sig to be removed, and Knight sent you a PM not his fault if you didn't read it, there is nothing he can do about that. He gave you more than ample time to remove your questionable sig material, your failure to comply can be seen as an open disregard of the rules and as such you suffered the consequences, ie the warning. Next time instead of coming here saying you did not know you were breaking any rules, or that you weren't informed check up on some legal precedence, ignorance of the law is no excuse and therefore by setting "foot" on the premise of these e-floors you are bound in an agreement to adhere to any and all rules that are established by the forum staff. Take your warning as a learning experience and p'raps read up on the rules before putting something else on the board that will earn you further warnings.

Well I'm sorry to cut your swagger short...but I have never gotten a PM from knight about this.
Now innocent until proven guilty...knight has yet to produce any sort of log about this... Perhaps this thread should be about if the mods are doing their jobs correctly since this sig has been up a long time?

Simple way to end this....

You're absolutely right, there is a simple way to end this.


Jabu was told multiple times by various people that his sig was in violation of the rules, I was there when he was told. Now I don't doubt that he doesn't remember, he probably ignored everyone, but that's our problem.

again...logs?

[knight]

This was done on MSN (no PMs, and no I did not save the logs)

However I told you to remove / change it more than once.

Jack was in the convo when you first showed it off. A few days later mikgamer was in a convo when I told you to remove it again.

There is not much more I could have done other than hound you till you removed it.

[jabujabu]

The warning is listed in the user notes as such:

Content of signature violation after repeated messages to remove said content...

To me, it looks as though the warning was for the signature violation. This would make it a valid warning. Although it is polite to warn people first, and in my opinion matter of common courtesy, the staff are under no obligation to do so. It's a practice which varies from moderator.

I have no way of checking whether or not PMs we or weren't sent. Nor do I have a method of checking whether or not the reasoning behind a warning has been altered somehow. Based on the evidence in front of me, which is what I have to work with, then I think the warning is valid and should stay.

there's nothing wrong with the warning, i was just under the impression that it was because of negligence...

why would you put

after repeated messages to remove said content...

if it wasn't the main focus of the sentence?
it could just be

Content of signature violation

yeah?

[jabujabu]

This was done on MSN (no PMs, and no I did not save the logs)

However I told you to remove / change it more than once.

Jack was in the convo when you first showed it off. A few days later mikgamer was in a convo when I told you to remove it again.

There is not much more I could have done other than hound you till you removed it.

well i have been warned for other things...but because they have been PMed to me via SGW private messages...I have received them and removed said offensive material / blah
But I don't think msn can be classified as getting warned, it is not related to SGW in any way (unless ss...you want to tell me that sgw interferes with msn lol). I could have been afk since it was a group convo.

I'd also like to point out again once more that if the signature was really that offensive or vulgar, a user or a mod would have pointed it out immediately, but yet...

Anyways this can be moved elsewhere for discussion...it is not for the oms