StarGateWars Forums

In the past it was allowed to post on behalf of banned users as long as you took responsibility for what you posted on their behalf.

When was the rules changed so that you could only do so in the Ombusman section?

Les Ennemis asked me to post and request the war thread he made be locked.

Your question was answered in PM after you originally asked it there. Does this really require a topic?

As far as I am aware the rule about posting on behalf of banned users has never changed.

However, you did spam as a result of posting on behalf of Les.

I think you should change 'in the past' to 'in my head' because it's been the way it is for as long as I've been a mod and longer.

You've never been allowed to, granted; but how often have people gotten away with it in the past?

Remember a certain person who was permabanned back in the day but everyone posted for him? Or Harch, who regularly had people post for him?

Things will always slip through, but the rule states strictly forbidden.

And fact is femme broke 2 rules by posting on Les's behalf, she's lucky she got 1 warning not 2.

What he said.

we knew there was a change sometime... thankies for digging it up, SS...

There we go, question answered. As i said, just be glad you didn't get 2 warnings.

yes it is isn't it Clarkey seeing you responded to my posting but didn't have the curtsey to let me know it was against forum rules now.

Can I get a list of other forum users that have received a full warning for posting for others since the rule change, with out any pre warning?

IMO.. the rule needs further modification.. yes I agree posting everywhere for banned users shouldnt be allowed.. but if user is in a war or is mentioned in a thread somewhere.. then they should have the right for someone to post or respond on their behave.

In this case Les wanted his thread locked, now being banned he cant pm any mods or post himself to request it can he?

The Doctor wrote:Your question was answered in PM after you originally asked it there. Does this really require a topic?

And yes, so that other forum users can be made aware of the changes and not receive full warnings unexpectedly.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:yes it is isn't it Clarkey seeing you responded to my posting but didn't have the curtsey to let me know it was against forum rules now.

Can I get a list of other forum users that have received a full warning for posting for others since the rule change, with out any pre warning?

IMO.. the rule needs further modification.. yes I agree posting everywhere for banned users shouldnt be allowed.. but if user is in a war or is mentioned in a thread somewhere.. then they should have the right for someone to post or respond on their behave.

In this case Les wanted his thread locked, now being banned he cant pm any mods or post himself to request it can he?

If you break the rules, and you accumulate the amount of warnings which results in a ban, you lose any rights on the forum, except the right to appeal.

EDIT: Perhaps you should have a look through the rules again. Double posting is also against the rules. You can use the edit function to add more to a post if you wish.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:Can I get a list of other forum users that have received a full warning for posting for others since the rule change, with out any pre warning?

No.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:yes it is isn't it Clarkey seeing you responded to my posting but didn't have the curtsey to let me know it was against forum rules now.

So it's my fault? Aren't you the one that has a hyperlink to the forum rules in your signature yet you don't know what the forum rules are?

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:Can I get a list of other forum users that have received a full warning for posting for others since the rule change, with out any pre warning?

I know Jack and Earendil said No to this request, however I'm going to be a rebel and say YES.
[spoiler]You can get a list by asking all users yourself by sending them PMs.[/spoiler]

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:IMO.. the rule needs further modification.. yes I agree posting everywhere for banned users shouldnt be allowed.. but if user is in a war or is mentioned in a thread somewhere.. then they should have the right for someone to post or respond on their behave.

First of all femme you need to understand the point of being banned on the forums for breaking rules. The point of being banned is to be punished for breaking rules, and the point of banning is inability to post on the forums that you broke the rules on. Stop singling out the war threads section. Why should a user who got banned by breaking rules be allowed to post in their war thread? They broke rules so they accept the consequences. The Ombudsman is the right place for someone to be able to post on someone elses behalf. If we allow people to post in war threads on behalf of banned users then what is the point in a user being banned?

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:In this case Les wanted his thread locked, now being banned he cant pm any mods or post himself to request it can he?

But he wanted it locked because he was banned, not because of a legit reason like the war was ended!

I think I said it before, but feel lucky you didn't get 2 warnings, because the second post you made on behalf of Les was spam. This could have been much worse for you.

Hey, but guys.. what's all this 'read the rules'?
I mean.. who does that? Isn't it easier to just whine and complain about warnings you get for breaking the rules, when you get them?
At some point you might just have experience with ALL the rules.


Seriously though. We do not cater to the laziness of people who are not willing to read the rules, or the -clearly pre-announced- changes made to them. If you don't want to know the rules, you get your warnings 'unexpectedly'. Deal with it.

(2 steps to take from here: 1. Read the rules. / 2. Stop whining.)