StarGateWars Forums

when haz stop piss me off
The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.
Quote:
This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=62&p=2507877#p2507877 .

"warning for mcdeadly thanks "

Quote:
b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic, or derail the topic from the intended purpose as defined in the opening post. This may include multiple replies that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users. Replying to an official moderator post in topic will be considered spam. Should a user wish to reply to an official moderator post, they can do so by pm or in forum issues or one of its subsections. Private messages (PMs) are not subject to this rule.

Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be personally issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.


and i can.t read why i got warning

this haz is the bigger stupid i found it
no stats for him in game until i play this game and nothing can stop me

Warning should be overturned. I'll talk to Mathlord, then Admin.

I would assume the warning was given instead of a polite note, etc due to your recent verbal warning for spam on Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:48 pm

Next time you want a person warned or think a warning is deserved you may want too play it safe and just report it. If no one gets round to doing the report I'll bug them to do it since the icon for a reported post is really annoying

He was given a board warning as he accrued 2 verbals for spam in about a month.

Haz wrote:He was given a board warning as he accrued 2 verbals for spam in about a month.

and you say bye to stats in game for ever
because is not spam is a war topic a place where we piss off or not the enemy

i ask to remove the last bull action

First off, it does not help your case to threaten to mass anyone who warns you.

Second, you had been given multiple verbal and board warnings on this same issue of you posting in threads saying someone should be warned. While I personally view the extent of what is considered spam on this board to be a bit over the top, they are the rules of the land and I know you know them by now.

Empy and I shall discuss this further before making a final decision. I'd recommend not offering violence instead of reason in this thread Rob3rt...

R0B3RT wrote:

Haz wrote:He was given a board warning as he accrued 2 verbals for spam in about a month.

and you say bye to stats in game for ever
because is not spam is a war topic a place where we piss off or not the enemy

i ask to remove the last bull action

Yes, you asked for a warning to be given to another user. That does not relate to the war, and as such, is spam/offtopic.

EDIT:

Mathlord wrote:First off, it does not help your case to threaten to mass anyone who warns you.

...

I'd recommend not offering violence instead of reason in this thread Rob3rt...

viewtopic.php?f=124&t=195962

Haz wrote:He was given a board warning as he accrued 2 verbals for spam in about a month.

Right. About a month. But not within a month. It was more than a month.

Empy wrote:

Haz wrote:He was given a board warning as he accrued 2 verbals for spam in about a month.

Right. About a month. But not within a month. It was more than a month.

As mentioned in PM, I thought the 4 days outside that month was barely of note compared to his history of ignoring the warnings for the same rule (specifically requesting or responding to mod actions).

The rule enforcement guidelines are there for a reason. That reason is so that this discussion does not have to take place, and it's so that the rules are fairly and consistently applied. They say 1 month. Not 1 month and 4 days. 1 month. It's not up to your discretion to make it 1 month and 4 days.

Empy wrote:The rule enforcement guidelines are there for a reason. That reason is so that this discussion does not have to take place, and it's so that the rules are fairly and consistently applied. They say 1 month. Not 1 month and 4 days. 1 month. It's not up to your discretion to make it 1 month and 4 days.

"rule enforcement guidelines" - keyword is guidelines here - is there to provide consistency in consequences. But, as the user in question consistently breaks a certain rule, it shouldn't matter whether it was 1 month, 1 month + 4 days, 26 days... he has been warned (verbal or board) quite a number of times for it, and is not listening.

Sometimes context does need to be brought in when a modding decision is made.

So because the word guidelines was chosen for the title of the thread you think it's okay to shirk them and disregard them at your whimsy? You're really grasping at straws now...

The fact is, the guidelines say 1 month. They don't say 1 month but you get to decide. They don't say 1 month unless someone breaks the rules all the time. They say 1 month. Plainly and simply 1 month. The verbal warning on his records from 1 month and 4 days before the Board Warning you gave him was issued is expired.

It's very simple, but you wish to complicate it and twist the rules so that you can further punish someone outside the definition of how the rules should be enforced. Your "rule with an iron fist" approach to enforcing the rules is not okay here.

Empy wrote:So because the word guidelines was chosen for the title of the thread you think it's okay to shirk them and disregard them at your whimsy? You're really grasping at straws now...

No, I merely thought to highlight that word, while continuing on with my explanation. No shirking or disregarding.

Empy wrote:The fact is, the guidelines say 1 month. They don't say 1 month but you get to decide. They don't say 1 month unless someone breaks the rules all the time. They say 1 month. Plainly and simply 1 month. The verbal warning on his records from 1 month and 4 days before the Board Warning you gave him was issued is expired.

The way I see it, 1 month is a technicality... if R0B3RTs first verbal was closer to 2 months than 1 month, I would have left it. But since it was barely 4 days, I thought board warning was appropriate.

Empy wrote:It's very simple, but you wish to complicate it and twist the rules so that you can further punish someone outside the definition of how the rules should be enforced. Your "rule with an iron fist" approach to enforcing the rules does not go here.

That's your opinion (wrong as to the truthfulness of what you believe though). It is also my opinion that your opinion of my modding does not belong here. All you should be doing is making a judgement on a modding case brought before you, basing it on user history and previous warnings. Nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to question my modding, I'm sure you know which section to take it to.

Well I'm not gonna continue this debate with you. As always you're not going to change your opinion so this is pointless.

I'm just waiting for the decision from Mathlord...