(January 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Y'know what? The rules of the forum her seem to be pretty simple. In fact, I can sum them up in four words: Don't be a dick. If you're constructive and productive, yes, they'll give you some leeway. If you just come in here to troll or spam or try to advertise your own site, and you don't post anything productive, you get a short leash.

So, yeah, Germans may have made an attack here or there. But those attacks would be far outweighed by all the productive posts he's made. Chuckie, on the other hand, has never posted anything of any significantly positive value.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter, but I didn't know how to articulate it correctly, well done.

Gilgamesh, just to inform you about this, protecting/defending rule breakers in this forum is itself a rule breakage.

It is, however, tolerated to a certain extent.

Forum Rules Wrote:Protecting Rule-breakers
If you are aware of a member breaking the rules, you are obligated to report them to the staff, either via the Report System or by sending one of the staff a PM. Protecting rule-breakers (especially sockpuppets of currently banned members) will not be tolerated, and anyone caught doing it will be warned and possibly banned as a result. All instances will be carefully considered by staff to determine if this was willfully done.

So it would be better for you to state your points and leave it there instead of arguing about why we shouldn't have banned a member over and over again.

(January 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: I will be doing that right now. I look forward to German's ban. Also, Shelby's. Also, Minimalist's. So sad that such revered members will be taking leave =

Haha, you think I will get banned. Dumbass.

(January 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm)Tiberius Wrote: We don't tend to do much if a post isn't reported. Often, in the case of personal attacks, the attack being reported is just one in a long string of back and forths between two members. In those cases, we tend to issue private written warnings to both, or an in-thread warning to knock it off.

Fixed that for ya!

(January 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Gilgamesh, just to inform you about this, protecting/defending rule breakers in this forum is itself a rule breakage.

It is, however, tolerated to a certain extent.

Forum Rules Wrote:Protecting Rule-breakers
If you are aware of a member breaking the rules, you are obligated to report them to the staff, either via the Report System or by sending one of the staff a PM. Protecting rule-breakers (especially sockpuppets of currently banned members) will not be tolerated, and anyone caught doing it will be warned and possibly banned as a result. All instances will be carefully considered by staff to determine if this was willfully done.

So it would be better for you to state your points and leave it there instead of arguing about why we shouldn't have banned a member over and over again.

I'm glad that the mod's subjectivity is applied to these rules, then. Clearly, this rule is about keeping secret someone's rule breaking. I'm not doing that.

(January 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Gilgamesh, just to inform you about this, protecting/defending rule breakers in this forum is itself a rule breakage.

It is, however, tolerated to a certain extent.

Forum Rules Wrote:Protecting Rule-breakers
If you are aware of a member breaking the rules, you are obligated to report them to the staff, either via the Report System or by sending one of the staff a PM. Protecting rule-breakers (especially sockpuppets of currently banned members) will not be tolerated, and anyone caught doing it will be warned and possibly banned as a result. All instances will be carefully considered by staff to determine if this was willfully done.

So it would be better for you to state your points and leave it there instead of arguing about why we shouldn't have banned a member over and over again.

To be fair, that doesn't mean you can't defend someone who broke the rules. It basically means you can't hide the rule breaking for that person. It's more like an aiding and abetting thing, unless that has changed.

(January 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Shell B Wrote: Haha, you think I will get banned. Dumbass.

Nope. I didn't actually think any of the people I mentioned would be banned, even if I carried out the reportings.

(January 27, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: My impression of BGChuckLee is very different from the majority, here. I thought he was intelligent, constructive and concise. I also think he was treated very poorly. Meh.

Gil, in many of his posts he was intelligent, constructive and concise. No one had a problem with those. But in many of his other posts he was unruly, rude and a troll.

It hasn't changed. Gilgamesh is, IMHO, well within the rules to ask the questions he's acting. Other than abetting a known sock account, I can't think of much where that rule would be enforced, off the top of my head.

(January 27, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote:

(January 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Shell B Wrote: Haha, you think I will get banned. Dumbass.

Nope. I didn't actually think any of the people I mentioned would be banned, even if I carried out the reportings.

Go ahead and report. There is not a single instance in this forum of me committing a bannable offense. You will notice that uninstigated personal attacks are the problem. When it is retaliatory, it is not against the rules, though not encouraged. I am actually quite good at saying what I want to say without breaking the rules. Now, if you can't provide a good reason why I should be banned, nevermind learning to spell my fucking name correctly, then kindly fuck off.