(September 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: For the last time, you were not reprimanded by "one of those in power". It was a joint staff decision. In other words, action was not taken until a working consensus of staff members had been reached.
What Stimbo says here is true. A sufficient quorum was met, there was at the time no dissent, and Stimbo was given the task to deliver the warning. It could have been any of us.
Faith No More did register his dissenting opinion, but it was only after the quorum had already been met, and action already taken.
(September 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In fact, while I've got your attention, this is the second time to my knowledge that you've complained of a "formal reprimand". Let's be quite clear on this: what you were subject to was a verbal warning. A formal warning usually comes next, unless the circumstances warrant fast-tracking due process. Is that what you want? Look what happened the last time someone tried to provoke staff intervention - we went immediately to a seven-day ban instead of the first-stage warning they were expecting.
Yes, and that's an obvious example of a staff vendetta as well. Wait, no it isn't. I dropped the banhammer that time. On a fellow atheist. On someone who was, and remains, my friend.
Drich, the most damning evidence against your claims of a vendetta or favoritism is that you are still here.
