Moderator: Clan Directors
malevolous wrote:Nice bait, J. Just a side thing, the note/warning says things are right on the line. To my mind that would say, "If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.
malevolous wrote:"If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.
tec805 wrote:malevolous wrote:"If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.
Poor analogy. No trespassing means stop, go no further. A posted speed limit sign would better fit the situation; Here's the limit, you can continue but don't exceed it. Though this speed limit sign didn't say 65 on it, it said "Somewhere between 35-85, if you guess wrong you are screwed, but only if you finish first, otherwise you're good to go as fast as you like. Unless I don't like our past history, then you're screwed already.".
jj3044 wrote:
You are correct. If you felt that you were disrespected by a mod, then you should bring it up... but not in the public forum. That is a completely separate issue then what the OP stated and asked about. Engaging in that kind of ... i'll call it... debate... in the public is bad form. If The Pack had an issue wit Cheme's behavior, they should have raised it to an admin, not call him a dickhead in public.
jghost7 wrote:malevolous wrote:Nice bait, J. Just a side thing, the note/warning says things are right on the line. To my mind that would say, "If you post even one more inappropriate thing, you could cross the line." So I personally see that as an absolute warning. Its like a no trespassing sign. If you see it, continue on, and then get busted, I don't think you can say it wasn't sufficient warning and expect no consequences. K, analogy done.
For the record, It is not a "bait". Nothing that I just wrote was intended to be inflammatory or even heated. I assumed it was a logical discussion of this topic, and that was what jj was pursuing.
As to the note/warning, it doesn't say what your mind says, but perhaps it should. Either way I am not attacking or defending what was in that thread. I have read it, and have found it entertaining for the most part. But , given the vagueness of the rule, the specificity of the warning is warranted. What is the line that you are not crossing? It is not defined, therefore you may only give an approximation. Most people know where the line is on a regular forum infraction and can easily avoid trouble of this nature. Here, we have a situation where anything you say could get you busted because of the wavering line. When the clan leader was pm'd and it was specifically addressed(I assume based on the post), is when a proper warning was given. Also, about consequences, if you feel that some of the things the Pack members wrote were offensive, there were other posts from non Pack members that would have been at the same level. And if that is the case, then what "consequences" were divvied up between them?
This is not a personal thing. I think that this would be an opportunity to straighten out this rule to make it more viable for future use. I think that if nothing is done, it would only get worse and would incur more hard feelings for the site and its volunteers.
Thanks for listening,
J
jghost7 wrote:Why is this in the archives?
Is there another place to discuss this rule?
J
BoganGod wrote:Not sure of the dates for the IA thang, thepack has spammed up the legion vs BoFM ACC 3rd round thread. Possibly in a lame attempt to keep on baiting chemefreak. Don't know whether this occurred after or before the warning for the IA clan war thread.
tec805 wrote:hmsps wrote:...is this just another one jumping on the posters against the pack bandwagon? ...but it does seem that the so called neutrals on here seem to be well against the pack and their members...
I actually have to commend chemefreak on holding his tongue in this thread - he has been so anti-Pack for some reason that I'd expect him to do everything he could to cause us grief
Users browsing this forum: No registered users