General Category > PKMN.NET

On the posting of 'This will be locked' posts, WAS: How To Care For Trans* People: A Friendly Guide

<< < (2/2)

Joeno:
1. Your post was still off-topic. Nothing related to the starter post or anything related. 5%
2. Commenting about what point a topic would be locked at? Don't see you have that power, don't see you making that judgement, nope, nothing to suggest that. You're making that judgement there and then. Arguably, other forum staff had already extensively commented on that - you'd really almost have to be forum staff to bypass that. Just plainly ignoring our decisions and comments on it? Yeah, it's in that sort of area. 5%
3. You were jumping the gun yourself by stating it would be locked soon. You didn't see how the topic would go, you didn't see where it'd end up, you just added to the whole "People are going too far" debate. I'd say that's adding to the flames, adding to the arguments that people are posting unsuitably, rather than discussing the topic. Part of rule 2... yeah, 5%

It'll be there for a week. I just consulted some other admins, to quote one other "It's just a week". I'll see whether more comes up, but as it stands, I see the three being relevant.

Furthermore, you are not in a position to demand what we do to anyone else. We decide who we warn. You are not a moderator. You're not on a shortlist for it. You're not close to it. Whether and how we punish anyone else is up to us, not you, and we take other things into consideration. Please refrain from such comments in the future, as per the rules. These demands are not helping you right now.

OVOxo:
1. The mention of me thinking it was a good topic is related.
2. A prediction rather than a definite. Predictions can be wrong.
3. It was a prediction but I wasn't forcing it. There was no intention to create any sort of arguments and it hasn't led to that.

So why has xhanatos not been given a 5% warning then? And just verbal warning instead? Surely by that logic it should be verbal + 5% + 5%. That's already less. Add to the fact that it's gone far beyond what it should be. I think it's in my rights for fairness to be sought after when I've been harshly adjudged. I'm making relevant comparisons here to try and get what is the right result.

The majority of the last paragraph isn't relevant to this and I actually have no idea why it's been brought up. Moderator shortlist? Why bring that up? I'm not trying to force a warning to someone else but instead get mine (rightly) reduced.

These "demands" are out of fairness. Also, as I stated, I'm allowed to appeal. Here I am appealing. It is stated it'd be listened to yet all that's happening is it being shut down (wrongly).

This is being seen as doing 3 rule breaks from one post where a problem comes from one line. Sorry, but I don't see how you can over-exaggerate it to punish me further than what the standard would be, which would be a post deletion and that's it. I have a right to know why it has been exaggerated to this point.

I'm doing this out of fairness. There's nothing wrong with that. Every member deserves equal rights after all.

Joeno:
We do not discuss other's punishments, all I say is that it's been taken care of and there wasn't any getting away with anything.

Three admins agree on the original, you made your appeal and it's been denied. If you want it, then don't rely on 'it's unequal'. It's not.

OVOxo:
All I can say then is that I'm very disappointed and feel hard done by. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Lord Raven:
dude there are fights worth picking

this isnt one of them

it goes down by like 3% every day anyway

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page