Re: This message is a *Moderator Warning* in reply to Becca\'s suggestion.

Well, im gonna have to agree with EVERYONE here, yeah, mighta been
for a bit of fun, or whatever, but im sure if Those big dudes at
Yahoo were feeling pissed for some reason got wind or whatever and
decided to remove our lil pastime here, no one would want it on there
shoulders, anyway, if you want to get back at him, gimme a name and
address and il pay him a, ahhh, 'visit'
--- In, "White Wolf"
<captwhitewolf@c...> wrote:
> --- In, "Andy Longman"
> <sirlagerlot@n...> wrote:
> > Im gonna jump on the same bandwagon and say all in fun,
> That's why she's only getting a *warning* as my message title
says. I
> don't believe she did much harm. But that doesn't mean certain other
> people will see it the same way. (Particularly the authorities, who
> sometimes get pretty anal about stuff like this.)
> As one of my supervisors used to like qouting to me, "Man says
> ignorance of the law is no excuse. And with so many people failing
> ignore law of gravity amongst others must mean that God thinks
> stupidity isn't a good enough excuse either..."
> So I think it's needless to say that my 'warning' isn't all that
> bloody bad, compared to what others could've have done in response.
> Especially considering the profanity she used in her post to my
> that in itself would've gotten her into trouble with some of the
> moderators of other groups, possibly even banned from them. I think
> I'm being fairly lenient by only giving her a warning.
> Heck, if this matter were being handled by Morbid, I think he
> nuked her completely out of the group without a second thought for
> just what she posted here. Am I not right?
> - White Wolf
> PS - Oh, and if you *still* think I'm being much too harsh with
> Let me point out that I've gotten more than my fair share of an
> about how we're giving way too much of a 'kid gloves treatment' to
> some people here in the BD compared to others who didn't get nearly
> that much. And unless you three want to open up a can of worms about
> favoritism and nespotism amongst the council members & moderators -
> wouldn't gripe too loudly about my being 'too harsh' for giving this
> warning, because your only giving validity to such arguements.
> And secondly I am *trying* to be as fair about this to others as
> as towards Becca - and there's a real fine line between the two.
> a given that *somebody* is going to be upset (with me) regardless
> which way I go with the enforcement of them. (For example, if I
> didn't hand out a warning, some people would be upset because they
> one for similar infractions. And in this case, you guys think I'm
> being harsh...) So you see, either way, I can't win on this one.
> (Other than by enforcing the rules equally...)
> And this is a burden I don't like bearing anymore than Morbid did,
> especially since I generally like to think that I'm a good guy,
> than the alternative. So cut me some smegging slack, Okay?
> Now pardon me while I go and try to finish writing up my gamepost
> WW's return that's been interrupted three times already today.
> It's a small wonder I that get *any other* writing done anymore! Uh
> oh - what's that roaring sound? Oh good gravy, I think it's another
> tidal wave of IM's & emails coming in. ARGH! :)

< Prev : Re: This message is a *Moderator Warning* in reply to Becca\'s suggestion. Next > : OOC-10,000th post!!!!