Post by Griffin on Dec 7, 2006 12:46:24 GMT -5
Hey Fellas - Sling is about to get a PM from Saleen re: his warning bar.
I was the one who issued the additional 25%. Here is an X-Fire conversation we had about it:
I was the one who issued the additional 25%. Here is an X-Fire conversation we had about it:
[10:26] zs]S@LeeN©: is there somewhere in your staff room about why i recieved another 25% to my warning bar when i did nothing wrong?
[10:27] Griffin: just a sec.
[10:30] Griffin: It was for making comments in the Courtroom without being asked to
[10:30] zs]S@LeeN©: 25% thats alittle outta control don't you think? its the thread about Special K if i am correct, and i believe everyone deserves to know that he's a problem child
[10:31] Griffin: 25% isn't that bad - we're workingon setting examples to clean up the Courtroom by adhering to SLing's rules
[10:31] zs]S@LeeN©: its one thing when i said nothing pertaining to that problem at all, but i was right on topic, about a the same person, doing the same crap
[10:32] Griffin: Your warning expires in a couple weeks
[10:32] Griffin: Even though you were on topic - we only want posts from people who are noted as witnesses in the original complaint post[10:33] zs]S@LeeN©: ok, i won't argue that, but....
[10:34] zs]S@LeeN©: what if someone who gets away with it once, and gets acquitted on the courtroom actually did something elsewhere and it proves a pattern of that person, should it be ignored that I would have information on that person from elsewhere, that would help to better determine his fate?
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: thats just my take on it
[10:35] Griffin: That is true, but the admins will watch for the alleged trouble maker and will ask if further information is required. The Courtroom is for a list of people for the admins to look for
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: i know that
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: but that unsolicited remark warning is like i got a warning for wearing the wrong colored underwear
[10:36] zs]S@LeeN©: its got no meaning to it
[10:36] Griffin: Other people will notice it and hopefully think twice b4 posting unsolicited
[10:37] zs]S@LeeN©: yeah, but its going to also make everyone affraid to post
[10:38] zs]S@LeeN©: it would be easier just to delete the posts that don't need to be there, than doing that
[10:39] Griffin: We've tried that but people just bitch about having their posts deleted
[10:39] zs]S@LeeN©: should have a warning in the Courtroom rules, stating that if you're post gets deleted, you will receive no warning before hand, and now that you have read this, you have no reason to bitch later
[10:40] Griffin: we have had that in Slingshot's original trial rules post - stickied in the Courtroom
[10:41] zs]S@LeeN©: i just think its going to start turning into a warning bar war, cuz thats gonna happen ALOT, regardless of whats written
[10:41] Griffin: Well - enuff warning bars will get someone banned for it eventually
[10:42] zs]S@LeeN©: well I PMed slng, asking how that could be a reason to get a warning bar
[10:27] Griffin: just a sec.
[10:30] Griffin: It was for making comments in the Courtroom without being asked to
[10:30] zs]S@LeeN©: 25% thats alittle outta control don't you think? its the thread about Special K if i am correct, and i believe everyone deserves to know that he's a problem child
[10:31] Griffin: 25% isn't that bad - we're workingon setting examples to clean up the Courtroom by adhering to SLing's rules
[10:31] zs]S@LeeN©: its one thing when i said nothing pertaining to that problem at all, but i was right on topic, about a the same person, doing the same crap
[10:32] Griffin: Your warning expires in a couple weeks
[10:32] Griffin: Even though you were on topic - we only want posts from people who are noted as witnesses in the original complaint post[10:33] zs]S@LeeN©: ok, i won't argue that, but....
[10:34] zs]S@LeeN©: what if someone who gets away with it once, and gets acquitted on the courtroom actually did something elsewhere and it proves a pattern of that person, should it be ignored that I would have information on that person from elsewhere, that would help to better determine his fate?
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: thats just my take on it
[10:35] Griffin: That is true, but the admins will watch for the alleged trouble maker and will ask if further information is required. The Courtroom is for a list of people for the admins to look for
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: i know that
[10:35] zs]S@LeeN©: but that unsolicited remark warning is like i got a warning for wearing the wrong colored underwear
[10:36] zs]S@LeeN©: its got no meaning to it
[10:36] Griffin: Other people will notice it and hopefully think twice b4 posting unsolicited
[10:37] zs]S@LeeN©: yeah, but its going to also make everyone affraid to post
[10:38] zs]S@LeeN©: it would be easier just to delete the posts that don't need to be there, than doing that
[10:39] Griffin: We've tried that but people just bitch about having their posts deleted
[10:39] zs]S@LeeN©: should have a warning in the Courtroom rules, stating that if you're post gets deleted, you will receive no warning before hand, and now that you have read this, you have no reason to bitch later
[10:40] Griffin: we have had that in Slingshot's original trial rules post - stickied in the Courtroom
[10:41] zs]S@LeeN©: i just think its going to start turning into a warning bar war, cuz thats gonna happen ALOT, regardless of whats written
[10:41] Griffin: Well - enuff warning bars will get someone banned for it eventually
[10:42] zs]S@LeeN©: well I PMed slng, asking how that could be a reason to get a warning bar