|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 19:33:58 GMT -5
Do you think that he broke three rules? Or one rule three times?
|
|
|
|
Post by Addieor on Apr 21, 2004 19:46:31 GMT -5
Probably. I gave him the benfit of doubt, like 2/3 three times after reading his posts, but........
|
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 21:03:37 GMT -5
Well... I can't remember if I broke the rules 3 times after my strikes... I think the pedophile comment was all...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kobolos on Apr 21, 2004 21:11:58 GMT -5
Well... I can't remember if I broke the rules 3 times after my strikes... I think the pedophile comment was all...
Just sayin'... |
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 21:14:58 GMT -5
One, two, they are all the same as long as they are under 3...
So, what happens now? One more insult and I am banned? Don't worry, there won't be any more... From now on I am just going to report every one, even if it is not made against me...
|
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 22:03:09 GMT -5
Why can't my posts be longer than
|
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 22:03:27 GMT -5
50 characters?
|
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 22:03:51 GMT -5
Is this my punsihment? How long?
|
|
Luigi
Bewildered Beginner
Posts: 0
Likes: 2
|
Post by Luigi on Apr 22, 2004 4:33:52 GMT -5
I think that's your punishment. :\ I can't say it's a very good one, as someone with a 50-character limit would just post and post and post and post 'til the point is made. I think a better punishment would be to regulate how many posts are made/day (like 6 post limits) because if someone can only post 50 characters, but still able to post an unlimited amount of times, they might flood... |
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 22, 2004 5:08:50 GMT -5
I haven't done anything yet.
And it's three strikes after the warning. Not three strikes after three strikes. Would that make any sense??
So, it's pretty clear you're 100% guilty of breaking three decrees after your first warning. Now I just decide on a punishment, I guess.
Unless someone wants to prove to me that he didn't break three decrees after his warning. Which is almost impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 22, 2004 6:43:05 GMT -5
Oh, see, I thought you meant did I break 3 ruls aafter the 3 strikes... Well, I admit it, I did break 3 rules after my very first warning ever...
(I can only type 50 characters in my PMs, don't know why, though)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kobolos on Apr 22, 2004 7:53:58 GMT -5
Re: To all 667 Members « Reply #21 on: Today at 06:12am » Nice work... Now anyone can take this to your trial and use this as evidence for a harsher punishment. You basically just said that if you weren't on trial, you'd be saying ruder things. And even now you're still being all sarcastic and "I know everything." Re: To all 667 Members « Reply #15 on: Apr 21st, 2004, 11:10pm » Oooo... The things I won't say because I am on trial... Just so you know, hunny-buns, my "ugly beast" comment was by far, nowhere near the beginnig of the insults... And, uh, I was taught that a pedophile was an older man lurking on chat rooms, and forums, and as swans said, your "husband" fits the profile... And, lady, I am 14 years old... My immaturity in excusable at times, but a 20 year old man's is not... Just so you know... The majority age on here is 12-16... We can talk about sex, but we don't wanna know about you and Kobo's experiences... Maybe you should act your age, and lay off... In the words of Luna (I believe)... Dismissed... Re: Theology Debate « Reply #125 on: Apr 16th, 2004, 10:56pm » Oh believe me, I garauntee you I have more wit than both of you... Your comebacks suck and are always the same... No one thinks they are good... And I would retaliate, but I'd get more strikes... Re: Theology Debate « Reply #129 on: Apr 16th, 2004, 11:01pm » J, you are childish, and cannot pull a good comeback out of your... ear... I may not be out, for Tragedy might not agree with MambaduMal, so I am not taking any risks... I know your type of people... You are the type that have the have the "last word" and win the stupid, meaningless staring contest... You are immature and have no concept of thought... It probably hurts for you to think... |
|
|
|
Post by xangelkimzx on Apr 22, 2004 12:57:40 GMT -5
Exactly! I agree with Swans. We all know that Jerome has been rude in the past, and he even admits to it himself. However, Jerome shouldn't be banned. As Swans said, Jerome should realise his previous posts and learn his lesson and move on; maybe a short, temporary punishment would be good, but actually banning him from 667 would be wrong, I think, because he himself has promised not to be rude anymore, and I am sure he will stick this promise, if he really likes 667 so much and wants to say. If you want to know more about how I feel, just read Swans' post(s) for more information. I completely agree with her. And I am trying to be as unbiased as I can, so please everyone stop saying that I shouldn't even be in this argument cuz I chum off Jerome. Yes, I admit I do like him very much, and sometimes I go Over the top, but I am trying and trying to be atleast a little unbiased here.  Thank you. I don't really know what Jerome's punishment should be. Who was it who said he should get some 'limit' (e.g. 6-10 posts a day only) for a few days? I think that. Really, I think the same as Swans: We should just give Jerome another chance, as his behaviour has improved and he's made promises, and just see how it goes. Ife he starts being rude again (though I'm sure he won't -- he really likes 667, like I do) then Tragedy and all other moderators should think up something then. But I really think the poor guy needs just one little chance for now -- please, Tragedy, you don't know how broken down he is at the moment. He really loves 667 and has promised to behave better towards other members, and I am sure he will. Please. I am begging you, give the guy one last chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 22, 2004 13:45:30 GMT -5
Is he really "broken down"? I don't think he's that emotional. Are you JS?
I think the right thing to do would be to ban him for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by SlightlyMad on Apr 22, 2004 13:46:19 GMT -5
No, she's kimia
|
|
Thank you.
