|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 17:49:50 GMT -5
Annabelle: In the Racism thread, Kimia, you have said how much she like Jerome and why you think he is great. That isn't scarcely friends, is it? And when we asked why, she said how when Jerome talks to her, he is very nice and polite and kind. Now, it could be IM or PMs , but if she said that Jerome was really nice outside of that thread (s), she must know him more, not scarcely. Is Annabelle your sister? Okay... She said she likes me because I "speak reality" and "tell the truth"... As we all already know, Kimia is from England and I from Pennsylvania... We have talked a few times through PM, but I told her it would not be right to keep on chatting while she on the jury... Ask her... Side Note: You can quote as many times as you want... Hit the "Quote" button... When it takes you to the "Reply" page, copy it, paste it to notepad, go and quote something else, and underneath that, click paste... |
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 21, 2004 17:55:05 GMT -5
Please do not take J to trial! She is so nice and is actually very mature... Living with 5 siblings, I have never seen anyone so quick to admit their wrong-doing... However, what her and swans are saying is true... It is not fair I am the only one being tried... Hold up! Tragedy, I at no time mean any disrespect, but that is just unjust! Without anyone even asking with any interest, you just said about the report I made on J, but you cannot tell all the people who reported me (acception for Kobo)... Yeah. I can't tell all the people who reported you because I can't remember them right now. Just Kobolos, because it's most recent. I'll keep thinking though. I thought everyone knew you reported J in the first place. And of course I won't take J to trial. I was considering it, but... no. I'm starting to see I should maybe just get rid of the court system and ban people when I feel it's right. I mean it's obviously not working out here. |
|
|
|
Post by JeromeSqualor on Apr 21, 2004 17:57:49 GMT -5
I think the jury syste should be chosen more justly... Like... Randomly... Not just the first 5 to ask... What if i had turned out that they all hated my guts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 21, 2004 18:04:40 GMT -5
I think the jury syste should be chosen more justly... Like... Randomly... Not just the first 5 to ask... What if i had turned out that they all hated my guts? That's a good point. I think instead we should just have a poll. That would be sort of... a whole forum thing. Might be more fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 18:07:11 GMT -5
Dupin's right, in any case Kimia really shouldn't be on the jury. If the fact that Jerome doesn't want her kicked off of it isn't proof enough in itself, look here: Actually, Jerome has not insulted that many people. You are sounding like Jerome does insults for a hobby, well, he doesn't. If you get to know Jerome, like I do, he is a very nice person actually. I know he seems all arguey and tough, but underneath it all he's a real nice/kind person. And when he does insults, he only does it for protection, like all humans do. He doesn't just suddenly come and insult someone one day, he only insults people when they insult him. I know sometimes he makes mistakes, but he doesn't mean to. Seriously. He so shouldn't be banned from 667... Than you, Kimia... You are a truly loyal friend... Swans is completely right. Wow, I adore that person so much. Go Swans, and Go Jerome... ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm sure you'll make it Impartial? Unbiased? C'mon, letting Kimia on the jury would be like letting Sam on the jury. You shouldn't even be constesting this. |
|
|
|
Post by ŘỠßëřŦ on Apr 21, 2004 18:07:25 GMT -5
No one ever votes in polls like that. i.e in the awards.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 21, 2004 18:11:10 GMT -5
No one ever votes in polls like that. i.e in the awards. Oh, fine then. What other choices do we have? |
|
|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 18:13:53 GMT -5
I disagree with BRob, the awards were just trumped up by a few members and this already has a considerable following. I think that load of people would vote. Look how many voted in the thread about whether he's a racist.
This thing is a huge hassle already, with tons of arguing. I'd say an hour, or two hours, or a day of people arguing on each side, then put the poll up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermedy on Apr 21, 2004 18:21:15 GMT -5
I disagree with BRob, the awards were just trumped up by a few members and this already has a considerable following. I think that load of people would vote. Look how many voted in the thread about whether he's a racist. This thing is a huge hassle already, with tons of arguing. I'd say an hour, or two hours, or a day of people arguing on each side, then put the poll up. Meh... I realized making a poll would be like a popularity contest. And I realized a jury will never work because there is always bias. We all have opinions of each other. And don't deny it. If you don't have an opinion about someone, it's because you don't know the person, and all of our distinguished members know each other. So here's the question: Did JeromeSqualor break rules more than 3 times after a warning? If yes, then he will be punished. If no, then he's welcome on 667. It's not complicated, now that I think about it. There are no other questions. I made the rules. The rule is that if you break any of the decrees more than 3 timesyou get punished. There is no need for opinions, or juries. There is no need for swans' and Kobolos' legal... talk of Bills of Rights and "hammering out" new rules. There's no need for Kimia to talk about what a great guy JeromeSqualor is, and there is no need for JeromeSqualor to be talking about what a wonderful person J is, or how she has 5 siblings. There is no need for any of you to know who complained to me, and there's no need for this topic to go on for 9 pages. Did JeromeSqualor break one of the decrees 3 times after a warning? |
|
|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 18:37:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 18:52:16 GMT -5
I suppose that he's broken rule #3 about a 500 times, rule #2 also.
|
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Apr 21, 2004 18:54:05 GMT -5
Impartial? Unbiased? C'mon, letting Kimia on the jury would be like letting Sam on the jury. You shouldn't even be constesting this. :(not quite true... |
|
|
|
Post by Pester, Rumormonger on Apr 21, 2004 18:57:46 GMT -5
My apologies, Sam. I've been picking on you alot lately.
Please don't report me.
|
|
Antenora
Detriment Deleter 
Fiendish Philologist
Put down that harpoon gun, in the name of these wonderful birds!
Posts: 15,891 
Likes: 113
|
Post by Antenora on Apr 21, 2004 19:02:12 GMT -5
Ever seen the film "Twelve Angry Men"? It's about a jury trying to decide if a man is guilty of murder, and only one member says that he's not. The jurymen get into some very strange arguments over seemingly arbitrary points. Although our opinions on Jerome's potential banishment are more evenly divided, some of us are acting like twelve(or more) angry forum members. When will this get down to voting?
If we decide to punish Jerome in some way, I don't think he should be banned. Suspended, maybe. Perhaps his offending posts should be deleted, but nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Apr 21, 2004 19:30:03 GMT -5
My apologies, Sam. I've been picking on you alot lately. Please don't report me. it's ok... i just meant that although i dislike Jerome i might not nessesarily want him banned... i dunno... |
|
