Krista Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 WHAT? am I not sure of what? I wanna help you, but I've got to understand you first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimisback Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 WHAT?am I not sure of what? I wanna help you, but I've got to understand you first. Who are you talking to? We have to understand you first. Please connect the dots. You have marched right? You know Dots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krista Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 We do not discuss individuals' suspensions in public. If you have a question, PM Rich, since he's the one who makes the call on said actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BariEuph Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 krista... i've read his post a few times now and i can't find where he clarified the answers to these questions. so what's changed is the enforcement? can we get a clear explanation of this new enforcement please?why bring it up? why the hullaballoo? presumably because the rules are being changed. why are the rules being changed? what was wrong previously? he said "when the problem gets out-of-hand - we are forced to increase the level of enforcement." was this supposed to mean that the problem DID get out of hand? cuz he said "when" it gets out of hand, implying it hadn't gotten there, so why the post? okay then.... so then he says "Minor infractions would warrant the member being contacted and reminded of the policy ..... major or repeated infractions would result in a suspension being given - on an increasing scale from 3 days to a complete ban, after multiple offenses." infractions WOULD... that language to me implies that there's a chance for that to be an action that might be taken -- it's not concrete language. it "would" result, if not for other factors such as blah blah blah etc... infractions WILL warrant, to me is much more clear. what is the difference between this and how it used to be? nothing i read stated something that resembled a warranting for the change. what defines regular practice? so much of this relies on personal interpretation. if this is going to be a permanent addition to dcp, i'd hope it would be more concrete. the authors of the policies should know as well as anyone people will look for loopholes here. yes, there's admitted ambiguity.... knowing that ambiguity is there though, why make this a huge news flash issue? why not just address the few posters this is intended to keep in check? and krista, these aren't questions for you. they're questions for john. john, please go through my posts and answer each phrase ending in a question mark with concise clear answers, not just things like "i answered that already," because if you did, i'm obviously missing it, so please try to explain it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimisback Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 We do not discuss individuals' suspensions in public. If you have a question, PM Rich, since he's the one who makes the call on said actions. Yes and?????????? Who did ask about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triplefunk Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Who are you talking to? We have to understand you first. Please connect the dots. You have marched right? You know Dots. dude, I'm going to have to go with Krista on this. I mean I know you are really mad about being banned about, IMO, a stupid reason. But making statements like above that make no sense on the validity of the situation is uncalled for. What do dots have to do with you complaining about being banned for saying twit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpt43 Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 I kindof thought Jim was joking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galen Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 This is where consistency in enforcing the guidelines comes into play.Letting the filters catch words and no action being taken was always the case. Yes, people who launched into tirades of obscenities were spoken to, but I can, for all the time I was an FSTM, count on 1 hand the people who received more than a "hey, tone it down." So here comes the admin, saying that this will change, or heads are gonna roll. How do you think people are going to react??? The policy as it was before today was working just fine. Why mess with something when it wasn't broke??? Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimisback Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 dude, I'm going to have to go with Krista on this. I mean I know you are really mad about being banned about, IMO, a stupid reason. But making statements like above that make no sense on the validity of the situation is uncalled for. What do dots have to do with you complaining about being banned for saying twit? Well for one thing, it is stupid. The Dots are just a refernce to Corps. It is just a simple thought. No big deal. Kind of like twit. No big deal but it got me banned. And yes, I am angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts