some nappy headed ho raised my warning level without explaining why. i don't know what i'm doing wrong.

It's not my problem, but if you're citing it, burden of proof is on you.



No, I expected someone to warn me so I could make a big deal about it.



Fine, then you'll have to deal with me, but you guys seem like you're avoiding me, especially Hakuna Matata who I feel has not adequately explained why she went ahead anyway even though we agree that she was wrong.



Now what did I tell you about assumptions.

Oh that's right:



I'm sorry that I wished to praise the previous mods and quality of the community.

:) Thank you.

Sarcasm detection failed.

Nothing sarcastic about it. I am done with this, since you wanted to make a big deal and that has been accomplished.

Oh so now you claim to know when I'm being sarcastic or not?

I try to solve this problem with words, but you refuse to answer. Fine if you want me to be a problem, I'll be a problem.

Either way, it's not like we should just ignore this.

At this point, what disputes do you still have with the reason for your warning, James?

For the record, Hakuna Matata "ignoring" this issue is her way of dropping it. She's said everything she's needed to say, if that doesn't seem adequate to James, then okay.

He wants Kaycee to explain why she did it.

She did it because she thought you were in the wrong and was under the impression that she had given you enough warning with the verbal warning and after the fact now sees her mistake. She went ahead with it because she thought that would be enough of a precursor to an actual warning. That's why. Now it's done, go home.

I dunno, ask Duchess of Dork since she can read my mind or something.

I'm sorry, she didn't explain enough, which was why it continued. Now that it's been explained, it's stopped. But the warning should not have taken place because it wasn't established with me properly.



Copout!

I don't think if any given person just doesn't find the reason for his/her warning adequate, it should simply be dropped.

Just finish. The remaining conflict appears to be whether or not James should be warned because not enough detail was given to him.

In my own opinion, the reason for the warning has been explained and James should be warned for whatever the reason was. The fact that you still did what you did, James, still exists, so why would you be let off the hook for it?

lol backstage.

hmm it's awfully quiet here, i wonder where everyone went.

Actually, it appears you're disregarding my posts.

so are we going around in circles?

It would appear so.

1. Explain why you went ahead with warning me for spam, when the warning given was for racism, but for some reason, now you're discussing controversy. you guys changed your story how many times now?
2. Explain why the verbal warning was held against me even when it was inadequate by your own admission.
3. Explain why it is such a big problem when there was no disruption of the topics at hand and it was used in context.
4. Explain why Duchess of Dork can read my mind. Seriously, I want to take whatever classes she took.

wow, we can officially say duchess is a douche.

btw, i'm at 10% warning level, bitches! beat that, kryo.


also.


Throw some D's on that bitch.

I'm assuming you would want to be hearing this from Kaycee, rather, but I'll throw in my two cents.

This is probably something Kaycee herself should answer, not for me to speculate on.

You have a point here.

Official createBlog By-Laws on verbal warnings:

QUOTE

This verbal warning must be clearly stated, including the name of the member to whom it is being issued and the specific offence, both in the thread in question and by means of a personal message (PM).

Supposedly, you were violating the Controversy guideline. Whether you actually offended anyone or not, I can't say.

Moms can read minds. It's amazing.

Yes, she should answer them, but I'll show you yet.



So can you clarify this rule a little further? Because controversial is rather arbitrary. A problem is only what you make of it.



How do I become a mom?

your signature is obnoxiously big. attention whore, much?

podo, stop, they'll use you as an excuse and say you were distracting them from answering my questions.

:O

I suppose they found "nappy headed hos" to be controversial and offensive (and because of what the phrase is controversial for, it becomes racist). Why exactly? I suppose they'll have to say so themselves.
Surgery.

So I guess you're the type that thinks that " black people " is politically incorrect and that the proper term for that general race of people is " African-American? "

Or so I guess you see a TV show that only has white people and you call the show racist for not mixing races together to create one big melting pot?


Wow, you're in the end more racist than Kryo is.

I was only stating what other people think of the phrase for the sake of the matter.

Don't assume things. Do you think you read my mind as well?

Evidently you're reading minds as from what you're saying, everyone thinks nappy-headed ho's is offending.

Go untwist your panties.