warning level Options

[*kryogenix*]

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

[*StanleyThePanda*]

Maybe its all your "Nappy headed ho" posts, Don't say you dont know why.
But if you want a thorough explanation, you can PM her.

[*kryogenix*]

i did, but i can't understand why someone would warn someone without justifying it first. that's not behavior I would expect from a mod, that's something i'd expect from a nappy headed ho.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

^ *rolls eyes*
I believe she gave you a verbal warning, for all your spam-y posts. Yet you continued.
Does that not justify your warning?

[*kryogenix*]

spammy posts? everything i posted was relevant to the topic at hand. i'm no nappy headed ho.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

Not all of them were relevant, dear. Good, you PMed her. I, personally, believe that it was justified. You knew you were verbally warned and you knew that if you continued, you would be warned.

But I'm done with this now, Im off to bed.

[*kryogenix*]

You're not people staff, no one cares what you think. I think they were all relevant, even if they did talk about nappy headed hos.

[lostgrl16]

might the fact that you keep repeating "nappy headed hos" in every post trigger anything in your mind?

[*The Markster*]

Lol, I decided to look around his posts, and yeah, that phrase is all I see. And they really aren't relevant to the thread's topic either. I may not be a mod or anyone special, but that should give you a little justice in your warning level raise.

[*Monochrome.*]

Hmm. I belive mods reserve right to warn you without permision after all you were issued a verbal warning and you kept going like a 12 year old cheerleader talking about her day.

And dont you dare disregard kara's Mod position.Shes still a staff member even if she has no jurisdiction in the community center,Her opinion is still very valuble.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

Darn, I'm not the only one to tarnish your record?

James, I really think you know why you were warned. You kept pushing her buttons without any provocation. I realize that you may think it's all very entertaining and such, and that's great. However, she had plenty of justification for warning you. Considering the pictures you have posted lately, you're lucky you haven't been warned before now, quite frankly.

[*kryogenix*]

No, I don't understand why I was warned. There is no justification, the only warning given was that it was racist language, though I don't see how it's racist at all considering it wasn't targeted at any race. Of course, she went along with the warning anyway despite giving a garbage reason and failing to answer any of my questions.

You guys are inconsistent and erratic in your disciplinary procedures and you expect people to just go along with it. The fact of matter is my posts are completely fine and in context of the threads they were posted in. Sorry, I'm not just going to go along with it and there's there's nothing you can do about it to stop me, except getting it right and no, I don't give a shit about my record. If I was more immature, I'd make this much worse than it is right now, but as it is, I'm playing completely within the rules. If you want to take that away from me though, well, then I guess if you won't play by the rules then I won't either.

For now, I'll cease, since my it's obviously not been established that what I'm doing is wrong. Of course, I expect the mod team to learn something from this.

It's the weekend so we should all have some free time. Justify the warning, or apologize for the mistake. Because I'm not going to let it go. There's nothing wrong with saying nappy headed ho the way I did.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

Member Punishments

I. Verbal Warnings

1. Upon a violation of the community guidelines by a member, as determined by a moderator, said moderator will issue the member a verbal warning.
   • 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).
2. All verbal warnings should be recorded in a thread backstage, for the reference of the staff.
   • All moderators are responsible for being aware of recorded verbal warnings and for adjusting subsequent punishments accordingly.
3. Verbal warnings will expire after two weeks, unless previously stated by the moderator responsible for issuing said verbal warning or a member fails to improve behavior, the latter in which case a moderator can raise a member's warning level.

II. Warning Levels

1. If, after a verbal warning has been issued, a member repeats the offence for which they were verbally warned, a member of staff may raise said member's official warning level.
   • Said member must be notified of this increase in warning level by means of a PM.
2. The warning level will be reduced after a period of time deemed appropriate by a staff member, based upon the behavior of the member in question.
   • Members must be notified again by means of a PM when their warning levels are reduced.
3. Upon being issued with a raised warning level, an official member, designer, or promoter will be demoted the status of member.
   • Members are eligible to reapply for official status upon the reduction of their warning level to 0%.

By Laws
If you'd like, forward the PM with the reasoning behind your warning and it'll be looked at and the communication issue(s) will be addressed with the moderator involved.

These are what I believe you have violated:

POINTLESS POSTS
To enhance the experience of these forums, please do not post just for the sake of posts counts. We care more about what you say than how many times you can hit the "add reply" button. This includes repeated posts (even in different threads), and anything unrelevant to the topic at hand.

CONTROVERSY
Think before you post. Everyone is different and everyone has different stances on certain issues. A little tact is never a bad thing. When you have an argument, it's better to post with reasoning justifying your views. Avoid saying things that creates or has the potential of creating controversy.

PERSONAL ATTACKS
Flaming, trolling, member bashing-you name it-will not be tolerated here. If you're making an argument, it's always better to retort with reason and composure. Personal attacks are childish and have no place in these forums.

You INTENTIONALLY egged her on. You know that. You can deny it all you want but I think most people will see that. You repeatedly post pointless threads/responses in the guise of "you just don't get it." That's fine and dandy, but I'll go ahead and quote something from the Lounge forum rules:

POINTLESS THREADS
Random topics that no one will be able to reply to in a productive manner or discuss will be closed. This includes topics like 'I'm bored', "Look at my pics", "Do u love me", topics whose sole intent is to insult someone. These forums are for discussion, not attention seeking.

So if it's clarity you want, perhaps that might help just a little.

By the way, I responded to your request, but got the following:

This message can not be sent because the recipient has their personal messenger disabled or their personal messenger inbox is full.

[*kryogenix*]

I'm not stupid and I take offense that you're treating me like this. I know the rules. What I don't understand is your interpretation of the rules. There's plenty of other topics which have titles that have nothing to do with the first post in them. That makes it a lot more random than my thread. How can you say that no one will be able to reply in a productive manner when it's been open for such a short time and no one has spammed in it. There are plenty of other threads that have been less productive than mine, but were left to remain open. Find a better explanation.

Let's quote the verbal warning.

That's ENOUGH, James. This is your verbal warning. Another one of that same racist remark, and your warning level will raised.

However, I argued that the remark is not in fact racist, which when taken in context to how I used it, it is not. Therefore it should have ended right here, or at least been discussed further, however she just disregarded that and went on warning anyway.

The fact of the matter is, any challenge to staff authority, even when it is within the rules, will be cited by the staff as posts no one wants or as unproductive. I think that the staff would be wise to try to iron out any misunderstandings. Cause I feel that I'm not the only one who has a problem with the way things are run around here.

Hmm, I suppose my box is full, but I don't mind bringing the conversation to public for the time being while I decide which things to delete. It helps keep things transparent in case any other members of the community want to chime in.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

I do not consider you stupid and I apologize if by me reposting rules gives you the impression that I do.

The reasons I listed are reasons I would have given. I should have communicated that more effectively.

However, considering that the man who has now made those words famous is considered to have made racist remarks, why wouldn't that same remark, made by you on several occasions also be considered racist? I don't want to insult your intelligence (or further insult it, I guess since I unwittingly have already) so I won't requote the "Controversy" rule.

It would have been better if a rule that was broken was actually stated in the PM.

Regarding your first paragraph - if that is in regard to the thread I closed, then the answer is no. I did not close it because the title had nothing to do with the thread. Since your box is full, I'll just post my response here:

reopen the krnxswat thread. move it to humor at least, since you guys feel that if you're not interested in something, no one else will be.

I disagree and I'm not going to reopen it. Take it to Mona or Kiera. I'm sorry. I've closed everythread that is member specific. See these two for example:

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173135
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=173111

[*kryogenix*]

The controversy was in the way he used nappy headed hos, not in the phrase itself.

brownsugar made a series of threads in the lounge with the first names of a bunch of the members. I thought it would be ok if it was the same thing. If you want, I'll ask krnxswat if he's offended by it at all, and if he isn't, then there shouldn't be a problem.

The take it to someone else doesn't fly with me. The same thing happened last time I had a problem, you guys pretty much said "well, not my department" and passed the responsibility to someone else.

and haha, those threads are hilarious.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

I'm not trying to pass it on to someone else. I'm just standing firm with my decision. However, if someone higher up feels like that should be overridden, then so beit and I won't be offended.

Again, it wasn't about the topic title. I was clear in my response as to why it was closed.

[lostgrl16]

sorry to butt in duchess, but i personally think you're right. what imus said, didnt matter how or when he said it, it was still taken as racial, and still continue to be so. once in a while someone says it HAHA ok move on, but first of all imus is known to have said many racial remarks that the company didnt do much about and now they have people boycoting outside. i dont think there is any other way of saying that phrase without it be racial, especially when said over and over. the fact that this phrase is also popular right now doesnt make it non-racial either.

[*kryogenix*]

I'm not trying to pass it on to someone else. I'm just standing firm with my decision. However, if someone higher up feels like that should be overridden, then so beit and I won't be offended.

Again, it wasn't about the topic title. I was clear in my response as to why it was closed.

And I was clear that I question doing something when you don't know that it won't produce anything productive.

I love the logic here to. "Well I was the one who did the act in question, but I'm sure my superior can explain my own actions for me." Admit it, you're just waiting until I get bored of questioning.

Can you defend your call for a moratorium on nappy headed hos without trying to dodge it by sending me to someone else or copypastaing a wall of text for me?

sorry to butt in duchess, but i personally think you're right. what imus said, didnt matter how or when he said it, it was still taken as racial, and still continue to be so. once in a while someone says it HAHA ok move on, but first of all imus is known to have said many racial remarks that the company didnt do much about and now they have people boycoting outside. i dont think there is any other way of saying that phrase without it be racial, especially when said over and over. the fact that this phrase is also popular right now doesnt make it non-racial either.

fine then, I take your comment as racist and now I demand you apologize. see what happens when we punish people based on arbitrary perceptions?

another thing, the user Hakuna Matata was the one who raised my warning level. If anything, that username is more racist than mine, since Matata is used as a racial slur to call african people monkeys. However, my use of nappy headed hos is not directed at any race.

[lostgrl16]

i havnt made any racial statement in my post at all, so i dont know how you came to that conclusion.

"hakuna matata" is used in a disney movie meaning no worries, if she only used one word maybe thats a good argument but she used the whole phrase. your phrase however is automatically assumed to be aimed toward african americans

[*kryogenix*]

i havnt made any racial statement in my post at all, so i dont know how you came to that conclusion.

"hakuna matata" is used in a disney movie meaning no worries, if she only used one word maybe thats a good argument but she used the whole phrase. your phrase however is automatically assumed to be aimed toward african americans

then you're racist because you think that only african americans have nappy hair.

RACIST RACIST.

[lostgrl16]

then please correct me if im wrong, sorry for the assumption

[*kryogenix*]

then please correct me if im wrong, sorry for the assumption

So now we know what the problem is, people assuming they know the meaning of my posts. Let's not assume next time, both you and the mods.

[*The Markster*]

Okay, so apparently your posts, kryogenix, have annoyed some people and even have the potential to [racially] offend them. Seeing all your posts (excluding the ones you posted in this topic), the majority of your recent posts have the words "nappy," "hair," and "ho"; some posts not having the word "ho." So if you would try to look at the situation in our view (yes, I've tried putting myself in your perspective), you would see that your posts are really kind of repetitive.

As for CB (no offense ), I think there should be a rule about the pictures that members can post, if there's not one yet. Cause I was looking through his posts, and I believe a saw a cropped picture of a penis. I know that may be very mature of him to talk about that smegma stuff in a mature way, but not all of the CB members are mature in seeing that.

[*kryogenix*]

congratulations on your promotion duchess of dork, now you can answer my questions without referring me up.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

This is very true. Just give a few minutes to absorb.

Wanted to add this really quick -

I realize that you may not be a racist. I think the problem is that you are quoting someone (repeatedly) with a phrase that was offensive enough (and considered racist enough) to get someone in the public eye fired. With that being said, I'm not at all surprised that people would interpret your remark as such.

I do agree that the manner in which you were warned could have been communicated more effectively.

Regarding your "krnxswat." threads - I really think you could have just posted that in the "Who You Miss from cB and Why" thread. That's why it seems pointless.

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and I honestly (to go back to an earlier response) do not think you're stupid. Repeating rules shouldn't be interpreted as such.

What would you like to see happen that could make this Feedback productive? I'm willing to listen.

[*StanleyThePanda*]

Sorry to just jump back in here with this, but James.. some of them WERE spam.
Maybe not all, but atleast some.
And you know what, if people dont care what I think.. Too bad, 'cause I have the right to state my opinion anyway.

Spam:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...t&p=2528664
-That has NOTHING to do with the way the pose.. at all.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...p;#entry2528657
- How does that have ANY relevance to the topic at hand?

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...p;#entry2528628
-Not a post, but spam nonetheless.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...p;#entry2528639
-Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. How is that a Romantic Cliche?

Shall I continue?
I think that is enough proof. And again, I think you know why you were warned.
And many have tried explaining it to you. You got warned, and the only one who doesnt see it as justified is you. It was "pointless posts", "controversy", and "personal attacks".
You know this, so.. drop it?

[*kryogenix*]

This is very true. Just give a few minutes to absorb.

Wanted to add this really quick -

I realize that you may not be a racist. I think the problem is that you are quoting someone (repeatedly) with a phrase that was offensive enough (and considered racist enough) to get someone in the public eye fired. With that being said, I'm not at all surprised that people would interpret your remark as such.

It's not my problem people are oversensitive.

I do agree that the manner in which you were warned could have been communicated more effectively.

Regarding your "krnxswat." threads - I really think you could have just posted that in the "Who You Miss from cB and Why" thread. That's why it seems pointless.

Fair point, but I doubt that's why I got warned (thought I wasn't pointed towards that thread when it was closed).

I'm willing to hear what you have to say and I honestly (to go back to an earlier response) do not think you're stupid. Repeating rules shouldn't be interpreted as such.

What would you like to see happen that could make this Feedback productive? I'm willing to listen.

I want Hakuna Matata in here to apologize or to explain why she went ahead and warned me without giving a good reason first.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...t&p=2528664
-That has NOTHING to do with the way the pose.. at all.

Someone else mentioned the people on myspace, I was just conveying my agreement.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...t&p=2528664
-That has NOTHING to do with the way the pose.. at all.

Someone asked about Seon Ho, I said what I thought he was up to these days.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...p;#entry2528628
-Not a post, but spam nonetheless.

Entertaining the speculation about Seon Ho's new hairstyle.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...p;#entry2528639
-Again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. How is that a Romantic Cliche?

You ever watch the Disney Channel?

I don't think people had a problem with my post. My posts did not change the threads into huge spam fests. That poo thread is more pointless than my posts.

lol using the bandwagon argument. You can do better than that.

No, I'm not dropping it until I get an apology or a valid explanation.

[HakunaMatata]

I want Hakuna Matata in here to apologize or to explain why she went ahead and warned me without giving a good reason first.

No, I'm not dropping it until I get an apology or a valid explanation.

An explanation? Sure.

It is my fault for not giving that good reason first. You're right on that point, I should've been much more clear when verbally warning and warning you.

However, I did not make a mistake when warning you. Very few of your "nappy headed ho" posts were at all relevent. Most of them were had nothing or very little to do with the topic at hand, thus qualifying them as pointless posts:

POINTLESS POSTS
To enhance the experience of these forums, please do not post just for the sake of posts counts. We care more about what you say than how many times you can hit the "add reply" button. This includes repeated posts (even in different threads), and anything unrelevant to the topic at hand.

The Seon Ho topics you made were also pointless and unnecessary.

It's not my problem people are oversensitive.

It's not, but why does it take an over-sensitive person to be offended by the words "nappy headed hos"? Why do you think Imus was fired? Those words are offensive, even if they weren't directed at a single race.

[*kryogenix*]

It is my fault for not giving that good reason first. You're right on that point, I should've been much more clear when verbally warning and warning you.

Yeah you really dropped the ball on that one.

However, I did not make a mistake when warning you. Very few of your "nappy headed ho" posts were at all relevent. Most of them were had nothing or very little to do with the topic at hand, thus qualifying them as pointless posts

O RLY? Quote them and I'll explain them.

It's not, but why does it take an over-sensitive person to be offended by the words "nappy headed hos"? Why do you think Imus was fired? Those words are offensive, even if they weren't directed at a single race.

Imus was fired because his sponsors bailed. Why do you think Howard Stern doesn't get fired even though he says stuff ten times as worse?

If you want to say it's offensive, then close all hip hop topics pertaining to songs that contain offensive lyrics.

[*kryogenix*]

bump

[*kryogenix*]

really i wanna know.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

It's not my problem people are oversensitive.

I know it's not your problem, but the Controversy Rule exists for a reason. Sure, it's unfortunate that some people may get offended when no harm was intended, but we need to at least make an attempt at being somewhat considerate. The first time you said something, fine, you didn't know. But the second, third, fourth and so on, you did know. And by intentionally continuing to say something that you knew would upset people, you are not only breaking the Controversy Rule, you're breaking the Personal Attacks Rule.

Fair point, but I doubt that's why I got warned (thought I wasn't pointed towards that thread when it was closed).

Actually it is. However, you are right. I did not reference the link the first time. I did, however, link it the second time I closed the thread.

PS - I'm sorry to keep linking rules. As a disclaimer, I'm not insulting your intelligence, it's just easier for me to organize my thoughts in posts that way.

[*kryogenix*]

I know it's not your problem, but the Controversy Rule exists for a reason. Sure, it's unfortunate that some people may get offended when no harm was intended, but we need to at least make an attempt at being somewhat considerate. The first time you said something, fine, you didn't know. But the second, third, fourth and so on, you did know. And by intentionally continuing to say something that you knew would upset people, you are not only breaking the Controversy Rule, you're breaking the Personal Attacks Rule.

Very few people had a problem with it. Show me in the topics where pages and pages of people were complaining like they do in other topics that are closed due to controversy.

Go look in debate, people said much more offensive things back when I posted there and no one was warned, but then again, that's when we had a competent moderating team and a great community back then.

Actually it is. However, you are right. I did not reference the link the first time. I did, however, link it the second time I closed the thread.

PS - I'm sorry to keep linking rules. As a disclaimer, I'm not insulting your intelligence, it's just easier for me to organize my thoughts in posts that way.

So it shouldn't have been held against me, since I didn't make another krnxswat thread after the fact.

I'm still offended and I demand you stop telling me what the rules are. I don't want you to start controversy ya know.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

Well, I don't recall saying more than a few people or otherwise. I said that some people were offended. Either way, you wanted a response and I obliged you with one.

Sorry that you feel that the moderators are incompetent and that the community is no longer great.

You weren't warned for those threads I closed, I merely closed them. If you'd like I can edit the post in which I closed the first thread. I'd rather leave it intact though, since essentially the link should have been posted and lesson learned, example made.

"Demanding" aside, if I think that you have broken a rule, I will site the rule that I believe you have broken. I didn't post the rules verbatim in my most recent response, I linked them. I'm not sure why you are offended by that. But since you are, it'll cease (which would have happened anyway, since for my part, there's nothing more I can say other than that which I have said).

We disagree, and that is all there is to it.

[*kryogenix*]

Well, I don't recall saying more than a few people or otherwise. I said that some people were offended. Either way, you wanted a response and I obliged you with one.

Oh, so now it only takes a few people to get offended before something is deemed warn-worthy?

Sorry that you feel that the moderators are incompetent and that the community is no longer great.

You're assuming again.

You weren't warned for those threads I closed, I merely closed them. If you'd like I can edit the post in which I closed the first thread. I'd rather leave it intact though, since essentially the link should have been posted and lesson learned, example made.

My verbal warning was for racism. But my posts weren't racist, so why did it progress further without clarifying with me first?

"Demanding" aside, if I think that you have broken a rule, I will site the rule that I believe you have broken. I didn't post the rules verbatim in my most recent response, I linked them. I'm not sure why you are offended by that. But since you are, it'll cease (which would have happened anyway, since for my part, there's nothing more I can say other than that which I have said).

Good, cause I would have had to report your posts if you continued.

We disagree, and that is all there is to it.

So why did you guys have to make it a big deal?

[HakunaMatata]

James, I've already explained that I did not give enough warning nor was I clear enough on why you were warned. However, I've now explained why you were warned in earlier posts. Why have the explanations given thus far not count as "valid"? What exactly more do you want?

[*kryogenix*]

I'm disputing my guilt based on arbitrary interpretation of the rules.

[HakunaMatata]

Indeed you are, and out of that disputing you are hoping to achieve...?

[*kryogenix*]

Restoration of my warning level and official member status.

[HakunaMatata]

You repeatedly broke a rule, and you were thus warned and demoted. I understand that you don't believe that you broke a rule at all, but I stand firm that the proper punishment was enforced. Unfortunately, you cannot be convinced as such, and there's not much I can do about it.

As you know, good behavior will lower your warning level. Just two weeks. Two weeks of rule-abiding, contributory behavior and you'll be able to apply for official membership again.

[*kryogenix*]

You repeatedly broke a rule, and you were thus warned and demoted. I understand that you don't believe that you broke a rule at all, but I stand firm that the proper punishment was enforced. Unfortunately, you cannot be convinced as such, and there's not much I can do about it.

As you know, good behavior will lower your warning level. Just two weeks. Two weeks of rule-abiding, contributory behavior and you'll be able to apply for official membership again.

And yet you guys can't demonstrate where I disrupted a topic because of my posts.

[Simba]

Ok, James.

Since the reason for your warning here seems to be because you may have offended a few people, would you rather see the people who felt offended from your statements testify here?

[*kryogenix*]

I don't care if they were offended. That's their problem. Anyone can get offended over anything.

I want Hakuna Matata to explain herself instead of dodging this.

[Simba]

What else does Kaycee need to say for herself? She's admitted that she should have provided more details when initially warning you, but it's been established here that you were warned specifically for the Controversy rule which supposedly broke into the Personal Attacks rule.

So actually, the people being offended seems quite your problem.

[*kryogenix*]

So then why was I warned for the controversy rule when the verbal warning applied to the racism?

[Simba]

Well supposedly the phrase "nappy headed hos" has recently become controversial because of Don Imus's use (during a racially charged discussion) of "nappy headed hos" referring to the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

[*kryogenix*]

Except in the context I used it, it was not racist.

[Simba]

But because of recent controversy, it has been considered racist.

I see what you're saying though; if this happened before Imus used the phrase, I bet you wouldn't even have gotten warned.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

Did that particular comment of Imus' stir up Controversy? Yes, or no? Honestly now. I won't start quoting rules again since a) you know them and b) you don't care if you offend people or not. You've even said that it isn't your problem.

You keep going from one thing to another. First you say you that it isn't your problem if people are sensitive, then you demand proof?

Please. You're a smart enough guy. You knew very well what you were doing. You just didn't care. You didn't think anyone would warn you. I don't know why you feel exempt from this.

Your warning level isn't going to get lowered. I'm sorry, but deal with it. Wait two weeks.

You've said your piece (again and again) here and you've made your complaint in the Mod Feedback thread.

I support Kaycee in her warning. I did, however, tell her that she should be more clear next time when she warns.

If it makes you feel better to keep this alive, then so beit. You're not doing it for the Community, you're doing it for yourself. You've said yourself, the community was great "back then."

By the way:

You're assuming again.

Go look in debate, people said much more offensive things back when I posted there and no one was warned, but then again, that's when we had a competent moderating team and a great community back then.

Assuming am I?

[*kryogenix*]

Did that particular comment of Imus' stir up Controversy? Yes, or no? Honestly now. I won't start quoting rules again since a) you know them and b) you don't care if you offend people or not. You've even said that it isn't your problem.

You keep going from one thing to another. First you say you that it isn't your problem if people are sensitive, then you demand proof?

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

Please. You're a smart enough guy. You knew very well what you were doing. You just didn't care. You didn't think anyone would warn you. I don't know why you feel exempt from this.

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

Your warning level isn't going to get lowered. I'm sorry, but deal with it. Wait two weeks.

You've said your piece (again and again) here and you've made your complaint in the Mod Feedback thread.

I support Kaycee in her warning. I did, however, tell her that should be more clear next time when she warns.

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.

If it makes you feel better to keep this alive, then so beit. You're not doing it for the Community, you're doing it for yourself. You've said yourself, the community was great "back then."

Now what did I tell you about assumptions.

Oh that's right:

By the way:
Assuming am I?

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

[*Duchess of Dork*]

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

:) Thank you.

[*kryogenix*]

:) Thank you.

Sarcasm detection failed.

[*Duchess of Dork*]

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

[*kryogenix*]

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.

[Simba]

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?

[HakunaMatata]

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.

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

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.

Copout!

[Simba]

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.

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?

[*kryogenix*]

lol backstage.

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

[Simba]

Actually, it appears you're disregarding my posts.

[*kryogenix*]

so are we going around in circles?

[Simba]

It would appear so.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

[*Podomaht*]

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.

[Simba]

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

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?

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

2. Explain why the verbal warning was held against me even when it was inadequate by your own admission.

You have a point here.

Official createBlog By-Laws on verbal warnings:

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).

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.

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

4. Explain why Duchess of Dork can read my mind. Seriously, I want to take whatever classes she took.

Moms can read minds. It's amazing.

[*kryogenix*]

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

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

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

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

Moms can read minds. It's amazing.

How do I become a mom?

[*Podomaht*]

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:[/b]
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.

your signature is obnoxiously big. attention whore, much?

[*kryogenix*]

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

[*Podomaht*]

:O

[Simba]

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

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.

How do I become a mom?

Surgery.

[*Podomaht*]

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.

[Simba]

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?

[*Podomaht*]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

hey can you get them in backstage and tell them to post here?

[*kryogenix*]

I also must be restored to official member status.

[*mona lisa*]

You should really clear your inbox now.

I also must be restored to official member status.

Shall I take that as you applying to be an Official Member?

Sorry, I just don't want to assume anything. :)

[*Duchess of Dork*]

I took care of it, Mon. Since it shouldn't have been revoked in the first place.

Anything else?

[*kryogenix*]

Grovel at my feet. All of you.

[Simba]

. . .

Ok, let's close this up right about now.

[*kryogenix*]

IBTL