I have made it sticky so we can use it.
Courtroom
Sort:
A new court case is like this:
________________________________________________________________________
NEW CASE! (Member) has violated the following rule(s) and is defending himself.
(Violated Rule(s))
Warning level: (level # from 1-3 (Level 4 cases are debated through messages and not here))
Defense: (Member's defense)
Case ID: (7-digit case ID)
Please respond with the ID.
________________________________________________________________________
The ID will begin with #0000000 for the first case. This helps us identify cases so as not to be confused.
I am now tracking this thread. We don't need #0000000, just #00, as we will probably never have 1000000 cases. However, if you think it looks better, it is OK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will ask for no more comments until a case comes up.
NEW CASE! James8 has violated the following rule(s) and is defending himself.
"James8, if you do not stop putting *comment* in your comments (it's irritating!) you will recieve a level 1 warning (No offensive language allowed)" by Windows-7_
We will not post bad language in the forums or group notes (Anything as bad or worse than the s-word).
Warning level: 1
Defense: First thing first, although I have stop putting comment on my posts AFTER windows7 said it's not ok, he still gave me a warning anyway. "James8 level 1 warning." on16th May 2009, 09:45am by Windows7.
Second thing, why is the word "comment" considered offensive? Is it that we aren't allow to be clear which line is comment and which line is not in a particular post?
Third thing, IF it is proven that a super admin(window-7_) is guilty in wrongly enforcing rules and giving out warning even AFTER violator(James8) have stopped violating, may I sue the super admin in question for abuse of power?
Fourth thing, Windows-7_ said that violating rule about bad language is a level 1 warning. But in the Group Rules post I see it listed as orange, level 2 warning, as quoted above in orange. Shall we revoke Windows-7_ super admin privileges because he/she doesn't know the rules and it's consequences warnings and is enforcing the rules wrongly?
"WARNING: Black Rule! Abuse of power as an admin or a super admin is not allowed in this group and can get you banned immediately. Abuse of power as an admin can include banning a member for no reason, enforcing rules incorrectly, or starting vote chess games with a 10 minute time limit."
Case ID: #00
Please respond with the ID.
Please read all following posts before you vote.
Case ID: #00
First, Windows-7 should NOT be banned from the group or have his admin priviledges suspended, because abuse of admin power is when you give out a warning to somebody for no reason at all, or somehow enforce rules more strictly than they already are for no good reason. Sometimes I go easier on somebody if I think that they did not mean to cause a problem to the group.
Second, the word "comment" is not nearly as bad as the S-word. By "bad language" I am mostly talking about swear words. For example, I would not give somebody a warning if they only used the word "crap" or "poop" because they are not as bad as what I would call offensive.
If anybody thinks that the evidence given is enough to tell that Windows-7 is guilty, the MOST I will give him is a Level 1 warning, and I need 99% proof that he is guilty.
Any group members can vote on this case:
- Comment the letter "Y" for yes (Saying "comment" is more offensive than the S-word).
- Comment the letter "N" for no (Saying "comment" is less offensive than the S-word).
Results (so far):
- Yes: 1 VOTE
- No: 9 VOTES
- Winning: No
Voting will close on Tuesday.
N (first =) )
N
N
N
N
N
But it however is more offensive than for example "Caught you!"
It isn't a comment to me; it's a put-down. By putting *comment* in that context it becomes irritating because you are trying to disguise a put-down as a comment.
Another reason is for James8 putting this in the Admin 3-word game:
owned him 
After...
(The game had went: "Windows 7 owned me. However in a causual game i owned him." For that he put me down with that emotion for that).
That was a big put-down that is the real reason for this case.
N
The chance that yes will win is very little, but we can leave the warning that we have in place now. If yes does win, it can be a level 2 warning.
that was NOT a put down windows7, the thread title is "just for fun" so all the things in it are fake, for fun purposes and have no real meaning to anyone. Plus the title also said "3-word game" it's a game guys.
I am sorry to windows7 if the thing I put in there offended him, the smiley face means that I'm joking. again, I did not mean to offend anyone. If I"m being serious I would not put any faces there. Please vote to see if the above comment stated by windows-7_ is offensive.
by the way, if N wins, I have no warning?
N
absolutley not, faces are just there to liven things up, it can and should be assumed that faces are never meant to harm just to express the emotion felt, since it's hard to by just typing. also, if u don't like him saying *comment*, then it can be ignored, that is self expression, and freedom of speech (first amendment) as long as it doesn't cause a "clear and present danger" (SC court case)
So don't think that faces are meant to insule, if i do =P (stick tounge out) all it means is jokingly or frustated.
thanks for the time
I'm going with James8, I think that Windows-7 is over dramatic about this
MyNames, he is.
I believe that because of the fact that I pointed out his mistakes in the admin count-to-100 game, with the *comment* thing, he took it offensive.
Some people are just more sensitive than others.
And about the "owned him" thing, I have never play a game against Windows7. You can comfirm that by checking my history. So he'd falsely taken it as a put-down.
When someone recieves a warning and begins to protest it, the group will debate it on this special thread.