In reply to:
It's not that I'd leave out of spite or because I don't get my own way - which is what it sounds like when you put it like that.
In the name of all fairness, that has been the impression I've got as well. You're using the fact that you're an excellent poster as a weapon to get an inferior poster evicted from the boards.
In reply to:
As for dogz, this is not the first time he's had a daily limit imposed upon him, exceeded it and been let off by the mods. The degree of tolerance afforded him makes one wonder if they've actually secretly decided to keep him around (while paying lip service to the complaints of those who moan about him).
In the name of all fairness, as a mod I don't think that posting an excessive amount (I'd say he isn't flooding the boards, which would be a different case altogether) isn't sufficient grounds for banning.
Yes, I know the following argument will be that he was banned for that before. But then, as th0mas noted, before his first ban Dogz was not only posting uncontrollably but also being aggressive towards other posters. However, Ohro made a decision on this which she felt is right and I'm backing her up.
Additionally, as a poster, not as a mod, I feel that the posting limits imposed on Dogz are ridiculous because we know he can't hold them for a long time. It's very handy, to introduce a rule we know he will break so that there will be an excuse to ban him even though he didn't actually break any (previous existing) rules.
In reply to:
If Dogz is allowed 5 in the coffee shop and carte blanche elsewhere that means he's actually being rewarded for going over his limit!
Not really, we'd be just further refining his restrictions, which might have taken place even if he did not break the restriction.
"Are we making any progress?"
"None whatever," said Hercule Poirot. "That is interesting." Edited by K on 08/16/06 07:17 AM (server time).
|
No it isn't, but you're refusing to be reasonable
