wtf?

[Pooky]

ghosts explanation, worded similarly in your detention thread, "was browsing one night and I went to a number of threads where Fried was flaming other members, complaining to no end, and then bitching about how things were done on this site. I got pissed so I temporarily took away his posting privs, because giving him another warning would result in a one month stay in DETENTION. I intend to let him out soon, just that I put him there because I found his (perhaps temporary) behavior unacceptable."

If that was in my detention thread, I got removed from it before I ever saw it. Thanks for showing.

[Rob Oplawar]

Quit derailing my thread with your personal argument. I stated a long time ago that this thread isn't about that.

[n00b1n8R]

the argument was over (if you wanted to call it an argument) >__>

[p0lar_bear]

This thread is over. I'm locking it.

If another admin wishes to contribute something, they can.

[jcap]

With the way the original warning system that was put in place when the forum first started up, it was almost impossible to get a member banned. This was partially due to the fact that many chances were given before a ban occurred, but even when that time came it worked only half of the time (if that). The "number of chances" (points and infractions) were intended to be so that someone who constantly screws up accumulates points fast and gets banned, while someone who has been around for much longer may screw up every once in a while, but wouldn't find themselves banned over something stupid. Unfortunately, this didn't work. It didn't work mostly because the things people were screwing up with were either too minor to land a finger on with an infraction, or the point values to warrant a ban were too little.

When I revamped the forum at the beginning of the summer, we were working on redoing the infractions as well. They were left neglected for the most part as the summer went on because it's terrible to stay locked inside all day on a beautiful, but then at the end of the summer they were put in place after p0lar gave a huge jump-start. These were much better structured and a lot more "open". They took away the key factor there was before with not knowing what to warn someone about. Since that update, A LOT more infractions have been given out for what they should; they just haven't been very strict. The problem with being strict is someone could be joking, and then another could take it serious and feel offended. If it is an obvious joke to one, but someone else feels it is offensive, then do you give them an infraction or not? Even further, do you give someone an infraction for something that was greatly provoked by another member?

I know I am not perfect, and I think I can speak for everyone when I say that. However, I absolutely cannot take the blame for this sites "shortcomings". I can agree that I am part of the issue, but you and everyone else can't deny either that you are part of the problem as well. The perfectly valid "excuses" explain clearly that we are accountable for some problems. None of them are supposed to pass the blame since they are directly related to us, but to give a proper REASON for why.

As stated before, Emmzee's issue was a complete accident. That's handled now (unfortunately, in way more time than it should have taken) and is a dead issue. Agamemnon is a situation unique of its own. Given the way it has been handled as of now, it doesn't look like his account will be seen active on this forum again. If he wishes to slip under the radar and come back under another identity, I wouldn't say he isn't welcome.