Debate #1 for Moderator Election
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Debate #1 for Moderator Election |
|---|---|
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 08:02
Profile
Homepage
While pretty speeches are fun, being a good debater does not necessarily make a good moderator. Moderators have to make daily decisions on how to respond to certain posts. This thread will give moderator candidates a chance to show how they would respond to some real posts from General forum. Please avoid arguing with each other in this thread and focus on your responses to the following posts: 1. Topic: "Full vershin keys" First post: quote:2. Topic: "Your gift or talent" One of the posts: quote:3. Topic: "Post A Compliment to The Poster Above U" First post: quote: -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 08:26
Profile
Please note that the examples given were extreme circumstances rather than the average posts. Also note I was the first to respond. 1. Topic: "Full vershin keys" First post: "Hello Hay i wus wonderin if enybodie wus willen to tell me there key to get into full vershin" Please do not ask for pirated software on the company site. *Requesting free registration codes does unfortunately merit a ban, as said by Drakey; Therefore the topic would be locked and the incident would be reported* ----------------------------------------------- 2. Topic: "Your gift or talent" One of the posts: "You do realize that your skin color and genitalia (shriveled though they be) are more important in the long run, right? But hey, who am I to stick the dong of communism into your wet dream of meritocracy." TM, please be considerate of the other members. *After a couple warnings Drakey would be informed* --------------------------------------------------- 3. Topic: "Post A Compliment to The Poster Above U" First post: "..." Posting games are bad. *These are often locked* Edit: Elaborated. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 08:46: Message edited by: Dolphin. ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 09:00
Profile
Homepage
Similar to Dolphin. 1. Post to explain that a ban is imminent and he should e-mail Drakey if he wants to continue posting here and just made a mistake. Move the topic to the Mod Board, thereby alerting Drakey and taking the business out of public sight. 2. Post a warning in the topic that if the offender keeps this up, he'll get banned, and post on the Mod Board to alert Drakey. 3. Post to explain that posting games should be taken to a one of SW's spin-off boards and lock. If the one who posted it is a repeat offender, possibly post on the Mod Board. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 09:50
Profile
Homepage
"Hello Hay i wus wonderin if enybodie wus willen to tell me there key to get into full vershin" The registration key is a bunch of numbers. There's only a limited number of combinations, so why not try 'em all? *lock, copy posts and paste to mod board for vicious mockery* "You do realize that your skin color and genitalia (shriveled though they be) are more important in the long run, right? But hey, who am I to stick the dong of communism into your wet dream of meritocracy." I'd be the one making that post. :P "..." Despite the fact that you are correct, this topic is over. (Actually, screw that- the topic never would have existed. A good policy is that "if a topic of the same name exists at OMGJ, delete it".) -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 10:11
Profile
Homepage
For the first, I would respond: What you are asking for, would be a form of piracy, which is a criminal offence. Please desist from further requests of this vein. The topic would then be locked and reported. For the second: Please consider other member's feelings and opinions, before thinking of making such comments. Such comments are in direct violation of the CoC. This is an official warning to desist such behaviour, to prevent further action being taken. Any inapropriate language would be edited and a note made of it, on the Mod Board, for future reference. For the third: Posting games, such as this, are frowned upon. Especially as this one lacks any meaningful content. Please desist from such topics in future. That one would be locked. If it was a first-time offence, no action would be taken against the person who posted the topic. For a repeat offender, the person would be reported. Leniency may be had if the topic isn't just going to create mindless spam. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:13: Message edited by: FBM ] -------------------- Aut Tace Aut Loquere Meliora Silencio Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 12:41
Profile
Homepage
The appropriate reactions appear to be near unanimous: A lock/admin report, a stern clearing of the throat, and a lock, in that order. Imban, Alo, Schrodinger or Saunders, the reactions are the same, even if they're accompanied by the moderator's respective idiosyncracy ("Death by Sniping", "Sword of Fluffyness", etc.) Why is this? For the first, of course, the CoC is pretty clear on the subject. Which means that moderators aren't really able or compelled to use their own judgement. If someone asks for/provides a keycode, the CoC takes over. (Unless of course it's some jokester posting a parody topic along the lines of "OMG PL33z SUM-1 GIV ME TEH c0de for galactice core!!!", in which case just a lock is enough, accompanied by an appropriate move of the topic to the relevant RWG forum). Other than that, sympathy for a piracy-requester are at rock-bottom, which means the topics are usually a free-for-all of profanity and/or images. It would be good for any moderator to keep in mind this aspect of "vigilante justice" and draw the line somewhere - perhaps editing overly profane posts. This does not extend to witty humor of course - the clause of the CoC forbids harassment of a "fellow member", a protection that does not seem to include banned would-be pirates. The second has varying degrees of severity. Several things I've learned: - Bypassing any filters merits a mod-edit. ("Bad TM.") - Posting a bad graphic/link to a bad graphic can get the oldest of oldbies banned. - Oldbies are known to get away with more than newbies. Why the third? Because oldbies show better judgement in how far they can go? Because they're better persons? This would make a far better point of argument than piracy requests. The third requires a lock, plain and simple. Optionally a big image. -------- These are really simple, non-debatable issues. The only thing it can show is the degree of humor a moderator could employ in dealing with idiocy, or the degree of nepotism towards oldbies. Why not address more complicated issues? For the next debate, I'd like to nominate the following, which are not that clear-cut as the above points: - Roleplays This does not apply as much as it once did, but it is still relevant. What to do with a roleplay, or more specifically, a broken roleplay? - Political debates Moderators have opinions. They can't help it. When the flames fly on the subject of abortion, homosexuality and Iraq, what does the moderator do? - Oldbie Privilege Oldbies have been known to make a mess. Sometimes more than newbies. In conflicts between several respected oldbies (or, more pertinently, a -deserved?- witch hunt against a newer member), what to do there? -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 12:53
Profile
Homepage
The guidelines I would follow for both RPs and political debates are that spam and flames are the warning signals. That is, RPs can go on for as long as people are actually RPing, but if they degenerate into spam, they should be locked. I have seen few RPs lately that needed locking, and the ones that actually did were fairly obvious. Political debates are fine as long as people discuss the ideas. "Your point is terrible" is okay, but "You are terrible" is not as much so. If the "I hate you and you are stupid" posts occur repeatedly, a locking is in order. Generally my policy would be hands-off and stay-out as much as possible, and intervene here only when things get really out of hand, because I know and respect the board's history of political discussion. Generally in conflicts involving oldbies, I would stay out until intervention was necessary, and then I'd probably request assistance from Drakey or Stareye. A fair number of oldbies tend to think that they're above moderatorial rule, but it's different if that person can ban you. General is a bit different from the game boards, so I'd let a little more slide than I would on ET, AT, or GF3. If the topic changes dramatically on a game board to something not related to the game, I tend to lock the topic, but if that happens on General, I'd be a bit more lenient. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 13:26
Profile
You will see very similar answers to all of these types of questions due to the fact that how a situation is handled should always go back to the Code of Conduct. Our opinions may vary slightly as to what is too lax and what is too controlling, but in the end if the candidate looks to the Code of Conduct for the final decisions the answers will be similar. Assuming a RP remains a RP it should be left to run its course. If the RP starts going in the direction of spam or arguments a warning should be given about the possibility of the topic being locked. If the spam or arguments continue or escalate the topic should be locked. Similarly political debates are a part of Spiderweb and should be left alone as long as the discussion is peaceful. If the debate becomes spam or constant insults a warning should be given, and if the behavior continues the topic should be locked. Oldbies should be granted certain considerations due to their contribution to the community, but that is not a complete exemption for the Code of Conduct. A moderator's job is to uphold the Code of Conduct to the extent necessary. Very minor infractions and playfulness can often be overlooked, but more severe infractions should be reported to the Admins to handled as they see fit. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 13:41
Profile
Problem with all these reassuring professions of responsible moderation in all things is that they are immoderately boring. After a few candidates have dutifully posted here, others may feel compelled to follow suit just to show willing. Perhaps someone could lock this thread, before all this common sense and responsibility gets out of hand. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 13:51
Profile
Homepage
I'm not sure how much I can add to what others have said. Those who have responded so far seem to have a good grasp of the issues involved. Nonetheless, I suppose I ought to make my positions clear. There is, of course, nothing wrong with roleplays or political debates in themselves. Unfortunately, arguments happen. If a member appears to be acting in a deliberately disruptive manner, that member needs to be warned; if the topic as a whole has degenerated into an argument, that merits a cautionary post or a lock depending on how far gone it appears to be. Consideration will be given mainly to how the state of the topic is affecting relations between its participants, as people who don't like political or RP topics generally don't read them. In the case of such a topic becoming filled with meaningless spam, I'll do the same as with any other topic to which that has happened: post a caution, give the discussion a day or two to either die down or get back on topic, and lock it if the spam continues. Topics with a previously worthwhile purpose that have been filled with spam deserve a more lenient treatment than topics which were spammy from the beginning. Arguments between oldbies are something of a different matter because they often spring up in topics unrelated to them and take over the discussion in that topic. In such a case I'll mainly consider the effect of the argument on other members of the community, and if their enjoyment of the forums may be interfered with by the argument, I will encourage the arguing parties to either forgive and forget or take their quarrel to AIM where it can't bother other forumgoers. If continued inappropriate conduct of the oldbies makes it necessary to lock the topic they're arguing in, warnings will be issued to all significantly involved parties -- I take the ruining of previously good topics seriously. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 13:52
Profile
quote:*grin* Vote Alec. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 13:53: Message edited by: ef ] -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Master
Member # 1046
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 13:52
Profile
Homepage
1) This is illegal, so I will l0x0r and let Drakey do the banning. 2) Laugh, then delete post. 3) Posting games are fine elsewhere, but not here. l0x0r. -------------------- Polaris - Weather balloons, ninjas, and your big daddy Wise Man. What more could you want? Undead Theories - Don't Ask, Don't Tell Posts: 3323 | Registered: Thursday, April 25 2002 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 15:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Direct the member to the registration page, and assert that SW has not released any of their games as freeware. Also, strongly discourage random bashing of the member as would currently be commonplace. If they continue asking for freeware, I softly tell them that life is hard that way and lock the topic (provided it hasn't turned into a debate on, say, whether SW ought to be charging for Exile 1 - in which case, a lock would just stifle discourse). (Note this is different from my prerogative as a member without any kind of power mandate, and my reaction is completely different.) quote:I'd lean on the offending party to cut out the insults. If it weren't for the parenthetical remark, I would not have anything in particular to say; neither the words 'dong', 'wet dream', nor 'meritocracy' are forbidden by the CoC. Keep a close eye on the topic any which way in case it turns into a flame-war. quote:State clearly that this is a posting game, and protocol bans them. Give it a day. If it gets spammy, lock it. If it develops a coherent discussion, leave it. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 15:34: Message edited by: George A. Custer & The SE Party ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 15:31
Profile
Homepage
Thank you to everybody who replied to these questions. Thuryl, could you respond to the questions I posted. I am particularly interested in your responce to situation #2. SoT, I agree that generalities are pointless. (For example, I learned absolutely nothing from Thuryl's long speech.) This is why I am asking potential mods to respond to real situations to find where they would draw the line in grey areas. (And some of the posts I'll be presenting in future polls will fall in various parts of grey areas.) [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 15:33: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 16:12
Profile
Homepage
Hypothetical Situation #2 Member A calls Member B as composing the entire population of a locale called "fagotville", populated presumably by "fagots". The resulting, tumultuous rancor demands that Member A be banned. Member C raises a valid point that "fagot" has no definition as such. How long should both members be banned? And if you have been made a temporary administrator due to Drakey's absence, how long do you ban them both for? A day? A week? Permanently? Suppose you have an inexplicably asinine and likewise incorrigible grudge against Member A, and Member C has a public association with him. Does that influence your decision? Inquiring minds want to know. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 16:12
Profile
I'm not sure how much any of us differ on the original questions. In each case, the CoC seems fairly clear on the course of action demanded. If I have anything to add to this, it's to say that I tend to err on the side of leniency. For the first example, I would tell the offender his mistake, warn him of the possible consequences (i.e., banning), and lock the topic. For example number 2, I don't think I'd have to do any more than politely remind TM to keep it civil. However, I would keep an eye on the topic, in case it started to descend into flaming. Example three is the easiest. I'd lock it immediately, assuming the thread didn't have any worthwhile content in it, with the explanation that pointless posting games are no good. EDIT: Didn't see TM's post until after mine was up. Keep the mudslinging in the other threads, please. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 16:14: Message edited by: Scorched Earth Sarachim ] Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, June 22 2005 16:15
Profile
Homepage
Zeviz, the trouble with your examples is that, as others have said, they're all pretty clear-cut -- none of them is really a grey area. #1: If it's clear that the poster realises the games are still available for sale and is trying to get something for nothing (as it is in your example), I'd lock the topic, warn the poster that trying to steal from a company on its own forums is a good way to get banned, and inform an admin. If the wording of the post makes it possible that the poster genuinely believed the games might have been re-released as freeware, I'd advise him that Jeff Vogel is still selling them and doesn't intend to stop doing so at any point in the foreseeable future. #2: In general, this is a situation where it'd be appropriate to issue a warning for conduct abusive toward another member. Having said that, I'd have to take into account the context of the thread and the general relationship between the two members involved; if it was clear that the poster didn't mean offence and the person to whom the post was directed didn't take offence, I'd be inclined to let it slide if nobody else complained. (In the circumstances in which the post did in fact occur, of course, TM did mean offence and thus a warning would be merited). #3: I'm inclined to go with Alec on this one. Watch the topic for a few hours, give it a brief time to either turn into something worthwhile or die out on its own, and lock it if it hasn't done either. If I'm in a particularly conversational mood I might take the chance to turn the topic into a discussion of the role of compliments in our society and the ethics of giving an insincere compliment. You want specifics rather than generalities? Very well. I favour holding members accountable for their actions rather than allowing them to dominate or derail perfectly good topics as some have done in the past. In practical terms, this policy means more warnings and fewer lockings. [ Wednesday, June 22, 2005 16:43: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 04:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:Why do I get the feeling this situation is very far from being "hypothetical"? The situation has of course great potential to be handled wrongly. In fact, the way you describe it, it probably has been. To wit: Intentional meaning should count. If in the context it appears that Member A either falsely inferred member B was homosexual, or worse denigrated him for actually being so, then that counts as harassment as well as bad language. Previous offenders risk temporary banning, members known to be otherwise responsible should just get a very stern warning. "Fagot", however, is an insulting term whatever the definition. For that reason, I would support a warning of varying severity to the person involved, but no ban. That would have nothing to do with the term however, rather the conflict in general. --- Member C is not involved in the conflict and has committed no breach of the CoC as far as I'm aware. Finally, "grudges" must not influence a decision, but it is of course unavoidable that a person's behaviour is interpreted by looking at previous actions. If the member is known as a usually well-behaved jokester, that should be judged much less harshly than someone who blows his lid every second post. --- No, no ban in most circumstances. At most a week's cooling-off period. As for the moderator's decision... no reaction except for a verbal warning. This concerns member behavior, not directly posted content, and the moderator has no control of the former. Editing out the word seems like a very petty thing to do, unless requested to do so by an offended member. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 06:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Folks, I believe I've just caught the lightning in a bottle here. quote:Who knows. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 07:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:Every fun argument has 2 sides. context for hypothetical situtaion #2 Drakey and most other senior mods are away on vacations. At this time a moderator, mod Z is appointed a temporary admin. A member (member A) and a moderator (mod D) challenge every decision mod Z makes, publically accusing mod Z of abuse of power. Mod Z asks owners of hypothetical board for their opinion on who is right. The owners agree 100% with mod Z. Meanwhile, member A, who has a long history of flaming, makes the fagot post TM described for us. Mod D, instead of giving a warning for flaming, defends his friend member A. Mod Z, to avoid more accusations of power abuse, asks the boards owners what he should so. Board's owners decided on a week-long ban for flaming member and mod who was protecting friend, instead of upholding Code of Conduct. Mod Z carries out his duties to the board's owners, facing "intense criticism" from most of board's population. After Drakey returns, mod Z resigns his moderator positions and leaves the community. PS However, this hypothetical situation is irrelevant to this topic, given that neither mod D nor mod Z are running in this election. (Unless somebody was seriously planning to vote for a dystopian dictator EVOL Zeviz.) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 08:12
Profile
Homepage
So you're saying what you did is that you weren't fit for the task since you couldn't make your own decisions anyway, you banned a fellow for saying "fagot", and then marked out when people pointed that this was retarded? I mean, let's face it. There are many good reasons why the administration of this boards is not composed entirely of Vogel, Krizsan and Strout. (Speaking of Strout, who remembers my "fall"? Oh, lord.) -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 08:28
Profile
Homepage
1. I couldn't make my own decisions because you and your friends ignored/attacked me unless there was a booming voice of Linda behind me. 2. Linda banned Alec. She did that without asking my opinion. The only thing I could do was to tell her that I thought it was a bit exessive, which I did. 3. I did not "mark out" (whatever that means). I faced flames from half the population of these boards for half a week until Drakey came back and was met by everybody as a great savior. When my term as a temporary admin was done, I left because I was tired of absorbing your constant flames. 4. Vogel, Krizsan and Strout own these boards. Don't you think they can set whatever rules they want on their own boards? If they don't like what is going on, they shut the board down, as they did with Misc. [ Thursday, June 23, 2005 08:29: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 08:42
Profile
Homepage
"1. I couldn't make my own decisions because you and your friends ignored/attacked me unless there was a booming voice of Linda behind me." I didn't attack you. I did so after this stunt was pulled, though. (And considering Linda's reputation, all that does is add some red, cocentric circles around your groin.) "2. Linda banned Alec. She did that without asking my opinion. The only thing I could do was to tell her that I thought it was a bit exessive, which I did." I won't say that you should have known what Linda would have done (although everyone else would have), but it wasn't anything that merited more than a simple edit/lock and a stern warning. So you didn't ban 'em- but you didn't act on your own. The entire incident was so retarded that the fallout wasn't unjustified. If you break the cookie jar on accident, it was still a dumb thing to do. "3. I did not 'mark out' (whatever that means). I faced flames from half the population of these boards for half a week until Drakey came back and was met by everybody as a great savior. When my term as a temporary admin was done, I left because I was tired of absorbing your constant flames." Mark out means to get all emo and crying. Admittedly, maybe you didn't mark out then, but this martyr act ain't winning any Tony awards. "4. Vogel, Krizsan and Strout own these boards. Don't you think they can set whatever rules they want on their own boards? If they don't like what is going on, they shut the board down, as they did with Misc." Sure, they can set the rules. Doesn't make that ruling any less retarded. My point is that Alec would be a hell of a lot better than you give him credit for, and your style ain't what's needed, since you don't have any grasp whatsoever of the context- heck, you only just returned. Alec is different. (I'm different too, but for the more inflamatory.) [ Thursday, June 23, 2005 08:43: Message edited by: Marx' Martyr ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 08:50
Profile
Homepage
If you actually bothered reading posts that you are replying to, you would have seen that I am not really running in this elections. (And wouldn't want to moderate Misc/General even if somebody paid me for it.) So there is no reason for you to try to sabotage my non-existant campagn. [ Thursday, June 23, 2005 08:51: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Thursday, June 23 2005 09:12
Profile
Homepage
I'm not sabotaging your campaign- I'm trying to prevent Alec's from being sabotaged. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2