Anyonewithtwobraincellsgate

[Gigantus]

The main point is that the victim and the accused should have an opportunity to hash things out between them like gentlemen, if the victim is willing, to hopefully encourage an overall more mature user base.

If you don't want a public brawl that breaks the rules and will get you penalized, then I would suggest a PM exchange. That way you can put yourself at the mercy of your 'opponent' and will also have the satisfaction to know who reported it.
If you need a gallery then you have to be prepared to get penalized.

Tbh I don't think 4chan enforces any rules regarding insulting. Or racism. Or most of its rules in general. Specific boards get angry if you post things not related to that board, but that's mostly it. And cp.

I don't participate on that forum so I wouldn't know if that's the case, I just had a look at their forum rules.
It's every site's prerogative whether (or how) they enforce their rules. If you have official rules and don't enforce them then you might as well not have them at all.

[PikeStance]

Maybe it would not be a terrible idea to convert the "mudpit" to a free for all forum, while having the academy be the more "serious" discussion with a more strict moderation. The idea is not without precedent; there are forums with such an arraignment.

---

[Confederate Jeb]

That idea has been gone over a couple of times within this drawn out, never ending argument. It's not happening.

[Bolkonsky]

Maybe it would not be a terrible idea to convert the "mudpit" to a free for all forum, while having the academy be the more "serious" discussion with a more strict moderation. The idea is not without precedent; there are forums with such an arraignment.

---

And take away the ability of your average user to peaceably use that part of the site? Why compromise to people that refuse to conform for no valid reason other than they like insulting people that don't agree with them? People keep acting like it's difficult to not break the rules. News flash, it's not difficult. So don't do it. End of story. The only way the ToS and moderation could get more black and white would be editing the CSS.

All this commotion for each infraction is just people whining because they got caught.

[PikeStance]

And take away the ability of your average user to peaceably use that part of the site? Why compromise to people that refuse to conform for no valid reason other than they like insulting people that don't agree with them? People keep acting like it's difficult to not break the rules. News flash, it's not difficult. So don't do it. End of story. The only way the ToS and moderation could get more black and white would be editing the CSS.

All this commotion for each infraction is just people whining because they got caught.

I agree. It isn't difficult to abide by the ToS. I personally do not see why people feel the need to demean anyone for any reason. I know some people like to go back and forth with not so friendly banter. Again, It isn't something I enjoy doing. This being said, if there is a large enough group interested in this sort of discussion, then why not? I wouldn't see it as a compromise, but satisfying a demand.

----

[Bolkonsky]

Well you'd make the Mudpit inaccessible for a large portion of people that already enjoy it. If they truly feel the need to insult people that much, they can go to another site.

[PikeStance]

It doesn't have to be the "mudpit", you can create a new forum.... typically the names for these things refer to unclean places, like the trash bin, or the junkyard, or in a New Orleans forum, "Behind the Levee."

People can certainly go to other forums, however, this site seems to try to find reasons for people not to go to other forums. It seems a "tad" inconsistent to be so dismissive. To be honest, I do not know if there is even a demand for such a forum.

---

[pannonian]

There's already a way for people to write whatever they want without being moderated.

Startmenu > Run
notepad.exe

Just close without saving when you're done.

[Caduet]

If you don't want a public brawl that breaks the rules and will get you penalized, then I would suggest a PM exchange. That way you can put yourself at the mercy of your 'opponent' and will also have the satisfaction to know who reported it.
If you need a gallery then you have to be prepared to get penalized.

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with my idea. My idea is an alternative procedure to the usual infraction system that, if both parties are willing, allows the victim and the insulter to behave like adults and settle things between them. Its not supposed to give the insulter a free beatdown session of the victim or whatever your saying.

I don't participate on that forum so I wouldn't know if that's the case, I just had a look at their forum rules.
It's every site's prerogative whether (or how) they enforce their rules. If you have official rules and don't enforce them then you might as well not have them at all.

I've been saying this for years. The fact of the matter is, as cases like Garb's "ironic examples" and other examples of the double standard prove, the staff here already does not enforce the rules equitably and thus there is no point to them. Either change the rules to reflect the realites of the internet, or change the ToS to say that if the staff likes you, you can disregard the ToS.

And take away the ability of your average user to peaceably use that part of the site? Why compromise to people that refuse to conform for no valid reason other than they like insulting people that don't agree with them? People keep acting like it's difficult to not break the rules. News flash, it's not difficult. So don't do it. End of story. The only way the ToS and moderation could get more black and white would be editing the CSS.

All this commotion for each infraction is just people whining because they got caught.

Bolk, you are deluding yourself here. Like I said, and showed you doing in the TribCom, it is already incredibly easy to create a hostile and unfriendly environment, without resorting to implied or direct insults. And it IS difficult for most of us to follow the rules. Garb can't stop himself from making "ironic examples" and GED just called seth a sycophant in the TribCom. All of us, from the top to the bottom of the totem pole are all too inclined to asshattery on the internet. Its just that some of us are actually punished for it.

You are deluding yourself even further if you believe the moderation is at all black and white. It frankly blows my mind that you could have been a former moderator and can somehow believe this. This thread you are posting in, and the years long argument over moderation should prove beyond any doubt that the moderation far from black and white. I would be very surprised to see any moderator try to claim their job is black and white.

The ToS is also mired in grey areas. That's the whole problem with the "indirect insults" part of the ToS. It invites murky interpretations and thus prevents the ToS from being black and white.

There's already a way for people to write whatever they want without being moderated.

Startmenu > Run
notepad.exe

Just close without saving when you're done.

Oh boy, its you. I know you have a propensity for off topic ramblings (which are apparently ToS-immune) lasting several days so I'm going to tread carefully here. Firstly, I don't care about usenets. Please don't bring them up unless you have some point that pertains to the thread. While last year's digression was interesting, it was a waste of time over 3 ing days long.

PikeStance is not saying "NO MODERATION WHATSOEVER IN THE PIT". There is no reason to reduce his point to such nonsense, other than just sniping at him to avoid actually debating him. He is making the common sense deduction that the current rules in place in the Mudpit are less than ideal and that there might be a better way.

[mishkin]

the current rules in place in the Mudpit are less than ideal and that there might be a better way.

I have not read the whole discussion, but do you have a well defined proposal?
Something like: questioning the mental capacity of a user / users should be allowed in the mudpit.

[PikeStance]

PikeStance is not saying "NO MODERATION WHATSOEVER IN THE PIT". There is no reason to reduce his point to such nonsense, other than just sniping at him to avoid actually debating him. He is making the common sense deduction that the current rules in place in the Mudpit are less than ideal and that there might be a better way.

I beg your pardon, but I am not arguing this at all. I personally do not see why people cannot argue their points without demeaning anyone. I think indirect insults should be moderated, so I am advocating more moderation, not less. I suggested a "trash talk" forum to allow those who either cannot manage to maintain a polite discussion and those who just like to rumble with words a place to be themselves.

I've been saying this for years. The fact of the matter is, as cases like Garb's "ironic examples" and other examples of the double standard prove, the staff here already does not enforce the rules equitably and thus there is no point to them. Either change the rules to reflect the realites of the internet, or change the ToS to say that if the staff likes you, you can disregard the ToS.

When I was following the discussion I noticed people who had a predisposition that Ferret was being persecuted believed Garb's post was the same, those who had a predisposition that Ferret was guilty didn't see a connection between Garb's post and Ferret's post. As I stated, I didn't know either one. Also, when I read Garb's post I innitially seen it as a mock of whomever were defending themselves in the tribunal (I didn't even know the name of the person). Its a gess, but I have conclude that most do not see a connection (or that the two posts as the same).

You are deluding yourself even further if you believe the moderation is at all black and white. It frankly blows my mind that you could have been a former moderator and can somehow believe this. This thread you are posting in, and the years long argument over moderation should prove beyond any doubt that the moderation far from black and white. I would be very surprised to see any moderator try to claim their job is black and white.

The delusion is that there is a conspiracy here. You are lucky to have a tribunal. You at least have an opportunity to appeal decisions mad by the moderators. Most sites do not have any formal appeal process. Back in the day, when I was a moderator for a different forum, the decisions by the moderator was final. If I made a poor decision, it still stood. I was just told behind scenes to change how I was moderating. In a nutshell, you should be grateful.

Oh boy, its you. I know you have a propensity for off topic ramblings (which are apparently ToS-immune) lasting several days so I'm going to tread carefully here. Firstly, I don't care about usenets. Please don't bring them up unless you have some point that pertains to the thread. While last year's digression was interesting, it was a waste of time over 3 ing days long.

As a rule, whenever someone post something that doesn't add anything to the discussion, I ignore them. You should do the same.

---

[Garbarsardar]

It doesn't have to be the "mudpit", you can create a new forum.... typically the names for these things refer to unclean places, like the trash bin, or the junkyard, or in a New Orleans forum, "Behind the Levee."



---

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=171252

[Gigantus]

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with my idea. My idea is an alternative procedure to the usual infraction system that, if both parties are willing, allows the victim and the insulter to behave like adults and settle things between them. Its not supposed to give the insulter a free beatdown session of the victim or whatever your saying.

If you thought the present moderation left something to be desired then this "alternative procedure" would be a delight for you, there is no way that kind of interaction can be moderated: A moderator is not going to PM a member to find out if he feels insulted, that is simply impossible given the number of moderation actions. We do already interact with members if a recurrence of confrontation between two members can be assumed.
According to your idea the post(s) in question should not be edited, allowing for more members to comment on it, possibly offensive as well. If the 'offended' member doesn't come back we then have a thread that is going off the rails, fast. Not exactly something I would like to clean up (as continuity needs to be taken care off), so I'd rather delete the whole thread (or a whole sale amount of posts) and then explain in this forum why I did when the inevitable complaints come.
It would also probably double my 'moderator actions' and push it past 1000\month. I do have a real life, spending an hour a day cleaning up after members isn't what I want to do with it.

[Bolkonsky]

You are deluding yourself even further if you believe the moderation is at all black and white. It frankly blows my mind that you could have been a former moderator and can somehow believe this. This thread you are posting in, and the years long argument over moderation should prove beyond any doubt that the moderation far from black and white. I would be very surprised to see any moderator try to claim their job is black and white.

The ToS is also mired in grey areas. That's the whole problem with the "indirect insults" part of the ToS. It invites murky interpretations and thus prevents the ToS from being black and white.

What you don't understand is that is that it's only subjective to the people authorized to interpret it. Which ultimately means moderation as a whole (no controversial decision is ever made by only one moderator, usually it's a consensus) and if it's then disputed, the Tribunal. For them, there are grey areas, but for the average user, it is entirely black and white. You either break it, or you don't. The interpretation is never in your hands.

Now you can complain and that's why the Tribunal exists, but it's not like we have rights. At the end of the day, what the people in charge of deciding it decide is what it is. And it is either in line with their decision, or it's not. Black, or white.

And yes, you could make the case of indirect insults, but I'd say two things to that.

1) It's not a grey area. You're either trying to insult someone, or you're not. In this example, we know Ferret's motive - to insult the person. He was trying to make them feel worse. End of story.

2) If you get nailed for something that wasn't meant for an insult, then you don't need to worry because if you have no record then it will just be a note or deleted post, and if you have a record, then you probably deserve it because you were probably trying to be insulting and are just lying about it. And if it's neither of those, oh well, nothings' perfect, but I seriously doubt anyone's gotten a multiple point infraction when they weren't trying to be insulting.

This is you, making a big deal about nothing, because you feel like it. End of story, you could hypnotize me, brainwash me, shower me with propaganda, and drug me, and I still wouldn't believe you're genuinely concerned about anything you're making a fuss out of.

[Caduet]

I have not read the whole discussion, but do you have a well defined proposal?
Something like: questioning the mental capacity of a user / users should be allowed in the mudpit.

My well-defined proposal

I beg your pardon, but I am not arguing this at all. I personally do not see why people cannot argue their points without demeaning anyone. I think indirect insults should be moderated, so I am advocating more moderation, not less. I suggested a "trash talk" forum to allow those who either cannot manage to maintain a polite discussion and those who just like to rumble with words a place to be themselves.

When I said you thought there might be a better way, I didn't say it was my way. Pann was just posting crap and misrepresenting your post. I'm sorry you felt I said you were of one mind with me, but I never said we agreed or were arguing for the same thing in that post. Hell, I never said what your argument was at all, just that it wasn't what pann said.

When I was following the discussion I noticed people who had a predisposition that Ferret was being persecuted believed Garb's post was the same, those who had a predisposition that Ferret was guilty didn't see a connection between Garb's post and Ferret's post. As I stated, I didn't know either one. Also, when I read Garb's post I innitially seen it as a mock of whomever were defending themselves in the tribunal (I didn't even know the name of the person). Its a gess, but I have conclude that most do not see a connection (or that the two posts as the same).

Instead of judging people on guesses, accept the fact that we cannot know ferret's or Garb's true intentions and do not judge them on what you think might be their intention.

Really, the only conspiracy is the Staff's conspiracy theory that Ferrets is out to hurt random people's feelings.

The delusion is that there is a conspiracy here. You are lucky to have a tribunal. You at least have an opportunity to appeal decisions mad by the moderators. Most sites do not have any formal appeal process. Back in the day, when I was a moderator for a different forum, the decisions by the moderator was final. If I made a poor decision, it still stood. I was just told behind scenes to change how I was moderating. In a nutshell, you should be grateful.

I don't know about "most sites" but I do know a lot of sites have some form of ban appealing. Every time some one makes this argument I always bring up 4chan. If a site with possibly millions more users and organized groups actively trying to troll it into oblivion and anonymous posting can have a ban appeal system, then its not too impressive to have one here.

That said, the Tribunal is pretty awesome. Having this stuff in public is like having internet Judge Judy. Except you get to take part in it.

As a rule, whenever someone post something that doesn't add anything to the discussion, I ignore them. You should do the same.

---

I try to respond to everyone in posting in my threads. That stuff was an example of pleb moderation.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=171252

Was there any kind of follow up, or did it just fizzle out there?

What you don't understand is that is that it's only subjective to the people authorized to interpret it. Which ultimately means moderation as a whole (no controversial decision is ever made by only one moderator, usually it's a consensus) and if it's then disputed, the Tribunal. For them, there are grey areas, but for the average user, it is entirely black and white. You either break it, or you don't. The interpretation is never in your hands.

Now you can complain and that's why the Tribunal exists, but it's not like we have rights. At the end of the day, what the people in charge of deciding it decide is what it is. And it is either in line with their decision, or it's not. Black, or white.

No, there is a grey area for us plebs. Ferrets can post one thing and get infracted, and Garb can post literally the exact same thing and not get infracted. The moderation's interpretation of our posting is a grey area for us. And, frankly, it seems the best way to curry favorable interpretations is to be your buddies. This disgusts me, and I will speak out against it as long as I can.

And yes, you could make the case of indirect insults, but I'd say two things to that.

1) It's not a grey area. You're either trying to insult someone, or you're not. In this example, we know Ferret's motive - to insult the person. He was trying to make them feel worse. End of story.

Jesus Christ. No, we do not know ferrets' intention because it is ing impossible to know anyone's intentions on the internet. I doubt ferrets gives the slightest about anyone's feelings in the mudpit, either way. He won't often go out of his way to make friends with random mudpit posters, but he won't go out of his way to make them cry. That's just how he posts.

2) If you get nailed for something that wasn't meant for an insult, then you don't need to worry because if you have no record then it will just be a note or deleted post, and if you have a record, then you probably deserve it because you were probably trying to be insulting and are just lying about it. And if it's neither of those, oh well, nothings' perfect, but I seriously doubt anyone's gotten a multiple point infraction when they weren't trying to be insulting.

As I proved in this thread, Garb has a history of making a mockery the ToS to make his points. So, why does the staff not assume he is lying when he says he wasn't insulting ferrets, and in fact goes to some length to defend his behavior?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Its the double standard.

This is you, making a big deal about nothing, because you feel like it. End of story, you could hypnotize me, brainwash me, shower me with propaganda, and drug me, and I still wouldn't believe you're genuinely concerned about anything you're making a fuss out of.

This is the internet. Everything is a big deal about nothing.

I am offended by this nonsense that I don't genuinely care about this. You are making this site uncivil and unfriendly in a far more insidious way than ferrets and his acidity could ever hope to achieve. You aren't even ing debating with this statement. You are basically sticking your fingers in your ears squealing, "lalala i can't hear you". You have some stupid bias about my intentions and thus are going to discount everything I say. This attitude is retarded beyond belief and its a real ing shame that this seems to be the prevailing attitude among the moderation.

Edit (forgot about Gigantus)-
Obviously, its a work in progress idea. A proposal more concrete than "teh moderators suk lol" was asked for and that's what I came up with on the spot. It is unsurprising that there are kinks that would need to be worked out. Regarding how leaving an insult up for everyone to see and comment on further derail threads, you bring up a good point. What I'd do is this: treat it as a typical infraction, delete the comment and send your usual notification to the infracted party. However, also send a PM to the victim saying something like "So-and-so was infracted for insulting you here. If you would like you and So-and-so can discuss the matter between the two of you. If, after talking to So-and-so, you feel the infraction should be reversed, let us know and we will do so. If you do not feel it should be dropped, or do not wish to talk to So-and-so at all, the infraction will remain." If the victim never responds then the infraction would have to stay. Idk how long it would take to send one more PM per infraction, but once a working template is made, actually creating the PM would take mere seconds.

So basically, go about things as normal. Only act differently if the victim asks for it.

[PikeStance]

When I said you thought there might be a better way, I didn't say it was my way. Pann was just posting crap and misrepresenting your post. ..... but I never said we agreed or were arguing for the same thing in that post. Hell, I never said what your argument was at all, just that it wasn't what pann said.

Fair enough, however you did state what you believed my argument was....

He is making the common sense deduction that the current rules in place in the Mudpit are less than ideal and that there might be a better way.

Instead of judging people on guesses, accept the fact that we cannot know ferret's or Garb's true intentions and do not judge them on what you think might be their intention.

Really, the only conspiracy is the Staff's conspiracy theory that Ferrets is out to hurt random people's feelings.

As I proved in this thread, Garb has a history of making a mockery the ToS to make his points. So, why does the staff not assume he is lying when he says he wasn't insulting ferrets, and in fact goes to some length to defend his behavior?

If you don't know Garb's intention then you are alone. It is quite obvious he was demonstrating what Ferret did in the thread was ToS violation. The fact that you considers what he did as a ToS violation supports Garb's assertion. Therefore your argument effectively proves Ferret's guilt, not Garb's.

The idea of a conspiracy is pure nonsense. Ferrets behavior is there for everyone to see. Besides, if they really want to conspire against him, they can simply edit his post and erase any trace of it. OR, the could simply incite him into a freenzy, so that he would ensnare into a ToS violation. Alas, with most conspiracies, they are more of a product of our own imagination not to believe what is reasonable. Seriously, you need to stop this conspiracy talk...

Edit (forgot about Gigantus)-
Obviously, its a work in progress idea. A proposal more concrete than "teh moderators suk lol" was asked for and that's what I came up with on the spot. It is unsurprising that there are kinks that would need to be worked out. Regarding how leaving an insult up for everyone to see and comment on further derail threads, you bring up a good point. What I'd do is this: treat it as a typical infraction, delete the comment and send your usual notification to the infracted party. However, also send a PM to the victim saying something like "So-and-so was infracted for insulting you here. If you would like you and So-and-so can discuss the matter between the two of you. If, after talking to So-and-so, you feel the infraction should be reversed, let us know and we will do so. If you do not feel it should be dropped, or do not wish to talk to So-and-so at all, the infraction will remain." If the victim never responds then the infraction would have to stay. Idk how long it would take to send one more PM per infraction, but once a working template is made, actually creating the PM would take mere seconds.

So basically, go about things as normal. Only act differently if the victim asks for it.

You are really proposing a lot of "paper" work for the moderators.
Back in the day when I moderated (1998- 2000) I had a template and I had to send a "letter" for each warning and infraction I gave. I didn't have to send one for the "minor" stuff, but anything major, I had to. I moderated the soccer forum during the 1998 World Cup which was the first cup the "new" eastern European countries were participating; renewed nationalism and sports do not mix! I did very little debating as I was sending all of those emails. Furthermore, back then, we were lucky because there was a lot less "spammers" out there causing problems. It easy to make all of these recommendations when you are naive about the amount work it involves.

---

[Primo]

Garb brings up a good point about how appeals like Ferrets' unfortunately denied appeal are essentially witch trials, reliant on the spectral evidence that Ferrets is a malefic force bent on making babies cry.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for that?

The idea of a conspiracy is pure nonsense. Ferrets behavior is there for everyone to see. Besides, if they really want to conspire against him, they can simply edit his post and erase any trace of it. OR, the could simply incite him into a freenzy, so that he would ensnare into a ToS violation. Alas, with most conspiracies, they are more of a product of our own imagination not to believe what is reasonable. Seriously, you need to stop this conspiracy talk...
---

Absolutely correct.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

There's already a way for people to write whatever they want without being moderated.

Startmenu > Run
notepad.exe

Just close without saving when you're done.

That was a terrible, terrible joke. can this whole topic be dropped now, trib has made it's decision.

Let's move on before anymore horrendous jokes rear their head.

[Gigantus]

However, also send a PM to the victim saying something like "So-and-so was infracted for insulting you here. If you would like you and So-and-so can discuss the matter between the two of you. If, after talking to So-and-so, you feel the infraction should be reversed, let us know and we will do so. If you do not feel it should be dropped, or do not wish to talk to So-and-so at all, the infraction will remain." If the victim never responds then the infraction would have to stay. Idk how long it would take to send one more PM per infraction, but once a working template is made, actually creating the PM would take mere seconds.

So basically, go about things as normal. Only act differently if the victim asks for it.

It would also probably double certainly triple my 'moderator actions' and push it past 10002000\month. I do have a real life, spending an hour two hours a day cleaning up after members isn't what I want to do with it.

My personal secretary already complains about keeping track of my golf handicap - I really wouldn't want her to keep track of all those PMs on top of it (so the two hours here are probably one hour of my time and one hour of her's).

[Caduet]

If you don't know Garb's intention then you are alone. It is quite obvious he was demonstrating what Ferret did in the thread was ToS violation. The fact that you considers what he did as a ToS violation supports Garb's assertion. Therefore your argument effectively proves Ferret's guilt, not Garb's.

I am not alone alone in not knowing Garbs true intention. You don't know, the staff doesn't know. Only Garb can truly know. No one else can truly know Garb's intention because, as I've been saying, it is literally impossible to judge intention with any kind of certainty on the internet.

Also, I don't consider the brain cell thing a ToS violation. But the thing is, the staff hasn't made it clear whether it is either. Its obviously not ok when ferrets does it, but is it ok when Garb does it? How do I know if they are going to interpret any comment I make like that like I'm Garb or if they'll treat me like ferrets? I'll tell you how I know: I am not one of their ol' buddies, and I clearly have no intention of wanting to be. So I lose any hope for favorable interpretations.

The idea of a conspiracy is pure nonsense. Ferrets behavior is there for everyone to see. Besides, if they really want to conspire against him, they can simply edit his post and erase any trace of it. OR, the could simply incite him into a freenzy, so that he would ensnare into a ToS violation. Alas, with most conspiracies, they are more of a product of our own imagination not to believe what is reasonable. Seriously, you need to stop this conspiracy talk...

Its not a conspiracy theory, just human nature. Some members of the staff really do not like ferrets. This is not conspiracy, this is fact. Because they are not impartial robots, this colors their decisions regarding him. I'm mocking the idea of conspiracies. I really doubt there is a conscious and organized effort among the staff to somehow trick ferrets into banning himself. However, merely because they do not like him, he will not ever benefit from a favorable interpretation from them.

Although, when they tried to perman-ban him in the wake of the Grand Perversion Against Children, thye went to absurd lengths to gather evidence on him of supposed misdoing on a site they had no power over. I still cannot fathom the logic of the bans they handed out over that. I think they tried to Article 15 him. They don't do that for just anybody.

You are really proposing a lot of "paper" work for the moderators.
Back in the day when I moderated (1998- 2000) I had a template and I had to send a "letter" for each warning and infraction I gave. I didn't have to send one for the "minor" stuff, but anything major, I had to. I moderated the soccer forum during the 1998 World Cup which was the first cup the "new" eastern European countries were participating; renewed nationalism and sports do not mix! I did very little debating as I was sending all of those emails. Furthermore, back then, we were lucky because there was a lot less "spammers" out there causing problems. It easy to make all of these recommendations when you are naive about the amount work it involves.

---

Its literally sending one pre-made PM. You copy and paste the offending quote and stick the offenders name in there. It basically what they already do, except now they just push send one more time to a different poster. Having posters resolve things between themselves has the added benefit of reducing the Tribunals workload.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for that?

That the staff believes that ferrets is a malefic force out to make babies cry? Yes I do. It was literally the only reason they gave ferrets an infraction and not Garb.They judged that it was ferrets' intention to insult with that comment and they based that judgment on the idea that insulting people is just what ferrets' does because he gets off on it.

That was a terrible, terrible joke. can this whole topic be dropped now, trib has made it's decision.

Let's move on before anymore horrendous jokes rear their head.

This is about more than just ferrets' appeal, though. But yeah, I don't know what audience pann was pandering to with that.

edit (forgot gigs again)-
Tell her you'll fire her and find a secretary who is willing to wade through angry nerds arguing over stupid crap on the internet. Or hire more moderators. I really don't think sending one more pre-made PM is that much of a hassle.