[Staff Referral] Makrell (1 point - Censor Bypassing) [FURTHER ACTION]

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Post: 'You Laugh, You Lose Thread (No Videos, Read OP)
User: Makrell
Infraction: censor bypassing
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Censor bypassing

Message to User:

Hi mate, I've told you quite some times already that you should watch the censor bypasses when posting stuff in this thread and this is the second one this week. As you already have several notes for this I'm going to give you a one point infraction this time. Please be more careful in the future.
If you have any questions feel free to pm me. And you're of course free to appeal it in the Tribunal or Praetorium if you disagree.

Original Post:

Jorah <3

You laugh you lose, more like you cry you win AM I RITE!!!

MAOR

it truly was

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Defence requested. Start the clock.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Defence recieved:

Dear triumvirate

I am fully aware that what i did was wrong and againist the TOS, and i accept full responsibility. I am not good enough in spotting censor bypasses. I do try my best to spot them, and when i do i always edit them out.(like for example here, here, and here) However, this infraction was indeed justified, seeing as my rate of spotting is not good enough. I have received two notes about this before one from November 2014, and one from January 2014, and moderators have edited out some of my other posts aswell, as he mentions.

I apologize for what i did, and ask the triumvirate to understand that i do try to not censor bypass, and i have no malicious intent with my images.

[Leonidas The Lion]

What prior are we looking at?

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Come again?

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

I though long about this case thinking about the pro and cons and finally I came to the conclusion that I'm biased or at least someone could say that I'm not impartial as I worked with Makrell before as censor just a few weeks ago.
So I withdraw from the case.

[PikeStance]

Quintus,
Simply working with someone or even debating with someone who has been referred is not cause enough to state you are impartial. Perhaps the best way to understand your position is to share with us your "pros" and cons" regarding the case.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

I think that this se is already complicated. The logic tells me that we can expect from a citizen that he checks the pics he posted for the "forbidden" words especially when he was told that he missed something in the same week. On the other I don't think that Makrell deserves a punishment from the CT for such a minor infraction. And at this point I regognized that I may be biased

[PikeStance]

Quintus,

We all know people. The best way to judge anyone is to remove the username from the equation. The fact that you recognized this speaks volume. I will trust your judgement.
If person x did what he had done, how would you proceed and then act accordingly.

[note]
As of right now, I do not have local moderator's powers to add a poll. I will have to add a new thread in order to include the poll.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Has he been brought up for similar offences ever?

[PikeStance]

He has not been referred in the past. Based on his defense and the communication copied in OP this is not the first incident.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Yeah but if he hasn't been referred can we really look at this like it isn't his first time since there is no official record of any priors?

[PikeStance]

Yeah but if he hasn't been referred can we really look at this like it isn't his first time since there is no official record of any priors?

I am assuming you are considering what action is to be taken, however, to date no action has. The poll is up. In general, there isn't a standard for which to base your decision on.
Does staff referral automatically warrants FURTHER ACTION? Can a citizen violate a rule that is frivolous? If you deemed the moderator overreacted, I can imagine there are cases where this could be true.
Now we are discussing FURTHER ACTION. Is someone who has been given numerous notes and or warnings prior to being infracted the same as someone who has been referred once before? Was the referred citizen given an opportunity to change his behavior, but for some reason was unable to? In this case, you can also consider the referred citizens defense for an explanation. Ultimately, you can consider anything that is public and what is pertained in this thread to render any citizen.

I am not sure if this helps....

[PikeStance]

Poll Added

[Leonidas The Lion]

voted.

[PikeStance]

One would expect a citizen to at least follow the rules of the site. Oversights do happen, but repeated oversights shouldn't. On those two points, I will go with FURTHER ACTION.