Search results for query: *

Johnny T. Carter? If so, I can also highly recommend this lawyer. Dan referred me to him years ago, and he helped me prosecute this lady named Susan who we took to court for damaging my property. She didn't like it when I loudly called my pigs to eat everyday, so she vandalized my things...

If warnings are only meant to be given to members who are breaking a rule unknowingly, then I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the parameters for giving a warning vs. an infraction. Everyone should be given a chance to rectify their behavior if their offense is relatively...

I'm saying this is irrelevant though. Even if Pancake was 100% aware of what he was doing and his only goal was to mess with the moderators, the punishment warranted is a warning considering what's at stake is an annoying image in a side bar. A warning saying "Stop doing this or you will be...

No, precedence is not the only way smaller rules like this are established and I have no idea why you think otherwise. Make an announcement or a rule saying “don’t do this” and it works the same for small issues as it does large issues. The issue caliber doesn’t change as long as the...

I'm pretty sure that something as simple as a blog announcement telling all users not to replicate site staff rank badges will do the trick. I'm not sure what else Mellow did, but I'm pretty sure that Mellow's and Pancake's endeavor to give themselves all the rank badges was not out of...

A warning at most was warranted. If it breaks the rules to have an obnoxious amount of user badges, so be it, but a warning would have sufficed. Considering the ambiguity of the policy, Pancake should have been warned and that's it. To outright infract a member for his first offense (an...