Search results for query: *

To be fair, sexual remarks and sexual commentary are different things and you do make the former fairly often.

Which is why you were only warned and not infracted. You don't need to break a rule to be warned, a warning just means "don't do that again". This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and this discussion never needed to even occur.

To be clear, I actually really like Lozjam and would hate to see him banned, but I'm not gonna stand by when he makes a joke that crossed a line. We're not trying to get someone banned because we don't like them, we're arguing that his warning, which means next to nothing, was entirely justified.

You're right, people shouldn't be banned for saying something that happens to offend someone else. That's not what Vee was saying though. The people that reported the post didn't do so specifically because they were offended, though I'm sure that was part of it. They reported it because they...

When I first saw the post in question, it made me uncomfortable, and I'm not even the person it was directed at. It was an extremely creepy comment, especially seeing as it was directed at someone who only turned 13 less than a weeK ago. It surprised me, to say the least, and caught me off...

That... completely ignores the first part of Seth's post.

Why did this become such a big deal in the first place? It's such a minor issue. An admin made a small slip-up, alright, fine. Do we really need 3+ pages of arguments that are simply restatements of everything that had already been said when the issue could very easily have been resolved in...

I mostly agree with that; however, I believe he and Rep should have the privilege to hand out warnings/infractions, but only to be used when there are no members of the moderation team around. Take last night, for instance; afaik, and I could be wrong, Kitsu was the only one around last night...

I really don't want to get involved in this argument, but I have one thing to say. I do not believe the infraction was totally necessary, an official warning would certainly suffice; however, I also read DM's posts with a sexual tone, just like Kitsu did, and so I can understand where he's...

I'm leaving this here as a reference, for those who don't seem to think my infraction was justified.

I disagree. Pancake, yes. However, according to my PM, I was infracted for "Inappropriate User Profile", which was entirely justified if you had seen what my profile was. I accept that particular infraction.

That was in fact my main reason for doing it. It's also the reason my profile design, and my blog design, are what they are. The fact that they were acted on, albeit a long time later than they should have been, do show that the moderation team at this site is making an effort to prove to people...

My infraction is justified, but Pancake's is not. With no official rules in place about the exploit, not a single member who uses it, even the way I did, should be infracted for it, especially when one of the mods suggests looking into it as a vbshop feature. A warning suffices. Infractions are...

:)