Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34617Can't you send people pictures of your ass?
Bottom post of the previous page:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34617reading the ticket I feel like thats really splitting hairs, it was obvious from the start the issue was that he was getting in trouble for "...solicit[ing] sexual photos..." since thats how the ticket opened. It isnt as specific as reading him the rulelist direct but I feel like just reading the big bold text on the rule list you should be able to parse what rule the admin is upset with.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:51 pm to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained
well sure, but the ticket never says that even if it's a joke it's still flat-out creepy. if we're going to get real Technical with the ticket, the only thing that it insinuates is that it's bad to solicit sexual images of people through other people's PDAs. never was stated that shitty jokes are creepy. like getting into the semantics of things, all he was defending was "im not genuinely soliciting explicit photos"- which is a completely fair defense. which, again, not that it makes it any less creepy or rule-breaking.Cobby wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 9:16 pmreading the ticket I feel like thats really splitting hairs, it was obvious from the start the issue was that he was getting in trouble for "...solicit[ing] sexual photos..." since thats how the ticket opened. It isnt as specific as reading him the rulelist direct but I feel like just reading the big bold text on the rule list you should be able to parse what rule the admin is upset with.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:51 pm to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained
I feel like if they approached the conversation with a bit more care rather than just going "it was a joke" and "yep thats it." they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble pretending like they were interested in why the admin believed they were at fault. I dont really fault the admin for responding with a "ok see ya!" attitude after that.
Even in the appeal he still didnt grasp that there is no "well joking is actually permissible" clause in the rule. Id understand if the rule was a nuanced essay like some of the other rules but rule 8 is a single sentence, and you dont have to do anything to be in compliance w said rule. Then again we still let porn in books exist so we obviously have some unspoken nuance, but he lost any redeemable part here by not trying to understand that nuance and just go "yep thats it". REALLY needed to get off the defensive.
The REAL PEANUT takeaway is that people should learn to talk their way out of problems IC so they dont have negative charisma when talking to admins OOC and can get out of trouble in both
If I had a dollar for every time I've baited someone into getting themselves permabanned in their peanut thread, I'd have $2
If there's anything that was really mishandled in this situation, it was this. Chesh assumed that the action was so heinous that it would have clearly been against the rules, as opposed to just telling him what rule he'd broken.iwishforducks wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:51 pm to be fair, he never WAS told what rule he was in violation of. it took a bit in the appeal itself for rule 8 to be brought up and explained
AliasTakuto wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Users browsing this forum: Screemonster