Share:
Notifications
Clear all

True |WcF| RagnaroK ban vote

(@isabella)
Famed Member

This is the true ban vote for this guy.

Sorry for any inconvenience...

Options No and Abstain need an explanation.

Quote
Topic starter Posted : 23/06/2011 6:21 pm
 Rad
(@rad)
Famed Member

I voted Yes, this one exceeded my patience, but was thinking kid deserves an opportunity.

I think the opportunity to live among our community, is a 30-days ban.

:woot:

You'll appreciate more what you have lost than that what you have got

ReplyQuote
Posted : 24/06/2011 5:23 pm
NATAN
(@natan)
Illustrious Member

8 voters in favour for a ban. 1 other vote. No one stood up for him, so the 30 day ban is on.

First admin to see him, tell him he is banned from the server for 30 days . Let him know if he ignores the 30 day ban it will become permanent. Tell him he needs to come to the forum if he has a problem with the ban. There will be thread on it in the complaint dept, see here...

http://clandou.com/html/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=36&jfile=viewtopic.php&f=24&t=7968

ReplyQuote
Posted : 30/06/2011 3:46 pm
Tommy
(@tommy)
Member Admin

{DOU}.R_Mad wrote: This is the true ban vote for this guy.

Sorry for any inconvenience...

Options No and Abstain need an explanation.

No. In the future it is the yes votes that need an explanation. This is the opposite of a membership vote where a no vote needs to be explained.

I will explain why.

These votes are private. As such, the person involved does not get to defend them self. When ever a vote is cast that takes an action against a person, it should be explained. This way, a negative vote is justified.

Since the vote is private, not only do we hold the responsibility of being judge, jury, and executioner, but of defense counsel as well. This is the only way to do this that is even remotely fair.

Tommy

P.S. Yes, I am liberal.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 30/06/2011 10:15 pm
(@isabella)
Famed Member

Tommy wrote: [quote={DOU}.R_Mad]This is the true ban vote for this guy.

Sorry for any inconvenience...

Options No and Abstain need an explanation.

No. In the future it is the yes votes that need an explanation. This is the opposite of a membership vote where a no vote needs to be explained.

I will explain why.

These votes are private. As such, the person involved does not get to defend them self. When ever a vote is cast that takes an action against a person, it should be explained. This way, a negative vote is justified.

Since the vote is private, not only do we hold the responsibility of being judge, jury, and executioner, but of defense counsel as well. This is the only way to do this that is even remotely fair.

Tommy

P.S. Yes, I am liberal.

Dear Tommy

I appreciate that you have the ability to argue in this kind of thing in which the responsibility for decisions must be complete and fair.

I think I do not need much to understand that your analysis is correct...

I tend to be analytical and observant of things, but my impulsivity often betrays me... I'm sorry πŸ™

In the future I will follow your advice.

One day you learn something is a happy day...

Thank you.

P. S. : I love you to be liberal. πŸ˜€

ReplyQuote
Topic starter Posted : 01/07/2011 1:33 am
(@abberation)
Noble Member

PPPPPSSSSPSPSPS Being Liberal is a major flaw but it goes along with all your other flaws Tommy πŸ˜†

ReplyQuote
Posted : 01/07/2011 4:42 am
Share: