So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

Rick hasn't flamed me since the council nominations topic, for which he was not given a warn level as I wanted to give him a chance to change.

However, that doesn't take away the fact that disrespecting & flaming a tertiary is completely unacceptable.

~Mugger84
 
--------------------
Mugger84
Member Of WG Since 4th April 2008.
WG Raid Leader Since 20th June 2008.
WG Council Since 20th November 2008.
Banned from WG Since 6th March 2009.
DF IG Since 6th March 2009.
DF FA Since 15th March 2009.
Ex-Member Of WG Since 26th March 2009.
Member of DF Since 6th April 2009.
Clan Friend of WG Since 4th June 2009.
---
||Ex-WG Warlord || Current Member of DF || Ex-Rampage Leader ||

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84
 
--------------------
Mugger84
Member Of WG Since 4th April 2008.
WG Raid Leader Since 20th June 2008.
WG Council Since 20th November 2008.
Banned from WG Since 6th March 2009.
DF IG Since 6th March 2009.
DF FA Since 15th March 2009.
Ex-Member Of WG Since 26th March 2009.
Member of DF Since 6th April 2009.
Clan Friend of WG Since 4th June 2009.
---
||Ex-WG Warlord || Current Member of DF || Ex-Rampage Leader ||

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.

We tell people to take it to pm when BOTH sides are flaming. Instead of giving a warning level to both of them, we give them a chance to straighten it out.

When one member is bullying another member, thats unacceptable. If the other member is flaming back, then they're both wrong, but unless it becomes EXTREMELY out of hand, then neither will get warned. People that are told to "take it to pm" dont report the other member, because in doing so, it wouldnt be justifiable because they flammed too.

If only one side is flaming, we'll give a verbal warning.

Saying that if its in "PM," they're completely immune to punishment is wrong.

Saying they should "Ignore" the pm is totally not completely efficient. How many times have you and others been told to "Ignore" the issue and how many times has it worked?


 
--------------------
bto

Ex-WG Warlord

"It is our direction, not our intentions, that lead us to our destinations."

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

To Repeat:

By your logic, a member could pm another saying the most obscene comments about them whenever they please, and not be repremanded? That makes no sense?

I rarely ever tell anyone to 'take something to PM' - I do my utmost to solve the actual situation by taking the two people into a separate channel to discuss the issue.

Rick Hamm's abusive behavior towards a tertiary was completely unacceptable. Had no action been taken whatever, the leadership would have been accused of bias in favour of Rick Hamm. By banning him, obviously we are still accused of bias against Rick Hamm. As I pointed out on his leaving topic, with the Rick Hamm situation, unfortunately we can not please everyone.

That being said, harrasment, disrespect and flaming towards a clan mate in PM is equally as unacceptable as it would be in the main channel. I have always personally taken a firm stance on this. I believe that flaming is an offence by whatever means it is sent to the target. For this reason, Rick hamm recieved a warning level.

~Mugger84
 
--------------------
Mugger84
Member Of WG Since 4th April 2008.
WG Raid Leader Since 20th June 2008.
WG Council Since 20th November 2008.
Banned from WG Since 6th March 2009.
DF IG Since 6th March 2009.
DF FA Since 15th March 2009.
Ex-Member Of WG Since 26th March 2009.
Member of DF Since 6th April 2009.
Clan Friend of WG Since 4th June 2009.
---
||Ex-WG Warlord || Current Member of DF || Ex-Rampage Leader ||

So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.

We tell people to take it to pm when BOTH sides are flaming. Instead of giving a warning level to both of them, we give them a chance to straighten it out.

When one member is bullying another member, thats unacceptable. If the other member is flaming back, then they're both wrong, but unless it becomes EXTREMELY out of hand, then neither will get warned. People that are told to "take it to pm" dont report the other member, because in doing so, it wouldnt be justifiable because they flammed too.

If only one side is flaming, we'll give a verbal warning.

Saying that if its in "PM," they're completely immune to punishment is wrong.

Saying they should "Ignore" the pm is totally not completely efficient. How many times have you and others been told to "Ignore" the issue and how many times has it worked?

There is no need to open the PM.... IF someone begins flaming you, and you don't want to read it.. Don't. It is completely your choice. If you lack the self control to stop yourself from reading a simple PM, I feel pity for you.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

If a person is getting harrased in real life, you cant possibly argue that its "personal" information. Lets be completely honest, ignoring them wouldnt work, and it isnt the proper solution.

If that happened, people would go to the authorities, not "Ignore it." Saying that that is personal information would never fly.

It doesnt matter whether it was in PM or not, the rules still stand.
 
--------------------
bto

Ex-WG Warlord

"It is our direction, not our intentions, that lead us to our destinations."

So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.

We tell people to take it to pm when BOTH sides are flaming. Instead of giving a warning level to both of them, we give them a chance to straighten it out.

When one member is bullying another member, thats unacceptable. If the other member is flaming back, then they're both wrong, but unless it becomes EXTREMELY out of hand, then neither will get warned. People that are told to "take it to pm" dont report the other member, because in doing so, it wouldnt be justifiable because they flammed too.

If only one side is flaming, we'll give a verbal warning.

Saying that if its in "PM," they're completely immune to punishment is wrong.

Saying they should "Ignore" the pm is totally not completely efficient. How many times have you and others been told to "Ignore" the issue and how many times has it worked?

There is no need to open the PM.... IF someone begins flaming you, and you don't want to read it.. Don't. It is completely your choice. If you lack the self control to stop yourself from reading a simple PM, I feel pity for you.

You cannot POSSIBLY argue that ignoring would have worked.
We both know that if a flame was ever directed at you, YOU would have never ignored it and you would have fired right back.
 
--------------------
bto

Ex-WG Warlord

"It is our direction, not our intentions, that lead us to our destinations."

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

To Repeat:

By your logic, a member could pm another saying the most obscene comments about them whenever they please, and not be repremanded? That makes no sense?

I rarely ever tell anyone to 'take something to PM' - I do my utmost to solve the actual situation by taking the two people into a separate channel to discuss the issue.

Rick Hamm's abusive behavior towards a tertiary was completely unacceptable. Had no action been taken whatever, the leadership would have been accused of bias in favour of Rick Hamm. By banning him, obviously we are still accused of bias against Rick Hamm. As I pointed out on his leaving topic, with the Rick Hamm situation, unfortunately we can not please everyone.

That being said, harrasment, disrespect and flaming towards a clan mate in PM is equally as unacceptable as it would be in the main channel. I have always personally taken a firm stance on this. I believe that flaming is an offence by whatever means it is sent to the target. For this reason, Rick hamm recieved a warning level.

~Mugger84

Well if you want a logic fight, by indeed taking action I could easily say that your true reason for punishing Rick, is that he made those comments about you during the elections. Honestly, I could say you simply have a personal vendetta against him, like I believe I already have... I could say you are basing things off the past.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.

We tell people to take it to pm when BOTH sides are flaming. Instead of giving a warning level to both of them, we give them a chance to straighten it out.

When one member is bullying another member, thats unacceptable. If the other member is flaming back, then they're both wrong, but unless it becomes EXTREMELY out of hand, then neither will get warned. People that are told to "take it to pm" dont report the other member, because in doing so, it wouldnt be justifiable because they flammed too.

If only one side is flaming, we'll give a verbal warning.

Saying that if its in "PM," they're completely immune to punishment is wrong.

Saying they should "Ignore" the pm is totally not completely efficient. How many times have you and others been told to "Ignore" the issue and how many times has it worked?

There is no need to open the PM.... IF someone begins flaming you, and you don't want to read it.. Don't. It is completely your choice. If you lack the self control to stop yourself from reading a simple PM, I feel pity for you.

You cannot POSSIBLY argue that ignoring would have worked.
We both know that if a flame was ever directed at you, YOU would have never ignored it and you would have fired right back.

This isn't about ME, now is it? I did say you can choose to ignore it.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

To Repeat:

By your logic, a member could pm another saying the most obscene comments about them whenever they please, and not be repremanded? That makes no sense?

I rarely ever tell anyone to 'take something to PM' - I do my utmost to solve the actual situation by taking the two people into a separate channel to discuss the issue.

Rick Hamm's abusive behavior towards a tertiary was completely unacceptable. Had no action been taken whatever, the leadership would have been accused of bias in favour of Rick Hamm. By banning him, obviously we are still accused of bias against Rick Hamm. As I pointed out on his leaving topic, with the Rick Hamm situation, unfortunately we can not please everyone.

That being said, harrasment, disrespect and flaming towards a clan mate in PM is equally as unacceptable as it would be in the main channel. I have always personally taken a firm stance on this. I believe that flaming is an offence by whatever means it is sent to the target. For this reason, Rick hamm recieved a warning level.

~Mugger84

Well if you want a logic fight, by indeed taking action I could easily say that your true reason for punishing Rick, is that he made those comments about you during the elections. Honestly, I could say you simply have a personal vendetta against him, like I believe I already have... I could say you are basing things off the past.

If I had a personal vendetta against Rick Hamm, I would have banned him when he posted the rude post on the council nominations WHILST he was suspended. HOWEVER, I instead gave him a chance to change his ways. Your logic is flawed.

~Mugger84
 
--------------------
Mugger84
Member Of WG Since 4th April 2008.
WG Raid Leader Since 20th June 2008.
WG Council Since 20th November 2008.
Banned from WG Since 6th March 2009.
DF IG Since 6th March 2009.
DF FA Since 15th March 2009.
Ex-Member Of WG Since 26th March 2009.
Member of DF Since 6th April 2009.
Clan Friend of WG Since 4th June 2009.
---
||Ex-WG Warlord || Current Member of DF || Ex-Rampage Leader ||

So what does that mean? All the times I've been told to take it to pm, I was simply being told to delay the inevitable? Why not just let people flame in #WG? Since you believe there is no difference.. Honestly you are wrong. in PM it doesn't matter.. You can always choose to ignore their pms. It is a bit harder ti ignore in #WG, although not impossible.

We tell people to take it to pm when BOTH sides are flaming. Instead of giving a warning level to both of them, we give them a chance to straighten it out.

When one member is bullying another member, thats unacceptable. If the other member is flaming back, then they're both wrong, but unless it becomes EXTREMELY out of hand, then neither will get warned. People that are told to "take it to pm" dont report the other member, because in doing so, it wouldnt be justifiable because they flammed too.

If only one side is flaming, we'll give a verbal warning.

Saying that if its in "PM," they're completely immune to punishment is wrong.

Saying they should "Ignore" the pm is totally not completely efficient. How many times have you and others been told to "Ignore" the issue and how many times has it worked?

There is no need to open the PM.... IF someone begins flaming you, and you don't want to read it.. Don't. It is completely your choice. If you lack the self control to stop yourself from reading a simple PM, I feel pity for you.

You cannot POSSIBLY argue that ignoring would have worked.
We both know that if a flame was ever directed at you, YOU would have never ignored it and you would have fired right back.

This isn't about ME, now is it? I did say you can choose to ignore it.

It if doesnt work for you, then how could you say it woulda worked for them?
 
--------------------
bto

Ex-WG Warlord

"It is our direction, not our intentions, that lead us to our destinations."

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

To Repeat:

By your logic, a member could pm another saying the most obscene comments about them whenever they please, and not be repremanded? That makes no sense?

I rarely ever tell anyone to 'take something to PM' - I do my utmost to solve the actual situation by taking the two people into a separate channel to discuss the issue.

Rick Hamm's abusive behavior towards a tertiary was completely unacceptable. Had no action been taken whatever, the leadership would have been accused of bias in favour of Rick Hamm. By banning him, obviously we are still accused of bias against Rick Hamm. As I pointed out on his leaving topic, with the Rick Hamm situation, unfortunately we can not please everyone.

That being said, harrasment, disrespect and flaming towards a clan mate in PM is equally as unacceptable as it would be in the main channel. I have always personally taken a firm stance on this. I believe that flaming is an offence by whatever means it is sent to the target. For this reason, Rick hamm recieved a warning level.

~Mugger84

Well if you want a logic fight, by indeed taking action I could easily say that your true reason for punishing Rick, is that he made those comments about you during the elections. Honestly, I could say you simply have a personal vendetta against him, like I believe I already have... I could say you are basing things off the past.

If I had a personal vendetta against Rick Hamm, I would have banned him when he posted the rude post on the council nominations WHILST he was suspended. HOWEVER, I instead gave him a chance to change his ways. Your logic is flawed.

~Mugger84

Is it now? How do I know you weren't waiting for the smallest thing to give yourself a so-called "just" reason for the ban? With as many people on Ricks side back at the time of the election you could have easily suspected that a bigger uproar than this one would have happened. Right now, when he has just returned would obviously be the best time to catch him off guard. You confront him about what happened during the council elections, maybe George does to. This sets him off, and you win by calling it an attack.
 
--------------------

R.I.P. Lucy
!

Technically, since it was in a PM.. only those involved would know about it... and thus no one would think anyone bias...

The member who sent me the information of the conversation would have felt it as bias.

Imagine if it had been the other way around and it was rick sending me the quote. He would have assploded with fury had I not taken any action.

~Mugger84

Do you know the meaning of Personal? The information shouldn't have gone past the two it was between. It should have stayed there and settled. Personal information, is personal information.. Would you like everyone to know your passwords? I think not. Don't try and tell me it isn't the same, because both are types of personal information.

To Repeat:

By your logic, a member could pm another saying the most obscene comments about them whenever they please, and not be repremanded? That makes no sense?

I rarely ever tell anyone to 'take something to PM' - I do my utmost to solve the actual situation by taking the two people into a separate channel to discuss the issue.

Rick Hamm's abusive behavior towards a tertiary was completely unacceptable. Had no action been taken whatever, the leadership would have been accused of bias in favour of Rick Hamm. By banning him, obviously we are still accused of bias against Rick Hamm. As I pointed out on his leaving topic, with the Rick Hamm situation, unfortunately we can not please everyone.

That being said, harrasment, disrespect and flaming towards a clan mate in PM is equally as unacceptable as it would be in the main channel. I have always personally taken a firm stance on this. I believe that flaming is an offence by whatever means it is sent to the target. For this reason, Rick hamm recieved a warning level.

~Mugger84

Well if you want a logic fight, by indeed taking action I could easily say that your true reason for punishing Rick, is that he made those comments about you during the elections. Honestly, I could say you simply have a personal vendetta against him, like I believe I already have... I could say you are basing things off the past.

If I had a personal vendetta against Rick Hamm, I would have banned him when he posted the rude post on the council nominations WHILST he was suspended. HOWEVER, I instead gave him a chance to change his ways. Your logic is flawed.

~Mugger84

Is it now? How do I know you weren't waiting for the smallest thing to give yourself a so-called "just" reason for the ban? With as many people on Ricks side back at the time of the election you could have easily suspected that a bigger uproar than this one would have happened. Right now, when he has just returned would obviously be the best time to catch him off guard. You confront him about what happened during the council elections, maybe George does to. This sets him off, and you win by calling it an attack.

Confront him? Wtf are you talking about?

I was presented with a complaint from a tertiary that a member had been bullying & flaming them - I read the evidence thoroughly and decided that I agreed that the appropriate action would be for the member to recieve a warning level. This member was unfortunately Rick Hamm. Again, unfortunately Rick Hamm was already on 80% warn, and so his warn was topped up to the maximum 100%, which is an outright permenant ban.

There was a completely just reason for a warning level from rick's post in the council nominations. Even then I recieved three complaints about the post, two of which even said Rick ought to be given a warn level for his post. Had I felt that Rick wouldn't change at the time, I would have banned him, however me being the gullible person I am believed Rick would be able to change for the better. It was a shame to find today that I was wrong, and that I could have saved a whole lot of drama has I not been bias in favour of Rick Hamm last week in the council nomination topic. I'm ashamed I didn't ban him at the point at which I could have saved a lot of drama.

~Mugger84
 
--------------------
Mugger84
Member Of WG Since 4th April 2008.
WG Raid Leader Since 20th June 2008.
WG Council Since 20th November 2008.
Banned from WG Since 6th March 2009.
DF IG Since 6th March 2009.
DF FA Since 15th March 2009.
Ex-Member Of WG Since 26th March 2009.
Member of DF Since 6th April 2009.
Clan Friend of WG Since 4th June 2009.
---
||Ex-WG Warlord || Current Member of DF || Ex-Rampage Leader ||