NSG Senate Lobby: Up for a game of pool? [NSG Senate]

[Bodobol]

He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

I am still going to vote against it because of excessive ban. DEAT is a DEAT...

A 24-hour forumban is too many bans.

Okay then.

[Jetan]

Which would have been cheating.

Cheating is forbidding someone to change their vote. I was trying to make sure that vote changes were possible, as they always have been and democratically should be.

As I've already said to you, I'm not forbidding anyone from changing their vote (especially not after admin ruling), but you advised him to edit the original vote out of existence in the event he wasn't allowed to change his vote and that is definately cheating.

[Great Nepal]

I am still going to vote against it because of excessive ban. DEAT is a DEAT...

Total: 2 warns.

"Excessive"

Not two warnings. A delete. Mods dont delete someone willy nilly.

[The Republic of Llamas]

Fine. How about we say that Ikania gets half a vote? Happy, y'all? This is getting annoying.

[Ainin]

Cheating is forbidding someone to change their vote. I was trying to make sure that vote changes were possible, as they always have been and democratically should be.

As I've already said to you, I'm not forbidding anyone from changing their vote (especially not after admin ruling), but you advised him to edit the original vote out of existence in the event he wasn't allowed to change his vote and that is definately cheating.

It's called a RETCON.

[Battlion]

No

[Great Nepal]

I am still going to vote against it because of excessive ban. DEAT is a DEAT...

A 24-hour forumban is too many bans.

Okay then.

No, a DEAT is too many.

How does that not violate excessive ban clause? You usually get an unofficial warning, several warnings, one day ban, two day ban, seven day ban, then DEAT.

Again
Purpose of rules /=/ the rules themselves
We don't want any trouble makers in this RP
Newbie not getting rules then getting them when it's too late /=/ Troublemaking.

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

[Bodobol]

Fine. How about we say that Ikania gets half a vote? Happy, y'all? This is getting annoying.

How would half a vote work?

Anyway, considering Ikania only had that one incident on his past nation, and no excessive ban/warning history, I think he should be given a vote.

[Ikania]

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

Well, I was, and the mod did, so...

[Britcan]

Again
Purpose of rules /=/ the rules themselves
We don't want any trouble makers in this RP
Newbie not getting rules then getting them when it's too late /=/ Troublemaking.

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

[Jetan]

As I've already said to you, I'm not forbidding anyone from changing their vote (especially not after admin ruling), but you advised him to edit the original vote out of existence in the event he wasn't allowed to change his vote and that is definately cheating.

It's called a RETCON.

The way Yanalia advised was not a retcon, it was a blatant attempt at circumventing the rules incase they turned out to be against (which they didn't) his position.

[Ainin]

A 24-hour forumban is too many bans.

Okay then.

No, a DEAT is too many.

Again
Purpose of rules /=/ the rules themselves
We don't want any trouble makers in this RP
Newbie not getting rules then getting them when it's too late /=/ Troublemaking.

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

He had a single disciplinary action on his record, and was DEATed for posting past ban.

Total: 2

[Bodobol]

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

I checked the One-Stop Rule Shop after Mojave got deleted, and you're correct.

[Great Nepal]

If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

[The Republic of Llamas]

Fine. How about we say that Ikania gets half a vote? Happy, y'all? This is getting annoying.

How would have a vote work?

Anyway, considering Ikania only had that one incident on his past nation, and no excessive ban/warning history, I think he should be given a vote.

add .5 to Yanalia's vote count, rather than 1. There. Everyone's all happy.

[Ainin]

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

1. Yes

[Great Nepal]

No, a DEAT is too many.


If mod thought he simply didn't get the rule, he wouldn't have been DEAT.

He had a single disciplinary action on his record, and was DEATed for posting past ban.
Total: 2

DEAT is the most serious from of ban that would allow that person to be on forums, however.

[Jetan]

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

I won't take any sides on this argument but not knowing the rules has never been a valid excuse in my knowledge.

[Uiiop]

I think posting past a ban is always ground for a DEAT.

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

2. IN that case are you willing to kick out people who even the founder accepted?

[Battlion]

Why don't we find out which mod did it and ask their version huh?

[Bodobol]

How would have a vote work?

Anyway, considering Ikania only had that one incident on his past nation, and no excessive ban/warning history, I think he should be given a vote.

add .5 to Yanalia's vote count, rather than 1. There. Everyone's all happy.

Oh wait, that would work. Never mind.

[Ainin]

He had a single disciplinary action on his record, and was DEATed for posting past ban.
Total: 2

DEAT is the most serious from of ban that would allow that person to be on forums, however.

The DEAT is automatically employed for a posting past ban. It wasn't a numerous stage evolution.

1- 24h ban for spam
2- DEAT for unknowingly posting with puppet

Total: 2

[The Republic of Llamas]

You dont get DEAT by making one mistake. You get that by consistently breaking the rules.

He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

Can you please link us to where he broke the rules, so that people can see?

[Ainin]

Why don't we find out which mod did it and ask their version huh?

Mods tend to refuse 3rd party requests.

[Great Nepal]

1. Even if they didn't know the rules?
2. Again, it is a DEAT. Apart from DOS, you cant get any more serious than that.

2. IN that case are you willing to kick out people who even the founder accepted?

2. No, if it had been upto me I would not have accepted them but removing that for now would be too much of an hassle. No one else with DEAT should be accepted.