NeoStriker wrote...
Everyday someone in this forum gives you a reason to ban them, but you don't, so that in itself is not a reason. In fact, you more often arbitrarily suspend people for hurting your ego, the most recent one if I recall correctly being Sgt. Broski telling you to do something.
From your earlier conversation with Jacob that you quoted, it appears Jacob has no idea what the actual picture looked like. If you show it to him, then and only then could a fair judgment be passed. Or are you going to defer judgment to Jacob, only to take it back when it doesn't look like it'll go your way?
Incorrect, If I see a reason to ban someone I do, I don't read every thread and I don't handle every report. I won't deny that I sometimes unfairly ban people, but I also do the job properly at the same time. Everyone is treated poorly, the guilty and the innocent alike. That being said incidents like brosky are rare, and the
vast majority of my moderator actions have been on the level. The fact you believe otherwise is because 90% of what I've done has gone unnoticed, you didn't hear about all the spammers I've banned, or the harassment I've stopped. Perhaps assuming you know my track record from the little you've seen is bit foolish.
It's funny, you act as if you know what Jake would consider "alright" when in reality you have no clue. There are no degrees of guro on Fakku, it's either a picture with cut up bodies/blood/guts or it isn't, there is no "that's not bad". How about you leave interpreting the rules to me and ill leave championing the little guy to you.
NeoStriker wrote...
Waar should show Jacob the actual image itself, which any rational and sensible person should look at and at least say, "That's not so bad." In that case, the first ban should be stricken from the record, and she instead uses up her "first strike" for the multiple alts, allowing her to remain on Fakku albeit after being temporarily suspended for three days.
As I said: "not so bad" doesn't exist when it comes to the banned fetishes on Fakku. The first ban was part of the rules and the second was for multiple rule infractions. I never mentioned it but one of the accounts was actually created 2 years ago and was never closed meaning she had multiple accounts for the past 2 years, which only adds to severity of her crimes.
Glad you don't have time to fight though, you're getting into the repetitive argument area again.