| |
Official: Archived: ATRL HQ (2012-2013)
Banned
Member Since: 10/28/2011
Posts: 21,283
|
Quote:
Originally posted by YourϺɑdGesty 2.0
RichGirlPlɑnet is the most underrɑted Beyhive member on here.
It's like, you cɑn't even get mɑd ɑt him/her when he/she's shɑdin' or drɑggin' your fɑve
Becɑuse it's done with humor ɑnd not hostility.
RGP is ɑn ɑdded bonus to ATRL, truthfully. ♥♥♥
|
!!!!! SHE is one of my favorite members.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/22/2009
Posts: 11,768
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Duca
Can you warn all of those and just ban him?
|
Lol, Grace is enamored by the Army these days.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
|
It was quoted multiple times in the thread which was enough evidence of the original content of the post. And of course the original content can still be judged and warned accordingly.
Personally I wouldn't have warned it but I did not process it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2010
Posts: 11,240
|
I made the mistake of posting my comment as a report. Now i'm banned from the thread it was a mistake why do you have the report and reply with quote right next to each other.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 33,325
|
Quote:
Originally posted by fineandbambi
Back off.
 |
She don't want you.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/14/2011
Posts: 21,274
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/22/2011
Posts: 20,940
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lipton
Legend In Love. It is so good and back when Beyoncé was an artist. 
Many iconic moments.
DIL era.
What happened to Beyoncé afterward |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
It was quoted multiple times in the thread which was enough evidence of the original content of the post. And of course the original content can still be judged and warned accordingly.
Personally I wouldn't have warned it but I did not process it.
|
But, isn't that one of the uses of the "edit" button? For instance, if a member added a nickname to their post, and their post was quoted, and then they edited out their nickname later -- without the post having not been reported or warned -- then, hours later, ANOTHER member can STILL report the newly edited post for nicknames, and the post can still be warned because at some small point in time, it had a nickname in it? It almost defeats the purpose of having the "edit" button.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/24/2011
Posts: 17,221
|
^That's why I hate lawyers 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 10,635
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggwa
Just sayin'.  |
So unnecessarily aggressive in an internet forum.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
But, isn't that one of the uses of the "edit" button? For instance, if a member added a nickname to their post, and their post was quoted, and then they edited out their nickname later -- without the post having not been reported or warned -- then, hours later, ANOTHER member can STILL report the newly edited post for nicknames, and the post can still be warned because at some small point in time, it had a nickname in it? It almost defeats the purpose of having the "edit" button.
...Vin |
That's why you have to be careful before you press submit. Edit is generally used to add stuff to a post or to fix spelling/grammar. Using it to remove shade doesn't mean the shade never happened. Even if it wasn't reported.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 8/4/2009
Posts: 21,911
|
Yeah, I think is the same with the people who delete their posts.
I mean, they already got shady but were coward enough and deleted it,
but it can and must be still warned, because once you submit your post
you gotta accept the consequences (because there's always gonna be
someone bothered).
Nothing against you, Vin. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 10,635
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Porygon2z
Yeah, I think is the same with the people who delete their posts.
I mean, they already got shady but were coward enough and deleted it,
but it can and must be still warned, because once you submit your post
you gotta accept the consequences (because there's always gonna be
someone bothered).
|
!!!
I agree with Pory.
If you had the balls to post it in the first place,might as well go forward with it and face the consequence.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
That's why you have to be careful before you press submit. Edit is generally used to add stuff to a post or to fix spelling/grammar. Using it to remove shade doesn't mean the shade never happened. Even if it wasn't reported.
|
In a real-world context, you can argue "edit" is the equivalent to verbally correcting yourself if you may have said something offensive to someone. The logic still doesn't come together that a newly edited post that follows the guidelines of the forum, can still be reported for something that no longer exists within the post, despite whether it was quoted or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Porygon2z
Yeah, I think is the same with the people who delete their posts.
I mean, they already got shady but were coward enough and deleted it,
but it can and must be still warned, because once you submit your post
you gotta accept the consequences (because there's always gonna be
someone bothered).
Nothing against you, Vin. |
I don't argue with that, because as noted when I submitted my case, if my original post had been reported and warned, I wouldn't be arguing a reversal. Furthermore, I edited my post hours later, only after the fact that some members were "offended" by it, though the post contained nothing different than what everyone else was saying in the thread. The post was only "offensive by association" (as in, it was only "offensive" because Vin posted it). The original post was not reported and warned, the newly edited, "non-offensive" positive comment was reported and warned. If your post is reported, and you subsequently delete your post, it should be warned. If your post is not reported, and you subsequently delete your post, it should not be warned. The same principle should apply to editing your posts.
...Vin
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/5/2009
Posts: 9,974
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggwa
I assume this is getting warned?  |
No it won't.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 8/4/2009
Posts: 21,911
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
In a real-world context, you can argue "edit" is the equivalent to verbally correcting yourself if you may have said something offensive to someone. The logic still doesn't come together that a newly edited post that follows the guidelines of the forum, can still be reported for something that no longer exists within the post, despite whether it was quoted or not.
I don't argue with that, because as noted when I submitted my case, if my original post had been reported and warned, I wouldn't be arguing a reversal. Furthermore, I edited my post hours later, only after the fact that some members were "offended" by it, though the post contained nothing different than what everyone else was saying in the thread. The post was only "offensive by association" (as in, it was only "offensive" because Vin posted it). The original post was not reported and warned, the newly edited, "non-offensive" positive comment was reported and warned. If your post is reported, and you subsequently delete your post, it should be warned. If your post is not reported, and you subsequently delete your post, it should not be warned. The same principle should apply to editing your posts.
...Vin |
Let's say I steal something from a shop, then hours later I give it back and nobody
even noticed it before, should I go to jail?
It all depends on the shop's owner, in this case the mod that saw it.
To be honest, the person who reported you was reaching, if I see an edited post
I don't even bother to report it, the time it stayed unedited is a factor here, it means
someone just wanted to kick you out, but as I say before, this needs to be handled by
the moderator's discretion, because it can actually be or not be reported.
At least in my point of view. 
(Nothing against you, Vin. haha. )
|
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
In a real-world context, you can argue "edit" is the equivalent to verbally correcting yourself if you may have said something offensive to someone. The logic still doesn't come together that a newly edited post that follows the guidelines of the forum, can still be reported for something that no longer exists within the post, despite whether it was quoted or not.
...Vin |
In a real-world context, editing a post to remove shade is like tampering with evidence. A post becomes official when it's submitted to the forum, not when it's reported. If someone sells drugs on a street corner and is out of drugs when the police arrives, it doesn't mean that person did not commit a crime. If enough witnesses come forward, the suspect can still be convicted.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2011
Posts: 4,948
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vin
But, isn't that one of the uses of the "edit" button? For instance, if a member added a nickname to their post, and their post was quoted, and then they edited out their nickname later -- without the post having not been reported or warned -- then, hours later, ANOTHER member can STILL report the newly edited post for nicknames, and the post can still be warned because at some small point in time, it had a nickname in it? It almost defeats the purpose of having the "edit" button.
...Vin |
You should check your grammatical errors before putting them in bold. You meant "without the post having been reported or warned" or, alternatively, "with the post having not been reported or warned."
In any case, Kworb's already explained the reasoning for the warning point and it makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Administrator
Member Since: 6/29/2002
Posts: 77,601
|
Just put Peep Show on your ignore list if his insults bother you.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/25/2010
Posts: 23,013
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Porygon2z
Let's say I steal something from a shop, then hours later I give it back and nobody
even noticed it before, should I go to jail?
It all depends on the shop's owner, in this case the mod that saw it.
To be honest, the person who reported you was reaching, if I see an edited post
I don't even bother to report it, the time it stayed unedited is a factor here, it means
someone just wanted to kick you out, but as I say before, this needs to be handled by
the moderator's discretion, because it can actually be or not be reported.
At least in my point of view.
(Nothing against you, Vin. haha. ) |
Haha, you don't have to add that to the end of all your posts when
disagreeing with me in any conversation, P2z. I'm not unstable
like a lot of these members who take things personally.
And thank you for your input. And I agree with you that clearly the person who reported
the newly edited post, and you could argue even the moderator that delivered
the warning, were "reaching" with that, but it is what it is. 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
In a real-world context, editing a post to remove shade is like tampering with evidence. A post becomes official when it's submitted to the forum, not when it's reported. If someone sells drugs on a street corner and is out of drugs when the police arrives, it doesn't mean that person did not commit a crime. If enough witnesses come forward, the suspect can still be convicted.
|
It depends -- IF you were being "blatantly shady," then your real-world example applies. In my situation, that wasn't the case and followed my original real-world example of "verbally correcting" the situation to diffuse a possible "offensive" comment toward someone you're with. In any case, that's one of those unwritten rules that should be discussed behind-the-scenes and made more clear to members. I still believe I was found guilty on a technicality, but thanks for hearing my case, Kworb.
Until our next public, sensationalized trial...
...Vin
|
|
|
|
|
|
