[BLaCKPoWeR]

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.

[Legend ReX]

Originally posted by Duca

Can you warn all of those and just ban him?

Lol, Grace is enamored by the Army these days.

[Kworb]

Originally posted by Vin

Kworb, Lee -- is my case being processed: http://atrl.net/?p=10583453



...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.

[princedonte]

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.

[Guero]

Originally posted by fineandbambi

Back off.

She don't want you.

[Kang.]

[MrBeyonceFan]

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

No Way

[Vin]

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

[Georges]

^That's why I hate lawyers

[zombaland]

Originally posted by Muggwa

Just sayin'.

So unnecessarily aggressive in an internet forum.

[Kworb]

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.

[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.

[zombaland]

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.

[Vin]

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.

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

[alkralkra]

Originally posted by Muggwa

I assume this is getting warned?

No it won't.

[Porygon2z]

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. )

[Kworb]

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.

[longjohn9898]

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.

[Kworb]

Just put Peep Show on your ignore list if his insults bother you.

[Vin]

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.

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