|
|
Post by -M4- on Aug 10, 2009 15:45:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 10, 2009 19:07:54 GMT -5
Accoriding to the third-to-last link, two of the offenses were actually caused by Memzak and Sandmaster. I didn't see such evidence in those posts, although I have seen Sandmaster make some bumps himself...
Anyhow, assuming he is innocent for two of them, he was warned all but three times. That is probably somewhere between 40% or 60%. Fifty percent might be good...
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 11, 2009 2:39:14 GMT -5
I simply went by the fact that their posts were the ones right after the old ones. Alp's post may have been deleted.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 11, 2009 6:58:58 GMT -5
This is the post in which I assumed he didn't cause all of them... Memzak, please don't bump threads that much. It isn't all the same people. Alp didn't bump them. SM bumped one, Memzak another. |
|
KuraiOorora
Supreme Member
{S=39}[M:575]
Grand Mist Samurai
Posts: 322
|
Post by KuraiOorora on Aug 11, 2009 11:11:02 GMT -5
In the case of //ALP//.......most of his posts are rather pointless and are most likely done only to get a larger post count in my eyes....and those posts that M4 showed are indeed bumps and require chastisement. I suggest a simple warning to be taken place.
Now as for Memzak and SandMaster....they both are staff, yet they are to show an example for non-staff members to abide the rules. Not sure which punishment should be taken.....
|
|
|
|
Post by -M4- on Aug 11, 2009 14:00:36 GMT -5
This is the post in which I assumed he didn't cause all of them... Memzak, please don't bump threads that much. It isn't all the same people. Alp didn't bump them. SM bumped one, Memzak another. You're right. Memzak did bump that thread, and it was revived. It died again in April though, only to be bumped a second time by Alp in August. I got these posts from searching Alps first 39(?) posts, and from those I took the ones I thought looked suspicious, so I clicked on all the ones I thought may have been bumps and checked if there was over 30 days between his post and the last to determine if he bumped. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 11, 2009 21:32:23 GMT -5
Should we decrease his post count by 2 and his dan-balls by 4 for each bump? If he's doing this for post count, and he only gets a warning but keeps the post count, he's won. We need to show him that bumping will actually decrease his post count.
Same with xxx, although xxx apologized to me in PM.
|
|
|
|
Post by -M4- on Aug 11, 2009 23:05:25 GMT -5
Hey, I like that rule. I'm good with putting the warning level at 50%, but do you think a 50% warning and a lowered post and danball count 'll scare him away?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 12, 2009 2:02:02 GMT -5
50% is a bit harsh, but he's earned the dan-ball and post count.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 12, 2009 13:44:28 GMT -5
Hmm...alright, go ahead with the decreased post and money count. As for the percentage, do what seems fit for his ten or so bumps...
|
|
|
|
Post by -M4- on Aug 12, 2009 19:21:56 GMT -5
-36 danballs and -18 posts with a 50% warning? I'll make it 25% since he's already gonna lose 36 danballs and 18 posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 12, 2009 21:05:04 GMT -5
Alright, that should be good...
|
|
|
|
Post by -M4- on Aug 13, 2009 3:35:35 GMT -5
Ok, let's get this over with..
|
|
[M:7000]
