GETTING IN TROUBLE/LOSING PERMISSION

[+Seeker_Knight]

I HAVE LEARNED THAT A PERSON MUST NOT DISAGREE WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE ON ANYTHING, OR ELSE YOU GET PERMANENT PENALTY POINTS, OR BANNED FROM  A TOPIC IN WHICH OTHER PEOPLE ARE CONTINUING TO QUOTE YOU IN. AND MAKING AN APPEAL GETS IGNORED.

 

WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

 

IS THAT A VIOLATION OF TERMS OF SERVICE. OR ARE TERMS OF SERVICE ABOVE THE LITTLE DOCUMENT WE CALL THE CONSTITUTION?

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE MESSAGE I GOT WHEN I ATTEMPTED TO READ THE MESSAGES IN WHICH I HAD BEEN QUOTED....

 

Sorry, there is a problem

You do not have permission to view this content.

Error code: 2F173/K

Edited February 8, 2020 by Seeker_Knight
CORRECTION

[+Goldenwattle]

What are these penalty points you refer to?

[+barefootjeff]

It appears that the entire thread in question has gone. That happens if the original poster deletes their post. The error probably just means you're trying to view something that's no longer visible.

[Keystone]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all  US citizens from governmental action that limits freedom of speech, or of the press.

 

Geocaching.com is not a governmental agency, so the First Amendment analogy is inapposite.

 

Governments (in the USA and elsewhere) have also passed laws designed to protect individuals' privacy rights, including online privacy rights.  Because of these privacy laws, Geocaching HQ had to allow forum community posters the right to remove their own posted content, or else risk legal consequences for not offering that right.  The thread the OP is asking about represents an individual's exercise of those rights.

 

No action has been taken against the OP by Geocaching HQ or by the Volunteer Moderators that would operate to restrict the OP's ability to view content, while allowing others to see it.

 

Nothing to see here.

[Keystone]

I moved this thread because it is not a "Getting Started" issue.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What are these penalty points you refer to?

 

You get them when you err on the side of telling it like it is instead of "playing nice".  I'll probably get one for this post

Edited February 8, 2020 by ParrotRobAndCeCe

[+Touchstone]

Keystone has some helpful links in his signature line that might be worth you while to read through to answer your questions.  Although I do wish there was  a line in the Forum Guidelines that would address the use of the CAP LOCK key.

 

Regarding the removed thread, as mentioned above, it appears the Original Poster of the thread deleted it via a somewhat new feature that allows the OP of a thread to remove the entire discussion with a click of a button.  This feature was implemented in accordance with the way HQ interprets the GDPR (sometimes referred to as "the right to be forgotten").

 

 

[+hal-an-tow]

Yep , the original poster who made the thread can delete the whole thing at will if they wish , everyone's comments not just their own. Perhaps it's not worth spending time on replies to folk whose posts show a lack of appreciation for honest debate. Reputation points (those little numbers above the 'posts' number under your icon) as far as I know, are only added by others giving your post an uptick, not reduced in any way.

 

Personally I'd see deleting a thread as the O.P. admitting the whole thing was an embarrassment to them and a total mistake, rather than that they somehow 'won'.

[+Isonzo Karst]

 Used to only be able to edit a post, never delete it, and the edit function was only active for some hours after posting. 

 

Now, you chose to delete any post of yours, AND if it was the opening post of a thread, the whole thread disappears.   I think most who delete that opening post, rather than edit it, don't realize that the thread is going to disappear. They aren't told that.

 

 

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

Not sure who those "certain people" are,  knowing some long-time members who got themselves really banned .

A few can almost tell by now when a thread is going to be locked or zapped (as some IBTL posts...), simply by the language.

I feel that unlike social sites, where everyone agrees, and a freethinker gets removed, forums were meant for differing opinions/views.   

When we have an issue here, a Mod steps in and reminds folks to chill, or time to get back on topic.   That's fair.

 

Our first amendment doesn't include this website or any other private organization. 

There's a lot of folks who think it applies everywhere.  

Think of it as,  "what can you say face-to-face to your boss at work ?"

 - You can say what you want, you do have rights,  but you may leave with your belongings afterwards...   

[+Seeker_Knight]

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What are these penalty points you refer to?

 

I have no idea what the points are, but I have one of them apparently forever!

[+Seeker_Knight]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It appears that the entire thread in question has gone. That happens if the original poster deletes their post. The error probably just means you're trying to view something that's no longer visible.

Then why do I keep getting notifications that various people have quoted me from that post

Seeker_Knight

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I have no idea what the points are, but I have one of them apparently forever!

I may regret this, but here goes nothing.

 

What makes you think that you have one of these "points" forever? Other than your inability to see a thread that none of us can see either (because the creator of the thread decided to delete it), of course.

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

I may regret this, but here goes nothing.

 

What makes you think that you have one of these "points" forever? Other than your inability to see a thread that none of us can see either (because the creator of the thread decided to delete it), of course.

I believe that is what was in the email I got as copied below...

 

Hi Seeker_Knight,
You have been warned by Rock Chalk for a comment made in a topic, Help maintaining abandoned Caches
 

Reason: Abusive Behaviour Content: Help maintaining abandoned Caches Penalty: Given 1 points which will never expire.     Note: Hello,   I'm Rock Chalk, one of the Geocaching Forums moderators.

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I believe that is what was in the email I got as copied below...

 

Hi Seeker_Knight,
You have been warned by Rock Chalk for a comment made in a topic, Help maintaining abandoned Caches
 

Reason: Abusive Behaviour Content: Help maintaining abandoned Caches Penalty: Given 1 points which will never expire.     Note: Hello,   I'm Rock Chalk, one of the Geocaching Forums moderators.

Aha! I learned something new.

[Keystone]

The warning issued to Seeker_Knight for an isolated forum guideline violation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Seeker_Knight (and everyone else) can no longer see the thread in question ("Help maintaining abandoned Caches").

 

No negative inference should be drawn from the phrase "which will never expire."  This text is canned within the forum software, which is provided by a third party software vendor.

 

Normally the details of private warnings are not disclosed by moderators to others, but since Seeker_Knight pasted some of the contents of their warning message, I wanted to post a clarification.

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The warning issued to Seeker_Knight for an isolated forum guideline violation has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Seeker_Knight (and everyone else) can no longer see the thread in question ("Help maintaining abandoned Caches").

 

No negative inference should be drawn from the phrase "which will never expire."  This text is canned within the forum software, which is provided by a third party software vendor.

 

Normally the details of private warnings are not disclosed by moderators to others, but since Seeker_Knight pasted some of the contents of their warning message, I wanted to post a clarification.

Soooo...... What exactly are these points? How do they work? What are the limits etc.?

May also be nice to have a quotation of the exact wording that caused the violation to prevent it again.

Seeker_Knight

Edited February 8, 2020 by Seeker_Knight
added to it

[+Touchstone]

I have no inside knowledge of the forum software, but maybe the “point” is generated by the “report this post”? I’ve reported a few posts that violated the commercial solicitation forum guidelines, and the lack of explanation in your notification suggests it is semi automated in nature, merely requiring a review by one of the mods. 

[Keystone]

Points are generated when a warning is issued, NOT when a post is reported.  There are many, many reports that do not result in warnings.

 

The "lack of explanation in your notification" is because Seeker_Knight only included an excerpt - the very beginning of the message, omitting the "meat" of the moderator's explanation.

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Points are generated when a warning is issued, NOT when a post is reported.  There are many, many reports that do not result in warnings.

 

The "lack of explanation in your notification" is because Seeker_Knight only included an excerpt - the very beginning of the message, omitting the "meat" of the moderator's explanation.

 

That quote included the entire email I received. Nothing was omitted.

Seeker_Knight

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

1 hour ago, Seeker_Knight said:

 

That quote included the entire email I received. Nothing was omitted.

Seeker_Knight

 

Mine had a detailed explanation -  you're not allowed to say bad things about even an unnamed, potentially hypothetical user, but whatever.

What's missing, though, is what the points actually mean and what actions can or will happen at different point levels.

[Keystone]

All moderator warnings include an explanation of what conduct or words violated the forum guidelines.  I do not know why Seeker Knight's message doesn't include all the content that the moderator wrote.  I can see the full text of the moderator warning.

 

As I said above, the points don't matter much.  A veteran forum poster can accumulate several unrelated warnings over the years, and never see a temporary or permanent suspension of their posting rights.  A malicious sock puppet can be banninated quickly.  A person warned once for a specific forum guideline issue could see their posting rights suspended for a matter of a few days to a week, if they repeated the same behavior they were warned about. 

[+hal-an-tow]

12 hours ago, Keystone said:

 banninated

That word has me confusicated ...

[+Michaelcycle]

20 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

That word has me confusicated ...

Excuse this post if you were being facetious. 

That word isn't used as much around here as it used to be. Of course, these fora are much quieter places than they used to be. "Banninate(d)" was in common use when I started lurking here 13 years ago. The earliest use I can find here, in a thread discussing closing threads and moderator conduct (like a faint echo of the current thread,) was in 2004:

Odd advice to give a noob

 

I remember the term from a private board or two in the late '90s but I don't recall if I saw it on Usenet. (I know I did not see it on the ARPANET in the mid '70s)

[+Seeker_Knight]

1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

That word has me confusicated ...

 

The wife and daughter have a whole vocabulary like this. At times I think I'm in a different country! Look through a modern dictionary and you are likely to find a lot of new words that once were "slang", are now accepted by prominent dictionaries. I guess that's how the language evolves. Just imagine if you went back a few hundred years. You might not even recognize the English language that they might speak.

Seeker_Knight

[+Hynz]

On 2/8/2020 at 6:07 AM, Keystone said:

Governments (in the USA and elsewhere) have also passed laws designed to protect individuals' privacy rights, including online privacy rights.  Because of these privacy laws, Geocaching HQ had to allow forum community posters the right to remove their own posted content, or else risk legal consequences for not offering that right.  The thread the OP is asking about represents an individual's exercise of those rights.

I want to humble repeat my disagreement with Groundspeaks decision to remove complete discussion threads just because the opening poster decided to remove his or her opening post. This is a in my opinion much exaggerated interpretation of any "individuals' privacy right".

 

The very thread ("Help maintaining abandoned Caches") was a long running, multi paged and on-topic exchange of opinions coming from different members and as I remember it contained by and large interesting and well meant opinions far from the need being closed or even being removed from existence.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

6 hours ago, Hynz said:

I want to humble repeat my disagreement with Groundspeaks decision to remove complete discussion threads just because the opening poster decided to remove his or her opening post. This is a in my opinion much exaggerated interpretation of any "individuals' privacy right".

 

The very thread ("Help maintaining abandoned Caches") was a long running, multi paged and on-topic exchange of opinions coming from different members and as I remember it contained by and large interesting and well meant opinions far from the need being closed or even being removed from existence.

 

I think you're misunderstanding here.  I don't think Groundspeak removed anything.  I think the OP may have... um... decided the conversation wasn't something worth pursuing and took it down himself and the forum software tore down the whole thread since it's all linked to the original post.  You're right, there was a lot of good information there, but also a lot of contention.

Edited February 10, 2020 by ParrotRobAndCeCe

[+hzoi]

I apparently missed the thread in question, so I don't know the specifics here.  But I thought I would share my general experience for what it's worth.  

 

I have gotten a warning from a forum moderator, as well as a couple messages that were not quite warnings so much as statements of concern.  They apparently predate the point system.  The point they all have in common is that I got personal when I shouldn't have.

 

I know I have a temper.  Sometimes things get personal on the forums, and it's hard for me not to respond in kind.  Over the last thirteen years, I've slowly learned to take a beat and collect my thoughts before I write anything.  Sometimes I'll just write a reply, and then delete it without posting it.  These days, I am doubly careful about what I post, because I'm honored I was asked to be a Groundspeak volunteer, and I don't want to throw that opportunity out the window just so I can sling a few barbs on the internet to make myself feel better.

 

So for the handful of times a moderator has had to contact me, I took them all as warnings, apologized to both the moderator and to the other forum user, and tried to make sure I comported myself more in line with moderator expectations.  To date, I have not gotten suspended or banned from either geocaching.com or from the forums, so hopefully I'm doing it right.

Edited February 10, 2020 by hzoi

[+thebruce0]

I do agree that that allowing the software to completely kill off a possibly (in this case definitely) information-filled, relevant discussion thread (despite some content that could be considered removable) is overkill. If it's about GDPR, then likewise if a user wants their account deleted, why not kill off all their cache listings and all their cache finders' logs too? That's basically the same thing. No connection to the now-vanished user.

Instead of we have [deleted user] in place of any references, and other content remains intact - even if the user is named in plaintext in logs.  So I would think the forum software should delete a user, and any reference to the user (empty their comments, eg, maybe at worst also quote text attributed to them in others' comments) but leave the thread dagnabbit.

That thread deletion wasn't just removing that user's content (assumedly this wasn't even a 'make my user account vanish' insomuch as a 'I don't care for this thread') it was also removing everyone else's content they may have felt potentially valuable.  That's a bit of an overstep, IMO.

 

I know that's forum software, and not HQ, but is there no option in the forum settings for what should happen on thread deletion? Or maybe turning off straight-up deletion and having the user instead ask a moderator to close or clean up the thread? I really don't know many forums that allow a standard users to completely destroy the existence of a thread. Sub-comments, sure, to a time, but a whole thread? =/

[Keystone]

One could raise a feature suggestion with Invision, the vendor for the forum software.

[+thebruce0]

If the only two options currently are do nothing, or delete the entire thread, then the lesser of two evils may be delete the entire thread. But that's why I mentioned having some way for a reviewer to deal with the thread; or as currently, just lock the thread (and don't allow deletion of the thread by the OP, a standard user).

 

If this wasn't a GDPR issue, then thread-destruction is an major overstep, IMO.  If this was a GDPR issue, then the [deleted user] option like the rest of the website would be a good forum feature suggestion

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Sometimes I'll just write a reply, and then delete it without posting it. 

 

That's me. Before that forum topic was deleted I had written about 3 replies and deleted each one instead of sending.

 

I wasn't all that sad to see it gone. But it was confusing at first until I remembered that forum topics can now be deleted.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

Sometimes I'll just write a reply, and then delete it without posting it. 

 

That's funny !  I've done that for a couple years now.      Often long-winded replies to something that ticked me off.

I used to just "go back", and then the future post is hidden in it's spot. 

One day the post was almost included (dyslexic old farts have to hunt n peck...).  Luckily it was looking up to correct errors when I noticed.  

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I know that's forum software, and not HQ, but is there no option in the forum settings for what should happen on thread deletion?

Or maybe turning off straight-up deletion and having the user instead ask a moderator to close or clean up the thread?

I really don't know many forums that allow a standard users to completely destroy the existence of a thread. Sub-comments, sure, to a time, but a whole thread? =/

 

The couple I noticed had a bunch of replies to a person no longer there, and it did seem confusing. 

The biggest issue (I see) is a troll coming into the forums, getting folks worked up, then deleting their original post.  

Mission accomplished...

Or a new cacher with an idea or question, and didn't like the helpful answers that everyone gave them.

This happened, and noticed enough by others where I got mail from a couple people asking if I knew what forum area it got sent to.   

[+Seeker_Knight]

The root problem in all of this is quite simple. Our society has evolved to a stage where people no longer have to stand socially accountable for their actions and attitudes towards others. The end of the schoolyard fight after school, or the anticipated brawl at the local bar following a severe disagreement have gone the way of the dinosaur.  In the "old days" you had to be wise enough, and tough enough, to know where the social line was. If you had the courage to stand and fight for what you believed, you could say just about anything. You might get your *ss kicked, but you had that choice. Otherwise you became part of the background gossip chain, and you had better hope you didn't get exposed, or you would get "called out" to atone for what you had said, and that was even worse. NOBODY liked a coward who didn't have the courage to just speak their mind. Even the guy/gal who lost a fight over a disagreement was held in higher social esteem than the snake who ran around gossiping.

Anyone who know what the original Newsgroups were like will remember them like the "Wild West" of the internet. Some of those would degrade into absolute threats of violence. Other times they would get invaded by cowardly "Trolls" who figured out how to hide their identity, and wreaked havoc on a thread, a topic, or a whole newsroom. It actually got scary at times. These people would track people down and do physical harm to them. Many times the authorities would get involved. I'm talking some real serious stuff. Actual criminal prosecution etc..

I've seen both sides of this, so I know what these moderators are trying to prevent. I am still old school, and have no fear of speaking my mind. But then I would also have the courage to stand for what I believe just like the old days. Been there, done that, took the lumps, gave a few, paid the Dentists and the lawyers too!

I personally feel that nothing should be said on any public media that you wouldn't say in public and in person. Only problem with this is that some of us are of the temperament that we have a much higher threshold for acceptance of social penalties than others. I learned this at twelve years old. Some guy accused me of insulting his girlfriend, which was not true. But we both believed we were right, and that fight lasted 45 minutes. In active fighting time, that is an ETERNITY! Both of us walked away from it half dead. He later found out who had actually started the rumor about his girlfriend and was man enough to apologize. The atonement came in the form of two cold beers he stole from his Dad that we drank together. And that was the  end of it.

Now we live in a world where anyone of any stature, be it coward or conqueror, can simply run their mouth without fear of reprisal. And this is why we need to adhere to these guidlines more than ever. There is just no way to settle things on the schoolyard fight, or the barroom brawl  anymore.

If I have offended anyone by my statements, please understand my old school attitudes, and accept my most humble apologies.

 

Sincerely

Seeker_Knight

[+cerberus1]

6 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I personally feel that nothing should be said on any public media that you wouldn't say in public and in person. 

 

Now we live in a world where anyone of any stature, be it coward or conqueror, can simply run their mouth without fear of reprisal.

And this is why we need to adhere to these guidlines more than ever. 

 

I don't know about others, but anything I say here would be said openly at any event, and has.   

 

The site knows each of us by name.   That (I feel) keeps most in check.  

[+on4bam]

29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't know about others, but anything I say here would be said openly at any event, and has.   

 

Same here and it got me a few bans. Don't care though, I still write what I think and feel strongly about what's in my sig

 

[+Seeker_Knight]

25 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

Same here and it got me a few bans. Don't care though, I still write what I think and feel strongly about what's in my sig

 

That is what the Forums are supposed to be. An exchange of knowledge, ideas and opinions. Yes, they do get heated at times. That is the nature of things. We just have to find the happy medium where we can do this and not be overly offensive.

Seeker_Knight

[+L0ne.R]

13 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

That is what the Forums are supposed to be. An exchange of knowledge, ideas and opinions. Yes, they do get heated at times. That is the nature of things. We just have to find the happy medium where we can do this and not be overly offensive.

Seeker_Knight

 

That's where moderators come in and throw some cold water at us to make us calm down. It tends to do the trick. 

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

There was indeed a lot of good information in that thread.  Unfortunately, the person that brought the ball didn't like the way the game unfolded, so he took his ball, went home, and now no one can play.

 

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Seeker_Knight said:

That is what the Forums are supposed to be. An exchange of knowledge, ideas and opinions. Yes, they do get heated at times. That is the nature of things. We just have to find the happy medium where we can do this and not be overly offensive.

Seeker_Knight

 

Or not be the one who is overly offended by things said, when they were not intended to be personal, yet were taken that way.  

[+cerberus1]

15 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Or not be the one who is overly offended by things said, when they were not intended to be personal, yet were taken that way.  

 

Yep.  The downside to not talking to people face-to-face is it's sometimes tough to read tone in writings.   

[+ecanderson]

Speaking to you from what once was 1:104/1 and 1:104/114:

I recall the rather ambiguous but often quoted rules from the 'old days'. Raise your hand if you operated a node back then:

 

9.1  General

The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:

     1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.

     2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

Edited February 10, 2020 by ecanderson

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

Or not be the one who is overly offended by things said, when they were not intended to be personal, yet were taken that way.  

Amen

[+on4bam]

41 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

Speaking to you from what once was 1:104/1 and 1:104/114:

I recall the rather ambiguous but often quoted rules from the 'old days'. Raise your hand if you operated a node back then:

 

9.1  General

The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:

     1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.

     2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.

LOL.. Fidonet, those were the days. A friend was a "point' and we had fun testing different modems for a local shop playing with AT settings. Later the internet took over....

 

[+Seeker_Knight]

3 minutes ago, on4bam said:

LOL.. Fidonet, those were the days. A friend was a "point' and we had fun testing different modems for a local shop playing with AT settings. Later the internet took over....

 

I was on giganet for years. 9.6 baud was a beast til.......

A message could take several minutes to upload/download, and perish the thought of attempting to make even a small image go through, let alone a sound file.

Seeker_Knight

Edited February 10, 2020 by Seeker_Knight

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I was on giganet for years. 9.6 baud was a beast til.......

There was 300Bd AX25 on 27MHz here first (until I got my ham license). It took hours for messages to make it halfway around the world through several BBSes. Later as a ham I could send @ 1200Bd on 144MHz to a local BBS and messages were then also forwarded via amateur satellites. 

But let's not get off-topic 

[+ras_oscar]

On 2/8/2020 at 4:04 PM, Seeker_Knight said:

Soooo...... What exactly are these points? How do they work? What are the limits etc.?

May also be nice to have a quotation of the exact wording that caused the violation to prevent it again.

Seeker_Knight

I remember the deleted thread and do not recall any content that I personally consider objectionable.  I have participated in this forum for a long time and have come to develop a great respect for the tone of civility that is maintained to a large part by the work behind the scenes by the moderators. I understand that rebuff by a moderator to a participant is a private issue like a discussion with a therapist. Seeker_ knight, if you understand the reason for the moderator message,  the purpose has been achieved and no further discussion is necessary. If you are still unclear as to the reason for the message, I'd recommend you PM the moderator directly to gain clarity.

[+Seeker_Knight]

2 hours ago, ras_oscar said:

I remember the deleted thread and do not recall any content that I personally consider objectionable.  I have participated in this forum for a long time and have come to develop a great respect for the tone of civility that is maintained to a large part by the work behind the scenes by the moderators. I understand that rebuff by a moderator to a participant is a private issue like a discussion with a therapist. Seeker_ knight, if you understand the reason for the moderator message,  the purpose has been achieved and no further discussion is necessary. If you are still unclear as to the reason for the message, I'd recommend you PM the moderator directly to gain clarity.

I got a response and the complete text that was supposed to be with the first email. It's all good.

To:you Details

 

Here is the complete text of the warning note you received from Rock Chalk at Geocaching HQ.  You replied "Sound like a real nice guy to me! Yeah right!" to a post from someone whose opinions differed from yours.  Had you criticized the opinion, rather than the person, you would have been fine.

 

Regards,

Keystone

 

Hello,

 

I'm Rock Chalk, one of the Geocaching Forums moderators.

 

One of your posts has been removed, as it violated forum guidelines:

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious, or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. 

 

Please be more mindful about the guidelines with future posts, as continued violations of forum guidelines may result in suspension of posting rights.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

 

On Sunday, February 9, 2020, 1:56:58 AM EST, Geocaching <noreply@geocaching.com> wrote:

 

 

If you can see the full text of the warning I received, could you send me the rest of it. What I posted was the full extent of my email. Thank you. Just nice to know the whole story. Seeker_Knight

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

1 hour ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Had you criticized the opinion, rather than the person, you would have been fine.

 

Regards,

Keystone

-----------------------

Hello,

 

I'm Rock Chalk.... 

 

4. ..... Generalized, vicious, or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. 

 

So which is it?  Here we have one mod saying you'd have been ok if you criticized the "opinion" not the person, and a second mod saying you can't do either.  I mean, I'm all for law and order, but it should be applied uniformly.

Edited February 11, 2020 by ParrotRobAndCeCe
Spelling only