Reason for ban

[newbie3214]

Hi @Dragon, I'm asking this on behalf of @jdrevolutionary23. He would like to know why he was given a temporary ban. The reason stated was "rules violations" - would you be able to elaborate?

Thanks!

 

[Dragon]

I am not the Moderator who gave the Warning infraction (3 points), which brought member jdrevolutionary23's infraction points total to 18, and resulting in his temporary ban. Our records show that it was due to this thread:

 

[newbie3214]

I am not the Moderator who gave the Warning infraction (3 points), which brought member jdrevolutionary23's infraction points total to 18, and resulting in his temporary ban. Our records show that it was due to this thread:

View attachment 30400

Thanks @Dragon for replying. Posting on behalf of @jdrevolutionary23:

"What exactly does the moderator mean by "troll" and "nonsensical threads"? With regard to this specific thread, does the moderator have irrefutable proof that @jdrevolutionary23 did not witness such an incident and was making it up? Was the moderator also at the level 1 escalator at Jurong Point near Dunkin Donuts at around 7pm on Saturday, 1 January at the same time as him, and did not see such a couple? Or did the moderator personally comb through the CCTVs at Jurong Point on that specific date and time to determine so? How exactly are threads which detail interesting things which he has witnessed and experiences that he had "nonsensical", i.e., "silly or stupid" as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary? If the moderator believes them to be "silly or stupid", kindly explain what are the parameters he or she is using which led him to make such a judgment. EDMW is itself a sub-forum where such "nonsensical" threads are aplenty for people to relieve their boredom and seek some entertainment. Let's make the assumption that his threads are indeed "nonsensical", where in the rules does it state that "nonsensical threads" are not allowed on EDMW? But back to the main point, what gives the moderator the right to determine whether he is a "troll" or not? Can he furnish irrefutable evidence that this said couple was not at the level 1 escalator at Jurong Point near Dunkin Donuts at around 7pm on Saturday, 1 January? @jdrevolutionary23 is more than happy for the said moderator to approach the management of Jurong Point to view the CCTV footage and prove that he did indeed witness this said couple."

 

[needsomeadvice]

"@jdrevolutionary23 is more than happy for the said moderator to approach the management of Jurong Point to view the CCTV footage and prove that he did indeed witness this said couple"
honestly moi think his posts are quite mild... even though is csb

 

[newbie3214]

On behalf of @jdrevolutionary23:

"Firstly, all the stories which I've shared are not, as you proclaimed, fictional, or in edmw-speak CSBs. I try to substantiate all my stories with pictures or screenshots whenever I can, but that is not possible to do so for every single story for a multitude of reasons. For this specific referenced thread by @Dragon, taking a picture of said couple and posting onto edmw as proof to substantiate my story would constitute doxxing and thus go against the forum T&Cs. Nevertheless, regardless of your opinion whether the story is true or not, the point is there are no rules in the T&Cs which state that forumers are not supposed to share fictional stories on EDMW anyway.

Secondly, in a court of law, the threshold of pronouncing one's guilt is that the prosecution would have to furnish irrefutable evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. In this case, the moderator does not even have a single ounce of evidence to prove that unless he or she was at the level 1 escalator of Jurong Point facing Dunkin Donuts on Saturday, 1 January, at 7pm, or have combed through CCTV footage and did not see the said couple. However, if he or she has done so, then it would prove that the story I've shared is a true one, as said couple was indeed at said location at the specific date and time. Once again, I invite the moderators or administrators to approach the management of Jurong Point to retrieve the CCTV footage to determine so. And since the story which I've shared is a true one, it is a travesty that said moderator would refer to that as "trolling", again, notwithstanding the fact that the sharing of fictional stories on EDMW does not violate the T&Cs anyway.

Once again, I'm appealing to @Dragon, who at the moment seems to be the only impartial moderator/administrator, to reverse this frivolous infraction which does not satisfy the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to pronounce one's guilt.

Thank you."

 

[Kumar22]

On behalf of @jdrevolutionary23:

"Firstly, all the stories which I've shared are not, as you proclaimed, fictional, or in edmw-speak CSBs. I try to substantiate all my stories with pictures or screenshots whenever I can, but that is not possible to do so for every single story for a multitude of reasons. For this specific referenced thread by @Dragon, taking a picture of said couple and posting onto edmw as proof to substantiate my story would constitute doxxing and thus go against the forum T&Cs. Nevertheless, regardless of your opinion whether the story is true or not, the point is there are no rules in the T&Cs which state that forumers are not supposed to share fictional stories on EDMW anyway.

Secondly, in a court of law, the threshold of pronouncing one's guilt is that the prosecution would have to furnish irrefutable evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. In this case, the moderator does not even have a single ounce of evidence to prove that unless he or she was at the level 1 escalator of Jurong Point facing Dunkin Donuts on Saturday, 1 January, at 7pm, or have combed through CCTV footage and did not see the said couple. However, if he or she has done so, then it would prove that the story I've shared is a true one, as said couple was indeed at said location at the specific date and time. Once again, I invite the moderators or administrators to approach the management of Jurong Point to retrieve the CCTV footage to determine so. And since the story which I've shared is a true one, it is a travesty that said moderator would refer to that as "trolling", again, notwithstanding the fact that the sharing of fictional stories on EDMW does not violate the T&Cs anyway.

Once again, I'm appealing to @Dragon, who at the moment seems to be the only impartial moderator/administrator, to reverse this frivolous infraction which does not satisfy the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to pronounce one's guilt.

Thank you."

Look I like your BF. He's quite ok, can give but crucially also can take. People can poke fun at him and you, he doesn't get bitchy about it.

But since he raised a question on the law, I think you are both sadly mistaken here. Not in every case in Singapore context that is does the burden of proof always remain with the prosecution. Once a prima facie case has been, it can be up to the defense to rebut it. These include strict liability offences and where certain presumptions in law are triggered.

I think I've been mentioning in a number of threads of his, that they are becoming a little overboard. More attention seeking than anything. This is after all still a forum not a blog. You are not required to post every incident that happens to you in the forum.

Thus it's not a question of whether this incident is true or false? That is not the issue, the issue is the amount of pointless threads that lead only in 1 particular direction - to garner attention to the creator. Take the guy who posted numerous threads on events forget his name, then there also was Jonesftw and a few others. they too got points because users complained about the vast amount of daily threads.

I actually like those threads and I certainly don't mind jd23 posting his threads, it gives me a chance to needle him, which I have and he to his credit only responds when there is a need to. That does show maturity. But others apparently don't see it that way. What then becomes the deciding factor?

I also disagree with the mods way of doing things sometimes, for example I think cranthir has a way too low a tolerance level - a few people have complained to me about the moderating line he takes, which they think is way too quick to issue points, instead of only intervening when a clear rule or direction where it's heading.

But at the end of the day it's user based, if many users are upset or don't like certain things and there are sufficient reports, then the majority view takes precedence.

So not a question of law as you have answered or he, a question of opinion - majority opinion. You can already see in his threads, who are hostile. But you go and fan the flames by creating more such threads, that will only lead in 1 direction - reports.

Anyway, I think the issuing of points to him and this short ban was a bit excessive, a PM to him by a Mod asking him to scale back would have been the better way.

 

[LWZ]

was the infraction for the the opening post itself, or for something posted subsequently in there ??

 

[Dragon]

I have already alerted the Moderator to provide his POV on the matter, and patiently await a response.

 

[newbie3214]

But at the end of the day it's user based, if many users are upset or don't like certain things and there are sufficient reports, then the majority view takes precedence.

Haha I'm just the postman here.

Anyway, @jdrevolutionary23's reply to you on the extract quoted is as follows:

"Wait, so are you suggesting that the moderation on the forums are based on majority opinion rather than the T&Cs? Meaning that even if the content of the threads does not violate any T&Cs, but enough people do not like it and report it, then that is infractable? What is the point of having these T&Cs then if the moderating team moderates according to the "majority opinion"? (and how would you even go about defining a "majority" too?) Isn't that essentially bowing down to mob rule? A strong and impartial moderator is one who has the fire in him to ignore mass, frivolous reports of threads whose content do not even violate the T&Cs. Just because these reporters do not like a certain individual and mass report his threads, the moderators feel compelled to cave in to pressure and issue infractions rather than doing so based on the T&Cs, that certainly does not seem like strong or confident moderating to me. Would appreciate if @Dragon can clarify if it there is indeed an essence of truth to this claim that moderators make their decisions based on "majority opinion", rather than sticking to the forum T&Cs."

 

[Dragon]

Haha I'm just the postman here.

Anyway, @jdrevolutionary23's reply to you is as follows:

"Wait, so are you suggesting that the moderation on the forums are based on majority opinion rather than the T&Cs? Meaning that even if the content of the threads does not violate any T&Cs, but enough people do not like it and report it, then that is infractable? What is the point of having these T&Cs then if the moderating team moderates according to the "majority opinion"? (and how would you even go about defining a "majority" too?) Isn't that essentially bowing down to mob rule? A strong and impartial moderator is one who has the fire in him to ignore mass, frivolous reports of threads whose content do not even violate the T&Cs. Just because these reporters do not like a certain individual and mass report his threads, the moderators feel compelled to cave in to pressure and issue infractions rather than doing so based on the T&Cs, that certainly does not seem like strong or confident moderating to me. Would appreciate if @Dragon can clarify if it there is indeed an essence of truth to this claim that moderators make their decisions based on "majority opinion", rather than sticking to the forum T&Cs."

The Moderators' job will be so much easier if decisions are made simply based on majority opinion. No, that is not true at all.

 

[Ottoke]

I would like to point out that he has been given a lot (in fact, 4x) 0-point warnings for his persistent nonsensical threads, with one of them making fun of suicidal people.
His oldest points were due to expire in 2 weeks and we were hoping he would tone down.

Nevertheless I have also pinged the moderator and I would advise him wait to for his response.

O

 

[Kumar22]

Haha I'm just the postman here.

Anyway, @jdrevolutionary23's reply to you on the extract quoted is as follows:

"Wait, so are you suggesting that the moderation on the forums are based on majority opinion rather than the T&Cs? Meaning that even if the content of the threads does not violate any T&Cs, but enough people do not like it and report it, then that is infractable? What is the point of having these T&Cs then if the moderating team moderates according to the "majority opinion"? (and how would you even go about defining a "majority" too?) Isn't that essentially bowing down to mob rule? A strong and impartial moderator is one who has the fire in him to ignore mass, frivolous reports of threads whose content do not even violate the T&Cs. Just because these reporters do not like a certain individual and mass report his threads, the moderators feel compelled to cave in to pressure and issue infractions rather than doing so based on the T&Cs, that certainly does not seem like strong or confident moderating to me. Would appreciate if @Dragon can clarify if it there is indeed an essence of truth to this claim that moderators make their decisions based on "majority opinion", rather than sticking to the forum T&Cs."

Obviously not and Dragon has confirmed it.
Come come now, you're supposed to be an graduate who likes literature, history etc.
Surely you know what I'm saying moreover I provided the 3 posters who kept creating numerous threads daily.
A forum is not FB or a blog, it's not a vehicle to share all your exploits. You were not just creating threads on daily innocuous events, you even were posting things that happened years ago.
It becomes tiresome to some users especially where it's numerous.
Of course the defense is, nobody forced you to read or come in. And that's true to a certain extent.
But imagine if every user resorted to this? You only have to look at some of the threads.

I saw this kid jumping on train seat, and his mother didn't stop it. Means what?
I saw this and that, means what, you only have to scroll your thread history. How many such threads?
Are these really news worthy or interesting? Do you really need forummers to come in and explain what it means? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Does it need figuring out and explaining? For a uni graduate no less?

Wouldn't this be considered trolling or spamming? I'm sure you've been to other forums, heck even FB group pages. Do they allow these kind of posts on a continous basis?

So now do you understand what is meant by majority opinion? If a sufficient number of users start complaining about such threads and there's too many of them, surely some message has to be conveyed to the creator?
Heck the guys that posted numerous threads also got infarcted, and theirs are actually daily happenings in Singapore that appear in the news. Yours is personal stuff.

I am not justifying your ban or points, that I sympathise with you. A note of caution could have been sent instead. I certainly won't encourage anyone reporting you for those threads.

Long story short, just tone down a bit lah. Your food exploits, your dates with BFs, your travels, certain personal incidents/interactions with family and friends, these are interesting and you can see similar threads on EDMW. You should know, you've been here long enough.

Heck you even roped in raisin boy to post some poem which he (or maybe you) read or studied. Was there a need for that thread? It's not even his intent to post, but you asked him to. I'm sure there's several hundred other sites in the web, where opinions, reflections, summaries, viewpoints etc on such stuff is shared and even encouraged.
Why post it on EDMW or encourage someone to? What's the purpose if not to seek attention?

Anyway don't be disheartened. As the Mod said, you have points expiring. So at least got a bit of wiggle room.
Please continue to create your threads, just filter out the needless daily occurrences that are not unique or interesting.

 

[aromilk]

Obviously not and Dragon has confirmed it.
Come come now, you're supposed to be an graduate who likes literature, history etc.
Surely you know what I'm saying moreover I provided the 3 posters who kept creating numerous threads daily.
A forum is not FB or a blog, it's not a vehicle to share all your exploits. You were not just creating threads on daily innocuous events, you even were posting things that happened years ago.
It becomes tiresome to some users especially where it's numerous.
Of course the defense is, nobody forced you to read or come in. And that's true to a certain extent.
But imagine if every user resorted to this? You only have to look at some of the threads.

I saw this kid jumping on train seat, and his mother didn't stop it. Means what?
I saw this and that, means what, you only have to scroll your thread history. How many such threads?
Are these really news worthy or interesting? Do you really need forummers to come in and explain what it means? Can't you figure it out for yourself? Does it need figuring out and explaining? For a uni graduate no less?

Wouldn't this be considered trolling or spamming? I'm sure you've been to other forums, heck even FB group pages. Do they allow these kind of posts on a continous basis?

So now do you understand what is meant by majority opinion? If a sufficient number of users start complaining about such threads and there's too many of them, surely some message has to be conveyed to the creator?
Heck the guys that posted numerous threads also got infarcted, and theirs are actually daily happenings in Singapore that appear in the news. Yours is personal stuff.

I am not justifying your ban or points, that I sympathise with you. A note of caution could have been sent instead. I certainly won't encourage anyone reporting you for those threads.

Long story short, just tone down a bit lah. Your food exploits, your dates with BFs, your travels, certain personal incidents/interactions with family and friends, these are interesting and you can see similar threads on EDMW. You should know, you've been here long enough.

Heck you even roped in raisin boy to post some poem which he (or maybe you) read or studied. Was there a need for that thread? It's not even his intent to post, but you asked him to. I'm sure there's several hundred other sites in the web, where opinions, reflections, summaries, viewpoints etc on such stuff is shared and even encouraged.
Why post it on EDMW or encourage someone to? What's the purpose if not to seek attention?

Anyway don't be disheartened. As the Mod said, you have points expiring. So at least got a bit of wiggle room.
Please continue to create your threads, just filter out the needless daily occurrences that are not unique or interesting.

does that mean that the subject of this thread is TS? Which means using clone account? JDR = TS?

 

[Kumar22]

does that mean that the subject of this thread is TS? Which means using clone account? JDR = TS?

No, just a BF. Actually got 4 of them, we believe jdr23 is the Chief!!

 

[newbie3214]

I would like to point out that he has been given a lot (in fact, 4x) 0-point warnings for his persistent nonsensical threads, with one of them making fun of suicidal people.
His oldest points were due to expire in 2 weeks and we were hoping he would tone down.

Nevertheless I have also pinged the moderator and I would advise him wait to for his response.

O

On behalf of @jdrevolutionary23

"Firstly, I have not received any recent notification whatsoever in my inbox regarding any 0-point warnings. I do not know if that is a glitch on your part or not, but surely if you want a user to be alerted of a warning, then a notification should be sent to him or her, should it not? I recall 2 of the 0-point warnings which are for totally unrelated things, first one was for some SIM thread, which I found ridiculous anyway, but could understand considering that was around the time when Vivian Balakrishnan came up with the "lousy school" comment and emotions were running high. The second one was for a frivolous reason - that I tagged a forumer without his permission, yet the said forumer had never expressed any discomfort with me doing so, and people tag one another for various reasons anyway. As for the other 2 0-point warnings you mentioned, I have no idea what they are.

Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "making fun of suicidal people"? Was this for the thread regarding some incident I witnessed back when I was in secondary school? How in the world do you all come to the conclusion that that thread was "making fun of suicidal people" when I was merely recounting this event which happened years ago? Where exactly in the thread did I, as you put it, "make fun", because I'm pretty sure that not a single phrase in that thread can be interpreted this way. And the reason why I created it was because I had a dream the night before which reminded of this incident I witnessed. Going with your assumption that me doing so was "making fun of suicidal people", are you implying that this event I witnessed was fake? Gladly PM me and I will tell you which secondary school I went to, which year I witnessed this incident in, and the name of the teacher who dashed out of school to administer CPR on the girl, and you can go and verify with her whether this is the truth or not. As far as I know, this specific teacher is still with the school.

All in all, your claim that the recounting of this event in that thread of mine constitutes "making fun of suicidal people" is an utterly frivolous one and is not based on any truth whatsoever. As an individual who has actually volunteered for suicide prevention campaigns, one of which has actually gained international recognition, I find this spurious allegation to be utterly offensive. I appeal to @Dragon to kindly look into this and let me know how exactly any of the phrases which I've used in that thread constitutes "making fun of suicidal people.""

 

[qhong61]

Hi @Dragon, I'm asking this on behalf of @jdrevolutionary23. He would like to know why he was given a temporary ban. The reason stated was "rules violations" - would you be able to elaborate?

Thanks!

Deserve the ban for insulting short bbfa.

 

[Ottoke]

On behalf of @jdrevolutionary23

"Firstly, I have not received any recent notification whatsoever in my inbox regarding any 0-point warnings. I do not know if that is a glitch on your part or not, but surely if you want a user to be alerted of a warning, then a notification should be sent to him or her, should it not? I recall 2 of the 0-point warnings which are for totally unrelated things, first one was for some SIM thread, which I found ridiculous anyway, but could understand considering that was around the time when Vivian Balakrishnan came up with the "lousy school" comment and emotions were running high. The second one was for a frivolous reason - that I tagged a forumer without his permission, yet the said forumer had never expressed any discomfort with me doing so, and people tag one another for various reasons anyway. As for the other 2 0-point warnings you mentioned, I have no idea what they are.

Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "making fun of suicidal people"? Was this for the thread regarding some incident I witnessed back when I was in secondary school? How in the world do you all come to the conclusion that that thread was "making fun of suicidal people" when I was merely recounting this event which happened years ago? Where exactly in the thread did I, as you put it, "make fun", because I'm pretty sure that not a single phrase in that thread can be interpreted this way. And the reason why I created it was because I had a dream the night before which reminded of this incident I witnessed. Going with your assumption that me doing so was "making fun of suicidal people", are you implying that this event I witnessed was fake? Gladly PM me and I will tell you which secondary school I went to, which year I witnessed this incident in, and the name of the teacher who dashed out of school to administer CPR on the girl, and you can go and verify with her whether this is the truth or not. As far as I know, this specific teacher is still with the school.

All in all, your claim that the recounting of this event in that thread of mine constitutes "making fun of suicidal people" is an utterly frivolous one and is not based on any truth whatsoever. As an individual who has actually volunteered for suicide prevention campaigns, one of which has actually gained international recognition, I find this spurious allegation to be utterly offensive. I appeal to @Dragon to kindly look into this and let me know how exactly any of the phrases which I've used in that thread constitutes "making fun of suicidal people.""

Go and tell him this.

I believe we had this private conversation about self-control, we were hoping you will tone down. Sadly, we did not see this happening.

3 out of 4 zero-point warnings were issued by me (if they were 3 points, you might probably be pbanned by now), it is quite clear to me that I had sent the notification.

If what you said about the suicide incident was true, why would you not use coherent English to post?
We do not need to know the details. We could have left it alone if you had typed proper English.
While at it please do not start a WOT on English spelling EDMW grammar etc.
And on top of that, true or CSB, it's really not funny.

So basically, on an early morning rike ten years agoed, sawed this teenage gerl sitting on the parapet at the HDB block opposite moi crassroom. She was crying and screaming, and being hysterical. Then crassmates were shouting across to her asked her notch to jump and calm down. Then moi teacher who ish a qualified paramedic rushed out of crass and dashed towards the hdb to help, but before she could reached, the gerl oredi jumped. Donno huai many of moi crassmates still keeped staring when she jumped, but moi returned to moi seat as moi don't dare to seed the outcome. Then tiagong moi teacher tried her best to resuscitate the gerl but to no availed

We do not want to instruct or dictate anyone on how to post. But folks are already find your thread creation very excessive.

On Friday (31 Dec) alone you created 7 threads, at 10.56am, 11.50am, 1.32pm, 5.12pm, 7.04pm, 10.15pm, next day 12.13am, all on different subjects ranging from exam appeal to countdown party-breakup with gf to Titus Low to sugar mummy to rain.
Not really sure what you are trying to express, maybe you have a very eventful life, CSB or not I dunno, but some folks are finding these quite a lot.

This has nothing to do with phrases also, it's more of your actions.
We are already very lax with this whole thing.

O

 

[psytxtbk4exam]

First , i really have never reported on you before.
But even when @Kumar22 find your posts disturbing and speak up on moral issues, may be good to do some reflection. And i seldom see @Kumar22 speaking up on moral issue one. Just a humble opinion from someone who got c6 for literature for 'o' level.

Be that as it may...
You want to become a lawyer but involve yourself in prostitution...

Very bright idea.
Don't say it isn't prostitution. This kind of thing comes out, will ruin your reputation.
Don't be materialistic. Study hard, play hard. Be contented with what you have.
No short cuts. Just because jd23 tells tales, you also wanna follow?
Where is the maturity of thought? Where is the focus?

 

[newbie3214]

Go and tell him this.

I believe we had this private conversation about self-control, we were hoping you will tone down. Sadly, we did not see this happening.

3 out of 4 zero-point warnings were issued by me (if they were 3 points, you might probably be pbanned by now), it is quite clear to me that I had sent the notification.

If what you said about the suicide incident was true, why would you not use coherent English to post?
We do not need to know the details. We could have left it alone if you had typed proper English.
While at it please do not start a WOT on English spelling EDMW grammar etc.
And on top of that, true or CSB, it's really not funny.



We do not want to instruct or dictate anyone on how to post. But folks are already find your thread creation very excessive.

On Friday (31 Dec) alone you created 7 threads, at 10.56am, 11.50am, 1.32pm, 5.12pm, 7.04pm, 10.15pm, next day 12.13am, all on different subjects ranging from exam appeal to countdown party-breakup with gf to Titus Low to sugar mummy to rain.
Not really sure what you are trying to express, maybe you have a very eventful life, CSB or not I dunno, but some folks are finding these quite a lot.

This has nothing to do with phrases also, it's more of your actions.
We are already very lax with this whole thing.

O

On behalf of @jdrevolutionary23:

"@Dragon, would appreciate if you could provide your opinion here, as I find some of the reasoning provided here to be really illogical.

Firstly, yes, we did have a private conversation regarding the creation of SIM-bashing threads, and I have stopped creating such threads or making such comments ever since that private conversation. Please do not take things out of context by claiming that the private conversation we had was to cover all kinds of threads, such as incidents I have witnessed or interesting experiences which I have had. Secondly, like I've said, I did not receive any notification in my inbox, and I do not actively go and check the "Warnings" section of my profile, although I guess it might be a good practice now. I always had the impression that whenever a warning is issued, a notification will pop up in your inbox, but I did not receive any such notifications for the other two 0-point warnings which I have no idea about. The administrators/IT personnel can verify this, I believe.

Secondly, just because I did not post in coherent English, you immediately make the assumption that my story must be false? How does the type of English I post in have any correlation with whether an incident I share is true or false? Considering that I always type in "warped English" in EDMW regardless of the content of the thread or comment, the assumption that I was "trying to be funny" is one which is utterly flawed. I would understand where you are coming from if I always posted in perfect English, but constructed this thread in broken English, but that is not the case here. This is an utterly ludicrous line of reasoning and when I posted this thread I did not intend it to be, as you claimed, "funny", I just found it interesting to share due to the dream I had the night before. You can go and do a search of my previous posts, I believe I have mentioned a few times on EDMW that a recurring pattern in my dreams is that I always dream of my secondary school days, and I have no idea why that is so too. I appeal to @Dragon to step in here and be the voice of reason. I simply do not accept this premise that just because I created a thread in broken English, it means that I am making fun of something or intending to be funny. Like I've mentioned earlier, if I have always posted in perfect English but then constructed this thread in broken English, then your assumption can be a cogent one, but that is not the case here!

Thirdly, as far as the T&Cs are concerned, I do not recall there being a limit to the number of threads we can create a day. Other forumers are "finding it quite a lot", as you put it, and with regard to this, I can totally understand where they are coming from. However, the cold hard truth is that the T&Cs do not specify how many threads we can create per day. Yes, if many people are finding it excessive, a simple PM to me asking me to dial back would suffice (Once again, do not bring in the private conversation we had, as that was solely pertaining to SIM-bashing threads which I have since stopped creating or participated in. Nowhere in that private conversation did we discuss any other kinds of threads such as my holiday threads, or events which I have witnessed or experiences which I have had). And since no such rule exists under the T&Cs, surely caving to pressure from mass reporting by forumers is akin to surrendering to mob rule? Again, like I have mentioned, I do get where you, and these forumers are coming from when you mentioned that there are people who are finding it excessive, and I would dial back if you had informed me of this with a simple, nicely-worded PM - I consider myself a very cooperative and considerate individual. Again, fair enough, you can point to the two 0-point warnings you issued, but the fact is I did not receive any notifications in my inbox on that, and I do not check the "Warnings" tab on a regular basis. Whether that is a glitch or not, I have no idea, but I believe @Dragon or IT personnel can verify this claim - that I indeed did not receive any such notifications."

 

[Weaboo]

whos the mods that bend u no balls cum in tcss?