As I said in a typical deep and untypically short post at the beginning. Both is BS, but the delivery system, meaning the answers I got from you were the bigger BS. Just answer what. Now in your case it seems to be somethign like I posted in my equally deep and equally concise previous post. "He somehow deserves a warning but can't really point to a specific offense". Which of course is still BS, but at least a straighter answer than the 2 I got first. Related to this, and a late warning for my first offense.luques wrote:Boh, I really don't get you.
Simple as it is, I thought you deserved warning and fine.
It doesn't seem to me that you are complaining about the warning itself, so for me this is closed.
The problem is how it was delivered? Well, feel free to open a topic and let's see if something positive and standard comes out. I would be the first to be happy if we can avoid things like this.
I think the warning itself is BS too, same as the one Idefix got, so I'm consistent there, as is the committee (but I'm right and the committee wrong) but as I already said, I don't feel the need to start arguing about that now. Even though I'm starting to like the idea...
A proposal? Straight answers when question are asked. And not warnings on "feelings" or "general thinking", but on more specific points. I suppose the whole committee voted on my warning, I hope the others had more specific misbehaviour in mind when they voted for a warning. I suspect provocation, (with which I disagree too) but no need to tell me who voted what and why. That should stay intern. And maybe you as a committee should agree on a reason before answering, instead of 2 guys posting at least partially conflicting reasons. As it is it's only thanks to my legendary restraint that I'm not starting a big campaign to demand justice for the Donkey.