Mods who are SOOOOO smart they don't even have to read the guidelines

[Wilomn]

Ah, Wes, I see you are back. And accusing me of accusing you of being a liar. Since you are probably still groggy from being away, I'll make this easy on you. Show me the quote where I accused you of lying, please. I'll simplify this a bit by telling you the posts in question on this thread are #49, #56, and #194.

So would I be mistaken in accusing you of LYING about me accusing you of lying previously?

As for the issue of Mr. Clark, prove it to me. I've stated the evidence I have seen, as well as my assessment of that evidence. Personally it is my firmly held belief that you just have a problem with anyone acting in an authority capacity in any form. And your response is to try to undermine them as well as the system under which they are operating. That is my opinion, and from the manner in which I have seen your interactions with moderators HERE, I would go so far as to say it is pretty solid.

Heck I would go so far as to say that you, Wes, don't have a leg to stand on to tell ANYONE how they should act in a public forum. NO one here has EVER accumulated as many total warning points over the years as well as being suspended and banned as many times within the existence of this site as YOU have. In my opinion, YOU, my friend, do not have this site's best interests at heart and are clearly interested in causing as much trouble as you can and to undermine ME in every way you think you can in the process. I've given you MANY more chances than anyone else on this planet would have for you to finally get it together and join in this Fauna community.

Truthfully Wes, I do admire the way you post in some instances, and enjoy your interaction with the bad guys. But the destructive baggage associated with you has become far too weighty. It's your choice, my friend. Lose the baggage, or take another train. It's your choice to make, but this train is moving on down the tracks, either with you or without you.

NO ONE can ever TRUTHFULLY say I haven't given you a chance.........

But THIS is the LAST one, Wes. Make sure you choose wisely about what you want to do.

AHahahaHAHAHahahaHahahahaaahAHAHAHa

Well, thanks for the laugh.

We have differing opinions.

You make the call rich, you're the king.

I have pointed out what I thought was in need of improvment, especially since YOU went all Wild Wild West. There are a couple of mods here who I am not alone in questioning the abilities of, though truthfully, even if I were alone, I'd still question them. But, respectfully, that IS my opinion.

IF you truly think that I am out to damage this site, something which I have denied a number of times, the boot me for good. IF you're just playing to the crowd, then stop saying that.

I have NEVER wished ill on fauna. YOU may not have been able to percieve that but you, and I mean no insult here, are not the be all and end all of human evolution. You're a guy with a damn fine site that breeds some damn fine corns. Neither of those make you any better suited to judge my motives or myself than anyone else here.

Why would I lie to you rich? It's not something I do. I could, but I just don't like it, I think it lessons the one who does it. I have changed my mind on things, just ask Jay, but that doesn't mean that I didn't mean what I have said at the time I've said it. Can you say the same? I don't know because, like you, I have no special qualifications to enable me to know you and your motives, other than my gut, which is usually right about bad guys, which I don't think you are.

You have built a picture of me for yourself that is not a true or accurate representation of me. That's cool, do as you will. BUT, when you decide that there is ONLY ONE WAY a thing can be, you rule out too much. I'm not neil "the liar" gubitz or sal "the theif" tornambene. They are stuck as they are, nailed for WHAT they are, destined to be as almost all of us see them.

I think you see a version of me that is shared by few. Again, that's cool, but I will, on occasion, say that you're wrong. Only when I think you are though, because to say so when I don't would be a lie, and I don't like doing that.

I think you implied heavily enough that I had lied that it was taken as a statement by many. You say otherwise. I have no need to argue this point with you. I say I did not. That is good enough for me. You say I am trying to do harm to your site strenuously enough that it is believed by some. I say it is not so. That too, is good enough for me.

What you do from here is entirely up to you rich. I'm trying to play by your ever changing rules, regulations and guidelines. If you can't tolerate and accept that, then give me the heave ho. But if you do, know why you're doing it and let me know as well if you would.

As I've told you before, leaving a message in pm when I'm booted is pretty much useless since pm's are inaccessable when access to the site is denied.

 

[critical bill]

Sorry to confuse, I was replying to Rich's last post....post #261 I think.

So the guy isn't cut out to be a behaviour therapist. The issue to me is about two mods whom seem to know just when to become mods on a thread in which they were not previously acting in that capacity and simply to exercise a privilege that other mods have used fairly and for the right reasons. At first I chalked it off to inexperience, but it soon became apparent from the multiple warnings that they received that this wasn't the case. Honestly, how often does a mod need to be reminded by another mod or a super mod not to abuse a system before that mod has his privilege taken away?

I gather from what you posted that you feel that all the mods and super mods who issued warnings two these mods all day to not abuse the system are wrong for doing so. No offense but in my opinion the two mods were wrong for abusing the system and they were warned correctly and appropriately.

And by the way Rich, if you really want to cut down on the animosity between mods and members you might try eliminating or restricting the comment box that goes along with the warning points. Sometimes the stupid things a mod will say in that comment box is more or less equivlent to what it is your being warned for.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich, it is something how you choose to overlook post #8 on the Ed thread, Eds comments:





But you want to cut me down for my response back to him in post # 20. Ok Rich, your right, he is doing a great job.

Dennis, you still think that is not what he meant?

I am done, you need not worry that I will waste my time with this, I have better things to do, Ed wins!!!

So let me get this straight, Bobby. You want me to comment on EVERY post in that thread? Why? I'm really not sure what you are saying. Is ED stating this in a comment he made while acting as a moderator towards you? Or as a private party? The points I was addressing were related to his actions as a moderator. Nothing more, nothing less. THAT was the issue that needed to be addressed.

 

[Jim O]

Ed, you want to make this personal? Well, this is not about me. It is all about you and your less than honest actions, you have been caught in lie after lie, yet still act like you are the good Mod here. You are no more than a scumbag and this thread is well deserved.

It is just fine in your book to run around and act like God here, well wake up, this is not heaven and you sure as hell are not God. Lies about Wes, Lies about Griz, Lies about Sammy, lies about ads. Lies, lies and more lies Ed, word up Ed, playtime is over!!

You want to make it personal? I am game you idiot, as for idiot, well if it looks like one, acts stupid like one, smells like one and points their finger at everyone else, then it must be an idiot. Wear it with pride Ed, you are nothing more than scum, I will call you on it every time, bet on it!!

Lets talk about how you issue warning points on old posts before the new rules were even made. Or how about your habit of spamming other peoples ads, oh yes, you got one even cheaper, you have even posted right on their ads!! You are a very poor excuse of a human, your morals suck at best, now you have been caught misrepresenting your animals. Then you run around with your warning points to silence the mass, good luck Ed, it is not going to fly any longer.

In my opinion, Bobby was addressing Ed as a moderator and making claims about his role in how he moderates on this site. Although many mods will be reluctant about taking part as a moderator in a thread they are also participating in, there is NO restriction against them doing that. Therefore, in my opinion, this warning IS legit in that Bobby was antagonizing Ed within the context of his moderating actions.

Maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss this but since you have made this public I am going to respectfully disagree. Feel free to move this post to a private area if you prefer.

There is more than one issue here. At the top, Bobby mentions that Ed lies (he has done so in this thread and elsewhere) and that he then acts like a "good Mod". Honest observation and fair criticism. The other comment is with respect to when the new infraction for attacks outside of the BOI was added and how Ed almost immediately went and found an old post from Wes and warned him. On that occasion Jay Owens warned Ed for abuse of warning system. So again, it's hardly like Bobby was complaining about something less than legitimately wrong with Ed's moderating "skills".

Now for your take that this was "legit", yours is the vote that counts. But bear in mind that Jay and Dennis and several of the others of us dinged Ed for dinging Bobby in a somewhat negative thread about Ed. While it is true that there is no restriction against particpating in and moderating a thread, it is extremely risky to moderate a thread about oneself. In this post the issue was Ed's character, and part of Bobby's argument was that he was a less than fair moderator, as evidenced by his going after Wes on that occasion. Now if the bulk of Bobby's post had been about Ed as a moderator, I suspect that many of us would have dinged Bobby for it. But those same people mentioned above all gave it a pass.

 

[Griz]

You know, sometimes people just dig their heels into the sand simply because they are too stubborn to recognize that which most everyone else already has. Maybe it's stubborn blindness, maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's simply lack of respect for others.....But one things for sure, it's NOT err'ing on the side of integrity. What a shame.

Griz

 

[Dr Owens]

You know, sometimes people just dig their heels into the sand simply because they are too stubborn to recognize that which most everyone else already has. Maybe it's stubborn blindness, maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's simply lack of respect for others.....But one things for sure, it's NOT err'ing on the side of integrity. What a shame.

Bob,
In all fairness, sometimes people dig in their heels out of defensiveness when they feel like they are being attacked. That's not to say that they are right for doing it, but it is a very normal human response. Just a thought...

It takes a pretty strong person to introspect in the face of criticism and admit when they are wrong. Not everyone can do it.

(For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, rather I'm offering an additional point of view. )

 

[WebSlave]

Maybe I'm in the wrong place to discuss this but since you have made this public I am going to respectfully disagree. Feel free to move this post to a private area if you prefer.

There is more than one issue here. At the top, Bobby mentions that Ed lies (he has done so in this thread and elsewhere) and that he then acts like a "good Mod". Honest observation and fair criticism. The other comment is with respect to when the new infraction for attacks outside of the BOI was added and how Ed almost immediately went and found an old post from Wes and warned him. On that occasion Jay Owens warned Ed for abuse of warning system. So again, it's hardly like Bobby was complaining about something less than legitimately wrong with Ed's moderating "skills".

Now for your take that this was "legit", yours is the vote that counts. But bear in mind that Jay and Dennis and several of the others of us dinged Ed for dinging Bobby in a somewhat negative thread about Ed. While it is true that there is no restriction against particpating in and moderating a thread, it is extremely risky to moderate a thread about oneself. In this post the issue was Ed's character, and part of Bobby's argument was that he was a less than fair moderator, as evidenced by his going after Wes on that occasion. Now if the bulk of Bobby's post had been about Ed as a moderator, I suspect that many of us would have dinged Bobby for it. But those same people mentioned above all gave it a pass.

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties? I know I have, and am quite certain I have not restricted them from doing so. The only qualms I would have is if they used the warning system in a retaliatory manner against someone posting about them outside of their moderator duties here.

And I believe this SHOULD apply to the warning system mods as well. It is certainly appropriate for them to use the warning system against those members posting about them in an antagonistic manner CONCERNING their warning point useage on this site. They have every right to defend the actions that they are engaging in at my request. This, I believe is only fair and fitting. They may choose to do so, or choose not to, but I have not restricted them from acting in this manner. I can't see why I would tell any mod that they are powerless to defend themselves from anyone attacking their actions on this site FOR this site. And nor would I.

Oh, one other thing, after re-reading your post. No, I have NOT restricted the mods from noting older posts with infractions and acting accordingly to assess warnings about them. In retrospect, perhaps this is fitting to quell those complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules. After all, I do believe that nearly all of the rules now in place have been in place through most of the history of this site. So why not? Does it matter that someone posted profanity 2 days ago or two years ago? It's still profanity and has pretty much always been against the rules. So no, I have not, and am not, telling anyone that older posts are exempt from being examined. There is no statute of limitations here, as far as I am concerned. And as an aside, yes, pissing off a mod just might get them digging for such things.....

Anyway, does this help to clear things a bit?

 

[Bill & Amy]

How many threads in the BOI aren't antagonistic? So if one of the mods has a bad guy thread and we are antagonistic towards them, they have the right to ding us? So the bad guy has more rights just because he paid for a higher level of memebership. I can see it in the regular forums, but not the BOI.

 

[Jim O]

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties? I know I have, and am quite certain I have not restricted them from doing so. The only qualms I would have is if they used the warning system in a retaliatory manner against someone posting about them outside of their moderator duties here.

And I believe this SHOULD apply to the warning system mods as well. It is certainly appropriate for them to use the warning system against those members posting about them in an antagonistic manner CONCERNING their warning point useage on this site. They have every right to defend the actions that they are engaging in at my request. This, I believe is only fair and fitting. They may choose to do so, or choose not to, but I have not restricted them from acting in this manner. I can't see why I would tell any mod that they are powerless to defend themselves from anyone attacking their actions on this site FOR this site. And nor would I.

Oh, one other thing, after re-reading your post. No, I have NOT restricted the mods from noting older posts with infractions and acting accordingly to assess warnings about them. In retrospect, perhaps this is fitting to quell those complaints about uneven enforcement of the rules. After all, I do believe that nearly all of the rules now in place have been in place through most of the history of this site. So why not? Does it matter that someone posted profanity 2 days ago or two years ago? It's still profanity and has pretty much always been against the rules. So no, I have not, and am not, telling anyone that older posts are exempt from being examined. There is no statute of limitations here, as far as I am concerned. And as an aside, yes, pissing off a mod just might get them digging for such things.....

Anyway, does this help to clear things a bit?

We'll just disagree on this one Rich.

So to answer your question, crystal clear (just like mud ).

 

[DThomas]

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

Yes I have.

 

[Jim O]

Yes I have.

But you also dinged Ed for abuse of warning system when he dinged Bobby for the post in question.

 

[monkeywrench133]

Rich, with all due respect, I think this would have been the better question:

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you NOT in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

[/IMG]

 

[Dr Owens]

Well, let me ask the site mods about this one. Jay, Dennis, and Ken, have you EVER given warning points to someone who was posting in an antagonistic manner towards you in relation to your MODERATOR duties?

Yes I have. However, to be specific, those instances were usually when someone cussed at me, or went off in direct retaliation to my giving them warning points. In contrast, there have been many times (more times than I can count, really) when someone has been criticizing me as a moderator, and I have deliberately not given them warning points because I didn't want to use my power as a mod in an unfair manner in order to try to "win" or "get even." I would like to say that I have never given warning points in the later example, but to be perfectly honest, I've been doing this for quite a while now, and I can't say that with 100% certainty.

 

[WebSlave]

How many threads in the BOI aren't antagonistic? So if one of the mods has a bad guy thread and we are antagonistic towards them, they have the right to ding us? So the bad guy has more rights just because he paid for a higher level of memebership. I can see it in the regular forums, but not the BOI.

I think in skimming what I wrote, you misinterpreted what I said.

I specifically said that a mod would be justified in issuing warning points (specifically ANTAGONIZING A MODERATOR) in a BOI thread about them ONLY if they were being attacked for their actions here AS a mod. What they do around here as a mod clearly has no bearing or relevance in their business proceedings and the person attacking in such a manner is doing in ONLY to antagonize that mod. A mod giving YOU warning points about profanity or any other infraction has nothing at all to do with how they do business and just is not appropriate within a BOI thread about them. A mod has every right to use any tool at his/her disposal to defend against that sort of blatant antagonism.

Certainly if someone posts blatant profanity within a thread about a mod, I would not be concerned about it being abuse if that mod dinged the poster for that offense.

No mod on this site has to put up with being attacked for doing their job here. None of them have to bow out of a thread wherein someone is bashing a mod for the way they do their job here and HOPE that another mod will try to cease the abuse being heaped on them. I have absolutely no reason NOR intention of tying their hands in that manner.

If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so. But I am just not going to stand by and allow you all to bash these people AT WILL who are really making the extra effort to help me out here.

If you want to feel that I am protecting them, then just go right ahead and think that. The alternative is that I just throw them to the wolves when they come around, and I am just NOT going to do that. Not when THEY are helping ME here.

 

[WebSlave]

Yes I have. However, to be specific, those instances were usually when someone cussed at me, or went off in direct retaliation to my giving them warning points. In contrast, there have been many times (more times than I can count, really) when someone has been criticizing me as a moderator, and I have deliberately not given them warning points because I didn't want to use my power as a mod in an unfair manner in order to try to "win" or "get even." I would like to say that I have never given warning points in the later example, but to be perfectly honest, I've been doing this for quite a while now, and I can't say that with 100% certainty.

Yes, Jay, that is what I believe to be true as well. Criticism just comes with the job. Blatant abuse and antagonism, however, just do not have to be tolerated.

The thrust of my argument here is that the warning system mods MUST be afforded the same consideration, and are entirely within their rights to defend themselves when they are being attacked for the actions they engage in as MODS of this site.

I will stand behind my people. When there is doubt, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. Mistakes can and will be made. This sort of thing can only be done via on the job training, and I have to make allowances for some mistakes in judgement.

But when there is NO doubt about abuse, then that will leave me no choice but to take appropriate action in order to end the abuse.

 

[Wilomn]

I think in skimming what I wrote, you misinterpreted what I said.

I specifically said that a mod would be justified in issuing warning points (specifically ANTAGONIZING A MODERATOR) in a BOI thread about them ONLY if they were being attacked for their actions here AS a mod. What they do around here as a mod clearly has no bearing or relevance in their business proceedings and the person attacking in such a manner is doing in ONLY to antagonize that mod. A mod giving YOU warning points about profanity or any other infraction has nothing at all to do with how they do business and just is not appropriate within a BOI thread about them. A mod has every right to use any tool at his/her disposal to defend against that sort of blatant antagonism.

Certainly if someone posts blatant profanity within a thread about a mod, I would not be concerned about it being abuse if that mod dinged the poster for that offense.

No mod on this site has to put up with being attacked for doing their job here. None of them have to bow out of a thread wherein someone is bashing a mod for the way they do their job here and HOPE that another mod will try to cease the abuse being heaped on them. I have absolutely no reason NOR intention of tying their hands in that manner.

If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so. But I am just not going to stand by and allow you all to bash these people AT WILL who are really making the extra effort to help me out here.

If you want to feel that I am protecting them, then just go right ahead and think that. The alternative is that I just throw them to the wolves when they come around, and I am just NOT going to do that. Not when THEY are helping ME here.

Couple of things rich.

You've accused me of lying. I think you need to either prove that or withdraw your accusation.

I think Mr. Clark is a very poor excuse for a moderator that abuses his position, which he had to pay for, to get back at people he has personal beefs with. I think the same is true of christopher666 whose last name I do not know.

I think that by allowing those two to remain moderators you are slapping the face of all the others who are mods, paid for or not, who ACTUALLY try to maintain a higher standard of interaction between themselves and the general fauna population.

I think it's a shame for them to be in the same catagory as the two mentioned above, the two who have lied, abused thier positions, and generally brought down those who are forced by title and position to be judged by the same standards.

You have made your decision and I have had my say.

I'm done.

Rich, I ask in all seriousness the following.

In the first post above you state that "If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so."

I was being at least non-combative and, for me anyway, respectful, in my giving of my opinion.

ancientdna dinged me for that post.

Was I out of line, or more correctly worded, do YOU think I was out of line?

I surely had no intention of being combative in any way shape or form.

 

[WebSlave]

I'm not sure I would use the term "combative", but I would use "abusive" for at least most of that post.

But quite certainly I would interpret your opening statement demanding that I prove you are lying or to withdraw an accusation (I never made, btw) as DEFINITELY being combative in nature.

You are in the same role you have been in all along in this thread by attempting to belittle those people who have paid the higher level memberships in order to lend a helping hand with warning system use. I am fully aware that you are attempting to undermine this entire plan and I am certain other people see it as well. I'm not sure of your goals, but I believe without a doubt that you do not have this site's health and welfare in mind. Quite the contrary, actually.

I have already posted evidence concerning Ed Clark's actions as a mod that I have seen while analyzing the warning system log that apparently disputes those claims you are making about him in this statement:

I think Mr. Clark is a very poor excuse for a moderator that abuses his position, which he had to pay for, to get back at people he has personal beefs with. I think the same is true of christopher666 whose last name I do not know.

I haven't looked at the actions of christopher666, and probably won't without a damned good reason. I suspect I would likely find more of the same, where a handfull of people are just pissed that they got warning points from him. This is not at all unusual from what I have experienced myself and seen from the site mods. But I believe the resentment runs a little deeper in reactions to the warning system mods.

So as I have said before elsewhere, people are just getting tired of your witchhunt of the day directed mostly at people who have exercised the power I have granted them in order to help with this site. I believe they are seeing that you just resent authority in any form, as that just appears to be your nature. You just do not LIKE anyone telling you what you can or cannot do.

Truth is, in my opinion, is that some people are just tired of the way you act here, Wes. And some may even be willing to pay money in order to escort you out the door. Probably the only reason you are STILL here is because I made the hurdle pretty high in order to do that. If I had made the hurdle just at the $25 per year level, or the suspension trigger lower, I am pretty confident you would already be gone.

Apparently one mistake I made setting up this warning system mods program was that I was so concerned with abuse that I made it far too difficult for the mods to actually do their job. 500 warning points to get a suspension is quite steep. Perhaps TOO steep. But that error is DEFINITELY fixable.

Rich, I ask in all seriousness the following.

In the first post above you state that "If someone wants to discuss perceived problems in a respectful (or at least non-combative) manner, then by all means do so."

I was being at least non-combative and, for me anyway, respectful, in my giving of my opinion.

ancientdna dinged me for that post.

Was I out of line, or more correctly worded, do YOU think I was out of line?

I surely had no intention of being combative in any way shape or form.

 

[christopher66]

Rich,

its ah.. christopher66, only 2 six's

 

[Seamus Haley]

Just a... thought.

There are two seperate warnings for targeted abusive behavior. One specifically for antagonism towards a mod and one for being overly abusive of another member. Would it be fair to say that a mod can also be a member and that one warning or the other might be more situationally appropriate?

Throwing out some hypotheticals...

Example 1:
Poster- Profanity ridden tirade!
Mod- Profanity is not allowed, cut it out.
Poster- Cram it with walnuts, narc!

Would be antagonism towards a moderator. The agression was specifically related to a moderator acting in that capacity, it was a violation that specifically hinged on the status as a moderator.


Example 2:
Poster- I saw Mod X at a show and he smelled like slim jims and dandruff shampoo. Also, he was ugly.

Would be member abuse- since the infraction was not specifically pertaining to the status of the member AS a mod.

Someone quoted one of the warning messages that had been left for system abuse and I found this part kind of appropriate "Just because you're a mod doesn't put you on some sort of untouchable pedestal." to me... to read into that a bit, it seems to say that the motivation for and content of the antagonism matters pretty strongly in determining which warning would be appropriate. If the antagonism is a direct result of a dissatisfaction with the mod that was created in the performance of that role- then the slightly weightier antagonism towards a mod warning would be appropriate. If the antagonism has another source though- it's a member speaking to another registered member and it should be judged using those standards.

That still leaves a lot of room for interpretation where the terms "antagonism" and "overly abusive" come into play... and I have no doubt that the inherent elasticity of the terms will create debates and argument for a long period of time to come, but at least it'd seem to be a logical distinction to make between the two warnings.

The next fight will be one over specific terms. Is it overly abusive to call someone a liar when they have lied? How about a con artist when they have conned? Thief when they have stolen? Scumbucket when they are literally a metal pail full of stagnant pond water?

 

[Dr Owens]

Seamus,
Those are good examples of the distinction that I was trying to make previously. Good post.

It's not fair for a mod to use the "Antagonism of a moderator" warning when it is not a matter of antagonism of their actions as a mod. To do so levies twice as many warning points as the "overly abusive" warning, and gives the impression that the mods are somehow supposed to be immune to criticizm simply because they are mods. THAT is not the purpose of that warning.

My point is this...
Just because you're a mod doesn't mean that you are placed in some sort of special class of members that shields you from scrutiny or criticism. You are subject to it just like everyone else. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that other members are free to bash you for your actions as a mod. The purpose of the "antagonism of a moderator" warning is to protect you so that you can do your job without drawing a lot of grief. To use that warning just because someone doesn't like you, or doesn't like the way that you do business, etc. is misuse of that warning...it doesn't matter how irritated you are, and how badly you want to give them those extra warning points associated with this warning...you have to use the appropriate "overly abusive" warning.

Admittedly, there is often some grey area, but if you (the mods) seem to always error on the side of using your mod powers in order to levy more warning points than necessary (ESPECIALLY when you are defending YOURSELF), then the other members will end up pointing it out, and you're going to create more headaches for yourself than if you just used the warning system correctly.

(I'm in a huge hurry, and I typed that fast, so I hope that it all makes sense. )