But seriously, folks.

Co-Z was banned unfairly. :) We are allowed to discuss it.

Co-Z was banned unfairly. :) We are allowed to discuss it.

*Scary Applesauce points to the bottom of his entry.

It doesn't matter, they probably deserved it.

Maybe you could check out what they actually said and have your own opinion instead of assuming that the Sals staff always gets everything right.

Patou's official reasoning was that that specific blog entry crossed the line. I disagree completely. What's wrong with discussing it?We all know what you are talking about: Co-Z, Cactus, and DiZ.

Patou's official reasoning was that that specific blog entry crossed the line. I disagree completely. What's wrong with discussing it?We all know what you are talking about: Co-Z, Cactus, and DiZ.

I am posting this because of them getting banned. But I have seen this a lot before. I could name a member where this exact thing happeded but I won't because I know I'll get flamed.

You'd be scared of getting flamed why?

You'd be scared of getting flamed why?

Because-I don't want this to turn this into a debate (Although that may already be happening)-I don't want to get flamed, that's it.

Co-Z was banned unfairly. :D We are allowed to discuss it.

-I don't care if you discuss it.-You can't say that until you see his warn log.

Like I said before, Patou's reason was for the blog entry crossing the line.

Like I said before, Patou's reason was for the blog entry crossing the line.

That was for one warn. Were the other 6 unfair too?

co-z "crossed the line" in the word of that patou. was quite possibly the stupidest ban i have ever seen in ANY forum :/BUT this is from what i heard his warn was from...his last blog entry. If it was something else besides that, then thats a different story. BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

co-z "crossed the line" in the word of that patou. was quite possibly the stupidest ban i have ever seen in ANY forum :D BUT this is from what i heard his warn was from...his last blog entry. If it was something else besides that, then thats a different story. BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

That's the thing. That was one warn. It may have been unfair but he had already earned 6 before that. He wasn't banned because of the blog entry, he was just warned for it, but because he had 6 before that, that warn got him banned.

BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

Thats the thing it was not just from that blog entry, it was a lot of little things that eventually got him this last warn.

BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

Thats the thing it was not just from that blog entry, it was a lot of little things that eventually got him this last warn.

Where in the rules does it say "little things agg up to warns"?

BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

Thats the thing it was not just from that blog entry, it was a lot of little things that eventually got him this last warn.

And as Adam? said, if these "little things" do exist, who notifies people the people commiting all these little things that they are about to be warned or banned due to them? Oh, and Scary Applesauce, you can't say it was a fair warn until you see the warn log too.

BUT if it is just from the blog entry...it completely unreasable.

Thats the thing it was not just from that blog entry, it was a lot of little things that eventually got him this last warn.

Where in the rules does it say "little things agg up to warns"?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that he had 6 warns before that. Even if the 7th warn for the blog was unfair, who's to say the other 6 were unfair too?

No one, that's why no one is saying all his other warns were unfair too.

Exactly. Your point is meaningless...you can post with 6 warns.