The WZ Ask a Staff Member Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I like the guy that talks about picking butts. Please ignore the dumb concerns of Macios
 
About a week ago, I made a thread in the WWE section about Daniel Bryan. Jack-Hammer deleted the thread. I would like to know why it was deleted. Thanks.
 
Bitching about Super Bryan being shoved down our throats, ala Sly's Super Punk thread last year. I forget the title, so that's probably the opposite of helpful.

I had plenty of great points to back my shit up. Jack-Hammer had no cause to do me like that. I'd like an answer, but he didn't even bother to dignify my PM on the matter with a response. What gives?
 
I sent Jack Hammer a PM about it this morning. Waiting for his response. The thread seemed ok to me but I was waiting to hear his point of view before doing anything.
 
I can't seem to find my answer in the FAQs, please tell me if I have missed it.

How do I post a thread? I know there is a post limit you have to exceed before you can make one, but it is also telling me I need to activate my account. How do I do that?
 
Give our system a bit to catch up. You just made your tenth post fifteen minutes ago so our system hasn't noticed you yet. The ability will be there soon.
 
Ok thank you, and thanks for such a fast reply. I have another question. I've been trying to change my avatar for a few weeks now, but it won't change. Each time I save, it just reverts back to this Eddie Murphy one. Any ideas on how to fix it?
 
I received a warning for using the word gay in a negative context in rep. This was for when I said that a post was not gay enough. Can I get this stricken from the record as I was clearly putting the gays on a pedestal and in no way insulting them?
 
I received a warning for using the word gay in a negative context in rep. This was for when I said that a post was not gay enough. Can I get this stricken from the record as I was clearly putting the gays on a pedestal and in no way insulting them?


1. You used the word as a part of an insult. That's a negative context. Telling someone their post is "not gay enough" is prejudiced. It had nothing to do with putting a lifestyle choice on a pedestal, you were insulting a poster's opinion and used a prejudiced remark to do so.

2. It's a warning and cannot lead to a banning.
 
1. You used the word as a part of an insult. That's a negative context. Telling someone their post is "not gay enough" is prejudiced. It had nothing to do with putting a lifestyle choice on a pedestal, you were insulting a poster's opinion and used a prejudiced remark to do so.

2. It's a warning and cannot lead to a banning.

Negative rep is allowed, which clearly means letting someone know that you do not think that their post is up to par is allowed. What I thought your post needed to make it better was some subtle homosexual undertones. I never insulted you I just stated what I thought would improve your specific post.

And did you call being gay a choice? That is actually prejudice.

2. A warning can lead to a banning. Enough warnings gets you infractions, enough infractions gets you a ban. You didn't need to show how little you understand how things work though, I wasn't speaking about the potential of being banned, I just don't want an unjustified blemish on my perfect record.
 
Negative rep is allowed, which clearly means letting someone know that you do not think that their post is up to par is allowed. What I thought your post needed to make it better was some subtle homosexual undertones. I never insulted you I just stated what I thought would improve your specific post.

And did you call being gay a choice? That is actually prejudice.

2. A warning can lead to a banning. Enough warnings gets you infractions, enough infractions gets you a ban. You didn't need to show how little you understand how things work though, I wasn't speaking about the potential of being banned, I just don't want an unjustified blemish on my perfect record.

1. Warnings do nothing. We can give you 3, 4, 25, they still do nothing but look pretty in the CP.

2. Stop being a smart ass. The word is not in a proper context and that's all that needs to be said.
 
1. Warnings do nothing. We can give you 3, 4, 25, they still do nothing but look pretty in the CP.

2. Stop being a smart ass. The word is not in a proper context and that's all that needs to be said.

1. Between a poster with a clean record and one with warnings, who are you more likely to be lenient and or understanding with? Obviously the one without, because whether the other poster's warnings were just or not, they are the one to appear to have been less troublesome. They do something or else they wouldn't exist.

2. The word was absolutely in proper context, it is the beholder's comprehension that appears to be off.
 
1. Between a poster with a clean record and one with warnings, who are you more likely to be lenient and or understanding with? Obviously the one without, because whether the other poster's warnings were just or not, they are the one to appear to have been less troublesome. They do something or else they wouldn't exist.
The rules:

D. Prejudiced Remarks: Racial, sexual or any other kind of prejudiced remarks in ANY forum may result in an automatic ban.
Positive or negative, it's a prejudiced remark. Would you like the ban instead?

2. The word was absolutely in proper context, it is the beholder's comprehension that appears to be off.

The Rules:

C. Stirring up Drama: Don’t do it. If there is some aspect about the WrestleZone Forums that you do not like, rationally make your case and discuss it in a mature fashion. Do not be immature and cause a massive fuss, as it will only work against you and may result in an Infraction.

D. Pissing off Staff: We will not put up with it. If you are being persistently and intentionally annoying to a Staff member, the Staff member has every right to infract or ban you. Do not be afraid to discuss and debate Staff members; just do not “Troll” a Staff member.
You've been given lenience. Now stop pressing the issue.
 
1. Between a poster with a clean record and one with warnings, who are you more likely to be lenient and or understanding with? Obviously the one without, because whether the other poster's warnings were just or not, they are the one to appear to have been less troublesome. They do something or else they wouldn't exist.

2. The word was absolutely in proper context, it is the beholder's comprehension that appears to be off.

You made your request, it was denied. I approve of the denial and rejection of your request. The matter is now closed. Any further complaints on this particular subject will lead to an automatic Infraction for Spamming.
 
Killjoy is correct. They need to be infractions, and only reversed infractions get deleted. Expired discipline remains on your profile while no longer counting against you, although those were warnings so no banning points came from them to begin with.
 
Any chance of been able to tell me why I no longer have permission to post on the comments section on the main site?
 
Any chance of been able to tell me why I no longer have permission to post on the comments section on the main site?

WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAIN SITE! Read Slyfox's note in the opening post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,824
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top