Derails from "Times Appeal"

[Father Rick]

While I think loyalty to a friend is an admirable trait...

Per this report thread (http://foru.ms/t6304548), Time created another sock or two and bypassed bans with those... (including the sock from yesterday).

With that being the case, even if he were to win the appeal, he will still probably be perm banned for more violations of exactly the same thing he is appealing.

[Miracle Storm]

While I think loyalty to a friend is an admirable trait...

Per this report thread (http://foru.ms/t6304548), Time created another sock or two and bypassed bans with those... (including the sock from yesterday).

With that being the case, even if he were to win the appeal, he will still probably be perm banned for more violations of exactly the same thing he is appealing.
But if the initial ban was done by mistake, then he isn't actually bypassing at all.
So be the case with all the other socks and so they would have to be reinstated as well.

Glad this isn't up for debate though. :)

[Hentenza]

While I think loyalty to a friend is an admirable trait...

Per this report thread (http://foru.ms/t6304548), Time created another sock or two and bypassed bans with those... (including the sock from yesterday).

With that being the case, even if he were to win the appeal, he will still probably be perm banned for more violations of exactly the same thing he is appealing.


mmmmm...... I really don't know what to think of your comment. There are two possible ways to interpret it. I think I will leave alone for now since only you know your intention.

[Lisa0315]

While I think loyalty to a friend is an admirable trait...

Per this report thread (http://foru.ms/t6304548), Time created another sock or two and bypassed bans with those... (including the sock from yesterday).

With that being the case, even if he were to win the appeal, he will still probably be perm banned for more violations of exactly the same thing he is appealing.

Sir, I am going to ask you to delete this post if you do not mind. This is NOT going to turn into a debate about the right or wrong of what Time did. Will you please do that?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

But if the initial ban was done by mistake, then he isn't actually bypassing at all.
So be the case with all the other socks and so they would have to be reinstated as well.

Glad this isn't up for debate though. :)

Please delete. I am not going to let this turn into a debate about Time. We may not have any impact on the outcome of his ban, but we can show him luvs here.

I will delete all of my quotes when everyone is done deleting their chats about his ban.

Lisa

[Father Rick]

But if the initial ban was done by mistake, then he isn't actually bypassing at all.
So be the case with all the other socks and so they would have to be reinstated as well.

Glad this isn't up for debate though. :)
Actually, MS this is not accurate at all.

If it is determined that the first ban was, indeed a mistake (and at this point, that has yet to be determined... it may have been valid)...

THEN, it must be determined if it was acceptable for Time to bypass the ban as T2BC. (per the report thread, as well as per protocol, this would have to be a separate appeal on its own merits). The gist of this appeal would be a) whether Time did not know what he was doing was wrong (which is what he states) and b) whether staff neglected to handle his attempts to appeal.

However, even if he were to win both of those... then there is the issue of the additional socks he has created since his ban as T2BC. And each of these banned socks would have to be appealed seperately as well. With these socks, there can be no question that Time both knew how to file the appeal and that the appeal was being handled. As such, appeals for bans on the new socks will be much more difficult (if not impossible) to win.

As I said before, loyalty to a friend is admirable...

but in this case, I don't see how the poll can have any effect on the ultimate outcome of the situation. Even if it does influence the 2 bans mentioned... there are yet more bans since then.

[Lisa0315]

Actually, MS this is not accurate at all.

If it is determined that the first ban was, indeed a mistake (and at this point, that has yet to be determined... it may have been valid)...

THEN, it must be determined if it was acceptable for Time to bypass the ban as T2BC. (per the report thread, as well as per protocol, this would have to be a separate appeal on its own merits). The gist of this appeal would be a) whether Time did not know what he was doing was wrong (which is what he states) and b) whether staff neglected to handle his attempts to appeal.

However, even if he were to win both of those... then there is the issue of the additional socks he has created since his ban as T2BC. And each of these banned socks would have to be appealed seperately as well. With these socks, there can be no question that Time both knew how to file the appeal and that the appeal was being handled. As such, appeals for bans on the new socks will be much more difficult (if not impossible) to win.

As I said before, loyalty to a friend is admirable...

but in this case, I don't see how the poll can have any effect on the ultimate outcome of the situation. Even if it does influence the 2 bans mentioned... there are yet more bans since then.

I have asked you to not do this. When you didn't delete your first derailing post, I had to report you this morning. Why are you continuing this? You are disrespecting me by continuing this.

Lisa

[Father Rick]

mmmmm...... I really don't know what to think of your comment. There are two possible ways to interpret it. I think I will leave alone for now since only you know your intention.
No malice at all in my post...

Just seeing the petition... seeing the fact of there now being additional bans... and stating that at this point, the appeal of the two bans in the petition probably won't make any difference.

[Lisa0315]

Please do not feed the troll and in this case, Father Rick is acting like one. The derailing needs to stop!

Lisa

[Father Rick]

Sir, I am going to ask you to delete this post if you do not mind. This is NOT going to turn into a debate about the right or wrong of what Time did. Will you please do that?

Lisa
I just saw this post...

But I'm not debating the right or wrong of what Time.

In fact, I deliberately made no judgement call one way or the other in my post. Rather, I just gave facts that have a direct bearing on whether or not this petition may actually be useful. If Time had waited for his appeal to be heard, then it may have been. However, since he has made new socks again, then even if he were to win the two appeals in the petition it probably will make no difference it the ultimate outcome.

[MrJim]

No malice at all in my post...

Just seeing the petition... seeing the fact of there now being additional bans... and stating that at this point, the appeal of the two bans in the petition probably won't make any difference.

c'mon Fr.Rick~Lisa asked that this be a nondebating thread. It's only for those supporting Time. If ya got thoughts about it best pm or start another thread. This isn't a conversation thread, just a petition and Lisa asked nicely in the OP to keep it that way.

[Lisa0315]

I just saw this post...

But I'm not debating the right or wrong of what Time.

In fact, I deliberately made no judgement call one way or the other in my post. Rather, I just gave facts that have a direct bearing on whether or not this petition may actually be useful. If Time had waited for his appeal to be heard, then it may have been. However, since he has made new socks again, then even if he were to win the two appeals in the petition it probably will make no difference it the ultimate outcome.

TAKE IT TO ANOTHER THREAD! This is a petition. It is not a freaking debate! SIGN IT OR GET OUT!

Lisa

[Father Rick]

Ok guys...

I didn't see Lisa's request for things to be removed... as I was still reading through the thread and responding as I went.

And I wasn't debating one way or the other on the validity of the appeal. Rather, I was commenting directly on whether or not THIS petition could actually be useful... and providing information that I, for one, would want to have before I signed a petition of any kind.

I don't know about anyone else, but before I put my name to something like a petition, I prefer to check out all the facts (or at least as many of them as I can) to know the big picture.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, there was no malice and I deliberately did not debate the merits of the appeals listed here in the petition. I simply reported that there are other, more recent events, that may have an impact on the eventual outcome.

[Father Rick]

Which is fine. One post, which is not debating, and just simply explains why you are not ready to sign, is FINE. Debate and discussion is not okay. You did nothing wrong, not a thing. I am not asking for your post to be deleted at all.

Father Rick is defending his posts, but there is a subtle difference in his and yours. I think he knows it too.

Lisa
Actually Lisa...

I just went back and read through the whole thread again.

You didn't even mention "no debating" until post #27. I posted... then came back and was scrolling down and responding to other posts that were all BEFORE #27. And once I saw your post, I acknowledged it.

Sorry, but I can't guess what you want before I actually get to where you say it...

[JimfromOhio]

Just an urge to add fuel? I think this is common sense of Lisa's intentions. I would just drop this fuel and move on. No one will win this dispute.

[Lisa0315]

Actually Lisa...

I just went back and read through the whole thread again.

You didn't even mention "no debating" until post #27. I posted... then came back and was scrolling down and responding to other posts that were all BEFORE #27. And once I saw your post, I acknowledged it.

Sorry, but I can't guess what you want before I actually get to where you say it...

Oh, I see. So, now that you KNOW, you are going to delete all of the derails?

Lisa

[Father Rick]

Oh, I see. So, now that you KNOW, you are going to delete all of the derails?

Lisa
And you're going to delete all your rude comments?

[Lisa0315]

And you're going to delete all your rude comments?

Absolutely.

Lisa

[Miracle Storm]

Actually, MS this is not accurate at all.

If it is determined that the first ban was, indeed a mistake (and at this point, that has yet to be determined... it may have been valid)...

THEN, it must be determined if it was acceptable for Time to bypass the ban as T2BC. (per the report thread, as well as per protocol, this would have to be a separate appeal on its own merits). The gist of this appeal would be a) whether Time did not know what he was doing was wrong (which is what he states) and b) whether staff neglected to handle his attempts to appeal.

However, even if he were to win both of those... then there is the issue of the additional socks he has created since his ban as T2BC. And each of these banned socks would have to be appealed seperately as well. With these socks, there can be no question that Time both knew how to file the appeal and that the appeal was being handled. As such, appeals for bans on the new socks will be much more difficult (if not impossible) to win.

As I said before, loyalty to a friend is admirable...

but in this case, I don't see how the poll can have any effect on the ultimate outcome of the situation. Even if it does influence the 2 bans mentioned... there are yet more bans since then.
Actually Frick I think you have trouble seeing the bigger picture sometimes.
If indeed, his first ban was a mistake, which I believe it was, and the appeal is granted it is then a reversal of the ban.
Therefore all other bans on the other socks would be invalid because they were based on the FIRST ban of wolfbitnGodsmittn.

The poll really can't have an effect, but I put my name in there as an encouragement to Time and to those who support him.

[Father Rick]

Actually, I do see the big picture quite clearly...

As well as the various pieces that make up the puzzle.

The issue is whether or not Time intentionally violated rules by creating a sock to bypass a ban-- instead of waiting for an appeal to be heard regarding the validity of said ban. That is what forum rules call for doing. If it was determined on appeal that the ban was a mistake-- then his ban would be lifted.

Time claims that he was 1) unaware of the correct way of handling things and 2) tried to contact staff but had no success... so he took matters into his own hands and created the T2BC sock.

Now... even if the first ban is determined to be a mistake. AND... even if it is then determined that, even though he went about things the wrong way (not waiting for an appeal) since he didn't know how to do things the right way/staff didn't respond, so the ban of T2BC is overturned....

There are still the issues of 2 more socks... created while currently banned under T2BC. These socks were knowingly created to bypass the ban that is currently under appeal. There is no possible way of claiming that he didn't know protocol for those 2.

IF Time had waited til the current appeals were finished before creating his new socks, then he may have had a chance. However, knowingly creating not one but 2 new socks to bypass...

The big picture is whether or not Time is repeatedly violating rules and bypass bans. That was the issue dealing with the first 2 bans... regardless of whether he was right or wrong with those 2 bans... the 2 new socks show him to now be doing that very thing.

[Miracle Storm]

Actually, I do see the big picture quite clearly...

As well as the various pieces that make up the puzzle.

The issue is whether or not Time intentionally violated rules by creating a sock to bypass a ban-- instead of waiting for an appeal to be heard regarding the validity of said ban. That is what forum rules call for doing. If it was determined on appeal that the ban was a mistake-- then his ban would be lifted.

Time claims that he was 1) unaware of the correct way of handling things and 2) tried to contact staff but had no success... so he took matters into his own hands and created the T2BC sock.

Now... even if the first ban is determined to be a mistake. AND... even if it is then determined that, even though he went about things the wrong way (not waiting for an appeal) since he didn't know how to do things the right way/staff didn't respond, so the ban of T2BC is overturned....

There are still the issues of 2 more socks... created while currently banned under T2BC. These socks were knowingly created to bypass the ban that is currently under appeal. There is no possible way of claiming that he didn't know protocol for those 2.

IF Time had waited til the current appeals were finished before creating his new socks, then he may have had a chance. However, knowingly creating not one but 2 new socks to bypass...

The big picture is whether or not Time is repeatedly violating rules and bypass bans. That was the issue dealing with the first 2 bans... regardless of whether he was right or wrong with those 2 bans... the 2 new socks show him to now be doing that very thing.
If his ban from wolfbitnGodsmitn is reversed, unbanned, as if to have been never banned before....
Then there will be an admission that no crime was ever committed to ban WBGS in the first place. Therefore we move on down the line with each individual sock and can honestly say he never comitted a "crime" "violation" because the first ban was bogus to begin with and has been reversed.

It may be considered bypassing now, but if the first ban is lifted, in no way can it be considered bypassing because there was NEVER a violation in the first place for WOLF to be banned.


If a man was pulled over and didn't have proof of car insurance and was to go to court for it, but continued to drive anyway because he knew he had insurance...then went to court with proof of insurance would he then be ticketed for continuing to drive?

He had every right to drive....


Not the perfect analogy, but it will do.

[PreachersWife2004]

If the driver got pulled over again without his insurance, yes, he would get a ticket (I know because this happened to me). I used to carry my insurance in my wallet and would often take my license out but forget to grab the insurance card. After $200 in fines I got smart and carried the insurance in the car like any sensible person.

[Miracle Storm]

If the driver got pulled over again without his insurance, yes, he would get a ticket (I know because this happened to me). I used to carry my insurance in my wallet and would often take my license out but forget to grab the insurance card. After $200 in fines I got smart and carried the insurance in the car like any sensible person.
You should have taken it to court.
You would not have been fined for not having proof of insurance if you then brought it in front of the judge, but indeed for court fees as is our legal system....
But your license would not then be revoked for continuing to drive.....because you had the right to drive.
Those without proof of insurance in front of the judge would loose their lisence for a period of time....

Money, money, money.

[Father Rick]

If his ban from wolfbitnGodsmitn is reversed, unbanned, as if to have been never banned before....
Then there will be an admission that no crime was ever committed to ban WBGS in the first place. Therefore we move on down the line with each individual sock and can honestly say he never comitted a "crime" "violation" because the first ban was bogus to begin with and has been reversed.

It may be considered bypassing now, but if the first ban is lifted, in no way can it be considered bypassing because there was NEVER a violation in the first place for WOLF to be banned.


If a man was pulled over and didn't have proof of car insurance and was to go to court for it, but continued to drive anyway because he knew he had insurance...then went to court with proof of insurance would he then be ticketed for continuing to drive?

He had every right to drive....


Not the perfect analogy, but it will do.
If a man was pulled over and didn't have proof of car insurance and was to go to court for it, but continued to drive anyway because he knew he had insurance...then went to court with proof of insurance would he then be ticketed for continuing to drive?No.. but if his license was suspended for not having insurance... and notice of the suspension was sent to him, yet he kept driving and was stopped he would be arrested and taken to jail for driving on a suspended license.

When he provided proof of insurance, the suspension would be reversed, but the driving on a suspended license would stand-- since he knew that it was suspended (even if done so wrongly) when he chose to drive.

(I worked my way through seminary as an insurance agent.)

The first go around, Time could have legitimately pled ignorance if he really didn't know the appeals system and staff really didn't respond to him, and if the original ban is deemed to be a mistake.

This time, he does know protocol... but chose to ignore it and create 2 new socks (which were both banned) anyway.

[Miracle Storm]

No.. but if his license was suspended for not having insurance... and notice of the suspension was sent to him, yet he kept driving and was stopped he would be arrested and taken to jail for driving on a suspended license.
The license would not be suspended unless in front of a judge without proof of insurance.
He is now on the appeal panel waiting for the judgement and has all the proof he needs.:)

When he provided proof of insurance, the suspension would be reversed, but the driving on a suspended license would stand-- since he knew that it was suspended (even if done so wrongly) when he chose to drive.
The proof of insurance is being provided now...first time in front of the judge it is :)

(I worked my way through seminary as an insurance agent.)

The first go around, Time could have legitimately pled ignorance if he really didn't know the appeals system and staff really didn't respond to him, and if the original ban is deemed to be a mistake. Well if you look over his appeal he has all the pm evidence that he was pretty much begging to find out how to appeal.

This time, he does know protocol... but chose to ignore it and create 2 new socks (which were both banned) anyway.
Yes, and since they were banned on bogus charges if the first ban is reversed then those will have to be reinstated as well.

Because again, he had every right to be driving them thar other cars around town. Cause he'd not yet went in front of the judge to prove the "first car" before wolfbittn, wasn't him. The police officers were mistaken in their identification!
Guess next time they should take fingerprints...:P

[Father Rick]

The license would not be suspended unless in front of a judge without proof of insurance.
He is now on the appeal panel waiting for the judgement and has all the proof he needs.:)
Actually... in this state (and most states) the suspension is automatic-- no judge involved whatsoever. When a person discontinues insurance the company notifies the state. If they start with a new company, the new company also notifies the state. If there is a mistake somewhere and the person's info is not updated correctly, a person's license can be suspended for no insurance even if they have it.

Now... a letter is sent to the person first, notifying them on what date the suspension will go into effect and telling them they must provide proof of insurance first. If the person does not do so-- say, they've moved and don't get the letter-- their license is suspended.

AND if stopped driving on a suspended, they are arrested automatically and taken to jail.



The proof of insurance is being provided now...first time in front of the judge it is :)
Well if you look over his appeal he has all the pm evidence that he was pretty much begging to find out how to appeal.
If the person goes before the judge, after being taken to jail, that person then has to 1) prove they did have insurance the entire time and then 2) PROVE that they were not aware that their license was suspended... since even if the person had insurance, because they were sent notice of the suspension they are held accountable. Unless they can PROVE that they did not know of the suspension (which means prove that the letter sent was not received-- something very difficult to do) then the driving on a suspended stands as a seperate offense to the original.

As I said... the first go around, Time may have been able to claim ignorance.. the second time around, he clearly knew he was banned at the time and chose to create multiple socks and bypass the ban instead of waiting for an appeal.


Yes, and since they were banned on bogus charges if the first ban is reversed then those will have to be reinstated as well.

Because again, he had every right to be driving them thar other cars around town. Cause he'd not yet went in front of the judge to prove the "first car" before wolfbittn, wasn't him. The police officers were mistaken in their identification!
Guess next time they should take fingerprints...:PHowever, while waiting for appeal, he knew he was banned. He chose to bypass 2 more times-- knowingly.

[Miracle Storm]

Actually... in this state (and most states) the suspension is automatic-- no judge involved whatsoever. When a person discontinues insurance the company notifies the state. If they start with a new company, the new company also notifies the state. If there is a mistake somewhere and the person's info is not updated correctly, a person's license can be suspended for no insurance even if they have it.

Now... a letter is sent to the person first, notifying them on what date the suspension will go into effect and telling them they must provide proof of insurance first. If the person does not do so-- say, they've moved and don't get the letter-- their license is suspended.

AND if stopped driving on a suspended, they are arrested automatically and taken to jail.


If the person goes before the judge, after being taken to jail, that person then has to 1) prove they did have insurance the entire time and then 2) PROVE that they were not aware that their license was suspended... since even if the person had insurance, because they were sent notice of the suspension they are held accountable. Unless they can PROVE that they did not know of the suspension (which means prove that the letter sent was not received-- something very difficult to do) then the driving on a suspended stands as a seperate offense to the original.

As I said... the first go around, Time may have been able to claim ignorance.. the second time around, he clearly knew he was banned at the time and chose to create multiple socks and bypass the ban instead of waiting for an appeal.
ACK :help: I would choose an analogy about insurance and judges to a former insurance agent!! I concede on the insurance deal 'cause I'll never win with you on that...
However, while waiting for appeal, he knew he was banned. He chose to bypass 2 more times-- knowingly.
Yes, but as I said, as I believe, if the first ban if found to be a mistake then the other bypasses should be removed as they would be based on a false premise when in actuallity he should never had been banned at all.

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes, Miracle, they probably would be lifted, but I think he would need to appeal each sock separately.

I would also hope that his willingness to break the rules no matter what would be addressed - I would expect that no matter what the reasons given, violating a ban not once, not twice, but three times and even posting that one didn't care would be something that would need to be addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I understand his frustration. There are lots of time I've been frustrated with the law not doing its job - but that doesn't give me the right to take matters into my own hands.

I told Time that I am hoping and praying for the best for him. And yeah, in my mind that does include some brotherly rebuke for not following the rules.

[Miracle Storm]

Yes, Miracle, they probably would be lifted, but I think he would need to appeal each sock separately.so?



Don't get me wrong, I understand his frustration. There are lots of time I've been frustrated with the law not doing its job - but that doesn't give me the right to take matters into my own hands.

I told Time that I am hoping and praying for the best for him. And yeah, in my mind that does include some brotherly rebuke for not following the rules.
I'm not sure if he would or not have to appeal one by one. That would obviously just make more work for the admins. and if wolf is reinstated then the only thing reasonable to me is to reinstate all of his accounts.
I guess we will all see as this is an unusual appeal and complicated given the circumstances and changes in staff positions...
but if wolf is reinstated than that means the ban is reversed and all other bans will/should be reversed as well as they were banned for bypassing which if that is reversed on Wolf it will be reversed on the rest of his accounts T'is my belief/hope anyway.


This is not the law preacherswife and there were reasons behind the other socks. He does not see it as breaching rules because WolfBitnGodSmittn was banned for bypassing, which he had never previously done...by his own statements.


Really? If the law doesn't do there job in my part of town there are lots of people who take matters into their own hands...
This honestly cannot be compared to "law" when this man doesn't even have a representative.
That's why I conceded the car insurance argument and the fact that Frick has more knowledge obviously about car insurance than I, PW.

[Father Rick]

violating a ban not once, not twice, but three times and even posting that one didn't care would be something that would need to be addressed.
Actually... at this point it is a minimum of 5 socks that bypassed bans that have been either posted in the report threads and/or admitted to publicly by Time.

This does not go into anything else pre-7/7/7 that may or may not have happened (I honestly haven't pulled all the records there to see myself, since I'm not the one handling the appeals).

[NewGuy101]

Actually Frick I think you have trouble seeing the bigger picture sometimes.
If indeed, his first ban was a mistake, which I believe it was, and the appeal is granted it is then a reversal of the ban.
Therefore all other bans on the other socks would be invalid because they were based on the FIRST ban of wolfbitnGodsmittn.

The poll really can't have an effect, but I put my name in there as an encouragement to Time and to those who support him.
:amen:

[D'Ann]

I'm tired of the legalistics. If we can unban other perma bans of people who have done a lot worse things... And if the original ban is lifted due to no violation committed in the first place... I don't care about legalistics... we should show grace and mercy and compassion and forgiveness and completely remove the ban. Period and be done with it.

[Melethiel]

I'd just like to point out that since this has gone to Appeals, it is not in Jim's and ET's hands anymore. It is in the hands of whatever Admin panel gets assigned to the appeal - and Admin panels are bound to review each case strictly according to the rules and evidence. We are under no obligation to listen to lobbying.

[Lisa0315]

I'd just like to point out that since this has gone to Appeals, it is not in Jim's and ET's hands anymore. It is in the hands of whatever Admin panel gets assigned to the appeal - and Admin panels are bound to review each case strictly according to the rules and evidence. We are under no obligation to listen to lobbying.

That is fine, but if you don't mind, we have another thread to actually discuss the benefits/merits/effectiveness of the petition. Would you mind moving this over there?

Lisa

[Melethiel]

That is fine, but if you don't mind, we have another thread to actually discuss the benefits/merits/effectiveness of the petition. Would you mind moving this over there?

Lisa
Sorry, I didn't see that. Can you give me a link?

[Lisa0315]

Sorry, I didn't see that. Can you give me a link?

I'm too lazy. It is in the Debate Subforum. You will see it right away.

Lisa

[ContentInHim]

I know that those who were banned before 777 were re-instated, even if they were banned for heinous posts. If WolfBittn was banned before 777, why was his ban not automatically overturned? :scratch:

[IamRedeemed]

Hmmm, interesting observation. I would be interested in knowing what reasons there might be. :scratch:


I know that those who were banned before 777 were re-instated, even if they were banned for heinous posts. If WolfBittn was banned before 777, why was his ban not automatically overturned? :scratch:

[Nadiine]

I'm too lazy.
Lisa
lol, I like that kinda honesty :thumbsup: ^_^ :cool:

[Nadiine]

I know that those who were banned before 777 were re-instated, even if they were banned for heinous posts. If WolfBittn was banned before 777, why was his ban not automatically overturned? :scratch:
My infractions were removed too - it does make you wonder, but then as others have said, it stood a good chance of being overturned on appeal due to the way it was done.... but I don't understand if this is true, that it wouldn't have applied to his previous account.
:scratch:

[Lisa0315]

lol, I like that kinda honesty :thumbsup: ^_^ :cool:

I hate when people do not provide links but I hate providing them myself too. :D

Lisa

[Nadiine]

I hate when people do not provide links but I hate providing them myself too. :D

Lisa
believe me, I hear you... theeeeeeeeee worst is having to go track down 50 threads to find that ONE POST that you need...

OH HELP ME :swoon: :help: lol

[Lisa0315]

believe me, I hear you... theeeeeeeeee worst is having to go track down 50 threads to find that ONE POST that you need...

OH HELP ME :swoon: :help: lol

Maybe, we should start a funny pet peeve thread. It doesn't have to be about CF only. Whadaya think?

Lisa

[Nadiine]

Maybe, we should start a funny pet peeve thread. It doesn't have to be about CF only. Whadaya think?

Lisa
uh. well I already made one awhile back.. it's buried somewhere in the previous mess a few pages back
(should I go dig to find it? LOL ) :P :P

[IamRedeemed]

I think that we (yes, that includes me) need to change our focus to Philippians 4:8
instead and concentrate on those things for a refreshing change.
jmho

God bless

[Lisa0315]

uh. well I already made one awhile back.. it's buried somewhere in the previous mess a few pages back
(should I go dig to find it? LOL ) :P :P

Please do!

Lisa

[Melethiel]

I know that those who were banned before 777 were re-instated, even if they were banned for heinous posts. If WolfBittn was banned before 777, why was his ban not automatically overturned? :scratch:
We did not automatically overturn bans. Those who wanted their bans overturned had to ask for it, and the staff had to review the reason for banning. If it was for too many infraction, those were usually reinstated. If it was for (example) stalking or other reasons, it was not. Each case was reviewed individually.

[Angel4Truth]

As time has been reinstated - and this thread is a derailed discussion - shouldnt it be closed?