RealGM

Is there a reason why I can't edit my posts?

And when do warnings expire? Plus, how many are you allowed before you serve in ban camp?

What message do you receive when you attempt to edit posts?

Warnings required for a ban are at the discretion of mods. Usually, however, you shall not be banned unless you are first suspended for 7 days. Extreme cases, spammers, and duplicate accounts, can be banned without any suspensions.

BrooklynBulls wrote:What message do you receive when you attempt to edit posts?

Warnings required for a ban are at the discretion of mods. Usually, however, you shall not be banned unless you are first suspended for 7 days. Extreme cases, spammers, and duplicate accounts, can be banned without any suspensions.

Oh i meant ban camp as suspension. But how long does a warning expire after issued?

As for editing, I get no option. I just get the delete "X" or quote.

Edit: I can now edit.

Site glitch, I'm sure- there's been some upgrading going on.

Warnings never expire. It is per usual, 3 warnings, and you're getting a suspension. However, if a poster has been on good behavior for a long time, exceptions will be made if the warnings are rather old.

BrooklynBulls wrote:Site glitch, I'm sure- there's been some upgrading going on.

Warnings never expire. It is per usual, 3 warnings, and you're getting a suspension. However, if a poster has been on good behavior for a long time, exceptions will be made if the warnings are rather old.

I was under the impression you get banned after 3 warnings.

Unless a mod specifically told you that, no, that's not SOP.

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:I was under the impression you get banned after 3 warnings.

Generally, the first three warnings = a three-day. The next three warnings = a seven-day. The next three = a ban. There is some variance depending on the time frame...if there's quite a bit of space between the warnings and they aren't particularly egregious, it can sometimes take 4-5 warnings to rack up a suspension. Likewise, if you had a suspension in 2006 and one in 2008, there's a decent chance that you'd earn a third suspension rather than a ban the next time around. On the other hand, if you bring no value, are constantly getting flagged by other posters, and generally bring a dick, the timeline can be expedited.

Board bans can be a different matter...if you get multiple warnings for trolling the same board, there's an excellent chance that you'll get banned from that specific forum.

Schadenfreude wrote:

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:I was under the impression you get banned after 3 warnings.

Generally, the first three warnings = a three-day. The next three warnings = a seven-day. The next three = a ban. There is some variance depending on the time frame...if there's quite a bit of space between the warnings and they aren't particularly egregious, it can sometimes take 4-5 warnings to rack up a suspension. Likewise, if you had a suspension in 2006 and one in 2008, there's a decent chance that you'd earn a third suspension rather than a ban the next time around. On the other hand, if you bring no value, are constantly getting flagged by other posters, and generally bring a dick, the timeline can be expedited.

Board bans can be a different matter...if you get multiple warnings for trolling the same board, there's an excellent chance that you'll get banned from that specific forum.

That seems different than what I was told in the "I got beef' thread.

LittleOzzy wrote:Honestly you have been complaining for a week straight about how unjust everyone is treating you... Get over yourself and look in the mirror. YOU are the issue, YOU are the problem and YOU are the one who will likely be removed from RealGM when you receive you're next warning.

Three strikes and you are out buddy... I suggest growing up and realizing not everyone is out to get you. You trolled the Magic forum, you received two warnings and they asked you to be removed. It's that simple and it's very fair.

Three strikes = three suspensions...if three warnings got you banned outright, you'd have been sent to live on the farm some time in 2009.

Schadenfreude wrote:Three strikes = three suspensions...if three warnings got you banned outright, you'd have been sent to live on the farm some time in 2009.

I am not sure this is completely true.

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:

Schadenfreude wrote:Three strikes = three suspensions...if three warnings got you banned outright, you'd have been sent to live on the farm some time in 2009.

Why ask a question if you can't accept the answer? Then on top of that you decide to be snarky by posting nothing but a smiley rolling his eyes.

LittleOzzy wrote:

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:

Schadenfreude wrote:Three strikes = three suspensions...if three warnings got you banned outright, you'd have been sent to live on the farm some time in 2009.

Why ask a question if you can't accept the answer? Then on top of that you decide to be snarky by posting nothing but a smiley rolling his eyes.

Because what he posted is clearly wrong if you actually asses the situation, and not just go by what one person says. The irony of this whole thing is that my email I sent to the raptors mods to help them analyze the situation hasn't even been read, you know, the one you posted on realgm for no real reason. I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:Because what he posted is clearly wrong if you actually asses the situation, and not just go by what one person says. The irony of this whole thing is that my email I sent to the raptors mods to help them analyze the situation hasn't even been read, you know, the one you posted on realgm for no real reason. I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

You are correct...I was wrong that you would have been banned in 2009 if it was a 'three strikes, you're out' policy. It would have taken until the 7th of January.

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

And yet you seem confused as to if we don't like you - then why?

Because you are an insufferable jack ass would probably be my hypothetical answer. Seriously, what kind of idiot advertises the fact that not only is he a troll, but heck, an award winning one at that?

Why not be a little nicer and just take a sound bite from this advertisement for your next sig?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8OPxZvCAuw[/youtube]

You could be the "only douche with no attitude."

Yuri Vaultin wrote:

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

And yet you seem confused as to if we don't like you - then why?

Because you are an insufferable jack ass would probably be my hypothetical answer. Seriously, what kind of idiot advertises the fact that not only is he a troll, but heck, an award winning one at that?

Why not be a little nicer and just take a sound bite from this advertisement for your next sig?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8OPxZvCAuw[/youtube]

You could be the "only douche with no attitude."

Ok Shad, I'm sorry. Your post didn't really deserve that emoticon. This one does however.

Schadenfreude wrote:

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:Because what he posted is clearly wrong if you actually asses the situation, and not just go by what one person says. The irony of this whole thing is that my email I sent to the raptors mods to help them analyze the situation hasn't even been read, you know, the one you posted on realgm for no real reason. I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

You are correct...I was wrong that you would have been banned in 2009 if it was a 'three strikes, you're out' policy. It would have taken until the 7th of January.

You do have a point there I guess. However, nothing much has changed from that day till today, so don't make it sound like I'm lucky to not be banned already.

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:

Schadenfreude wrote:

Hobo Gonzolez wrote:Because what he posted is clearly wrong if you actually asses the situation, and not just go by what one person says. The irony of this whole thing is that my email I sent to the raptors mods to help them analyze the situation hasn't even been read, you know, the one you posted on realgm for no real reason. I am not stupid enough to buy this used car salesman act you guys are pulling. Do you think I believe that I would have been banned before ever getting an official warning? That is what Shad would be implying if he believes that I would have been banned in 2009.
Thanks for playing.

You are correct...I was wrong that you would have been banned in 2009 if it was a 'three strikes, you're out' policy. It would have taken until the 7th of January.

You do have a point there I guess. However, nothing much has changed from that day till today, so don't make it sound like I'm lucky to not be banned already.

Don't worry, with all the mods that you've gone out of your way to piss off recently you'll be out of everyone's hair premanently by April.

No need for this to stay open since the questions have been answered.