For the avoidance of doubt - Mod

[mos]

Where were people doing this, it sounds like a fun thread.

( )

[AtW]

Where were people doing this, it sounds like a fun thread.

Are you blind George?

[BrilloPad]

"with the intent to irritate or inflame" - of course all the mods are clairvoyant so can tell. thank godness its not just a case of randomness.

[SimonMac]

So how come when people had avatars of Gentile around the time of her banning, why were they not banned

Ah, of course, she wasn't real

*keeps quiet*

[mudskipper]

You're OK SMac - this isn't HMRC. They don't make up new rules then apply them retrospectively.

[SimonMac]

You're OK SMac - this isn't HMRC. They don't make up new rules then apply them retrospectively.

I thought they just made up decisions on the fly, what ate these rules you speak off and where can I find them

[mudskipper]

what ate these rules

That'd be zeity.

[BrilloPad]

I thought they just made up decisions on the fly, what ate these rules you speak off and where can I find them

1. mods toss a coin. heads they win, tails you lose
2. the mods decision is final. any disagreement and you get a ban with a return of your membership fee

[SimonMac]

If a member is banned are they still off limits for the intent to irritate or inflame?

#JustSaying

[NotAllThere]

It depends if they can track you down IRL or not.