Thread:SavageOpress1138/@comment-25898954-20151214192754

I don't like bans; they're coarse, and rough, and irritating, and they get everywhere. So here are three compelling reasons why you should not have banned either of us: 1) Technically, the Blocking Policy states that the three day ban (a third offense) is only instituted after two warnings are issued. You only gave us one warning in the form of a single comment, which is technically a violation of community policy on your part and an abuse of your community-granted user rights. I would be well within my rights as an innocent, disgruntled community member to call for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum's SavageOpress1138's leadership.  At an end, your rule is. And not short enough it was.  2) Neither Nick nor I actually violated the terms of your ban. I quote: "The next person to post a comment that is directly attacking another user will be given a three day ban" (emphasis added). Nick's first comment was written prior to his notice of your warning. My first reponse was actually directed at Arkius on the subject of good faith. The following comments concerned violation of policy. None of our comments were "directly attacking" in nature, and were merely statements of fact or opinion. The ad hominem smack talk was completely prior to your warning. So, thus, you employed a ban on illegitimate grounds. (Vote now! Vote now!) 3) I had to watch the prequels over the weekend. If you had not banned me, I would not have sought to drown my sorrows in Hayden Christensen's wooden acting. This is an unforgivable offense, and one of which I will continue to remind you. Had it been a week's ban, I may have even stooped so low as to watch, *shudder*, the Clone Wars cartoons. 