In all fairness, foamy, some of us did. And their ability to do so and the ensuing useless faffing about over what was and is IMO a total non-issue was still worth it because of all the other times the tribunal revamp came into play.Well, you know, the Council was given the ability to choose their own workload for a reason. You guys then chose to give a hearing to a dude who didn't like a Warning for Marginal.
I think 'superminority'.
Oi, I did nothing wrong!
This actually far more true than you think.
Oi, I did nothing wrong!
English doesn't seem to have a standard term for that. Leo proposes "blocking minority" for Sperrminorität, or "vetoing minority" in the comments.
Unfortunately his heart belongs to someone else.
10 gigs of someone elses, to be precise.
Four terabytes, actually. Ugolino broke when he heard about that.
I demand that next election, all candidates have to disclose their
If I were to use that as an excuse would you and the rest of the staff let it fly if I called someone out on their history of blatant dishonesty by saying they're a lying piece of shit?
Are you deliberately trying to goad me into potentially breaking a rule or was that a poor attempt at a joke?
Depends.
I seriously doubt it, because it's already happened.
You can doubt it all you like, but my answer--and the truth--remains the same. It would depend on the post, what else is in it (eg is it backed up, and how well), how flagrant the insult is, how charged the thread has been, etc.
Hmmm?
For something like that where a Council member shows clear personal dislike of the person they are judging how do you know if a Council member isn't letting their personal feelings effect their judgement?
That should probably be stated when something like that happens.
And yet the only real method we have to make sure we're informed enough to judge them is largely hidden from us.
