Respected. I only see the one meta from Neo1 and the one from NeoOne. Also, I should note publicly, since you approved the one from Neo1 as an exception to meta and then you banned him for rule 3 later, I'm presuming my interpretation is correct that up to 7 subsequent comments were also violative of rule 1 and/or rule 3.
I always tell mods, including myself, beware of reacting disciplinarily when part of the user's objection is about you rather than about something else. Reasons for discipline must be straightforward and transparent and separable from what the user says about the mod personally. Verbum sat.
The ban was for rule 3. The last straw was calling this place an ashtray, they are not here in good faith but rather to cause division where ever they can, literally the definition of subversion.
The 1 meta post was given a warning that it would be the only one approved and there is a ban history on that topic.
I'm not sure they can..
Filter blocked more meta posts and I'm in no need to allow their disruption to continue.
Respected. I only see the one meta from Neo1 and the one from NeoOne. Also, I should note publicly, since you approved the one from Neo1 as an exception to meta and then you banned him for rule 3 later, I'm presuming my interpretation is correct that up to 7 subsequent comments were also violative of rule 1 and/or rule 3.
I always tell mods, including myself, beware of reacting disciplinarily when part of the user's objection is about you rather than about something else. Reasons for discipline must be straightforward and transparent and separable from what the user says about the mod personally. Verbum sat.
The ban was for rule 3. The last straw was calling this place an ashtray, they are not here in good faith but rather to cause division where ever they can, literally the definition of subversion.
The 1 meta post was given a warning that it would be the only one approved and there is a ban history on that topic.