Wtf

Originally posted by Lana
And that point is wrong. Getting banned because you were accused of being a sock yet it was never checked does NOT mean you are a sock.

Oh my god . . . You did it again. My point is far from wrong.

Read, please:

But yeah, I basically said if a Moderator had banned you for socking and didn't do a sock check under fair, unbiased circumstance, then it would be apparent that you WERE a sock.

^ Let me explain. I never said you were 100% definitely a sock if a Moderator banned you without sock checking. I said it would be APPARENT that you were.

Do you understand yet?

Originally posted by Xavius
Oh my god . . . You did it again. My point is far from wrong.

Read, please:

^ Let me explain. I never said you were 100% definitely a sock if a Moderator banned you without sock checking. I said it would be APPARENT that you were.

Do you understand yet?

How is it apparent that you are a sock?

It's not at all.

I bet Xavius is a sock of LTA.

Originally posted by $noopbert
I bet Xavius is a sock of LTA.

😆

Originally posted by Lana
😆

Originally posted by $noopbert
I bet Xavius is a sock of LTA.

Originally posted by TOH
4 dollars say he is Akilla's sock pimp

Originally posted by Lana
How is it apparent that you are a sock?

It's not at all.

You've got to be kidding me . . .

Okay:

If a Moderator bans you without sock checking and the circumstances are unbiased by that Moderator, it is apparent TO HIM that YOU ARE a sock.

DO YOU get it YET?

Originally posted by Xavius
You've got to be kidding me . . .

Okay:

If a Moderator bans you without sock checking and the circumstances are unbiased by that Moderator, it is apparent TO HIM that YOU ARE a sock.

DO YOU get it YET?

What if it's a biased situation?

Originally posted by Lana
What if it's a biased situation?

Originally posted by Lana
What if it's a biased situation?

From the post I made and repeated a hundred times, I was making it clear that usually Moderators ban someone without sock checking when they are almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

And I wasn't referring to unbiased situations.

If it biased, then what a naughty Mod. If not, who cares. That wasn't what I was talking about.

"usually Moderators ban someone without sock checking when they are almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock."

Wrong. They don't. They get proof first, and I'm pretty certain every ban is discussed in the lair first.

Originally posted by Xavius
From the post I made and repeated a hundred times, I was making it clear that usually Moderators ban someone without sock checking when they are almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

And I wasn't referring to unbiased situations.

If it biased, then what a naughty Mod. If not, who cares. That wasn't what I was talking about.

Well, even when it IS apparent that someone is a sock we are not supposed to take any action unless the sock check comes up positive. Someone is not to be banned as a sock unless there is proof.

Originally posted by $noopbert
usually Moderators ban someone without sock checking when they are almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

Wrong. They don't. They get proof first, and I'm pretty certain every ban is discussed in the lair first.

I'm game.

They get proof to make sure that they're almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

If they had proof then . . . *GASP* They wouldn't need to sock check and they would almost be exactly sure that the member was indeed a sock.

Getting proof would be a part of what I stated . . .

G'job.

Originally posted by Xavius
I'm game.

They get proof to make sure that they're [b]almost exactly sure that the member is indeed a sock.

If they had proof then . . . *GASP* They wouldn't need to sock check and they would almost be exactly sure that the member was indeed a sock.

Getting proof would be a part of what I stated . . .

G'job. [/B]

There are only TWO things allowed as proof.

- A confession from the member who is believed to be a sock
- A positive sock check.

That is IT. Nothing else.

I am a mod. I know what I'm talking about, even though I myself do not have the power to ban people, I still can catch socks.

No amount of posting the same nonsensical BS will make it true. She's the mod. I'm pretty certain she knows what she is talking about. 😱

Originally posted by Lana
Well, even when it IS apparent that someone is a sock we are not supposed to take any action unless the sock check comes up positive. Someone is not to be banned as a sock unless there is proof.

But some people don't sock check because they think that they're sure, but they should check, of course.

I don't know what that had to do with it . . . 😕

Originally posted by Lana
There are only TWO things allowed as proof.

- A confession from the member who is believed to be a sock
- A positive sock check.

That is IT. Nothing else.

I am a mod. I know what I'm talking about, even though I myself do not have the power to ban people, I still can catch socks.

Okay, I'm game again.

Who said there was more proof than that? Hell, who said that wasn't the only proof?

You just stated the obvious.

Originally posted by $noopbert
No amount of posting the same onsensical BS will make it true. She's the mod. I'm pretty certain she knows what she is talking about. 😱

Originally posted by $noopbert
No amount of posting the same nonsensical BS will make it true. She's the mod. I'm pretty certain she knows what she is talking about. 😱

Make what true? Holy jesus . . .