Thread:LadyScarletSin/@comment-5882374-20150924215633/@comment-5882374-20150930002119

LadyScarletSin wrote: Ive spoken to adfeng quite a few times, not personal conversations normally, but there have been numerous administrative conversations with them.

Tricking isn't what the intention was for the ban, it was meant to get the ban out there quickly, and to bring discussions to other administators and staff, and there is no issue with that, you however, were looking for a self-righteous way of attacking a staff member by doing this, so you're right, you have changed, but its more a manipulative change than a good one.

Infinite bans are sometimes used when a time isn't known, and needs to be discussed, there is no issue with that.

Regardless of that, and the time you would have been banned, you broke a rule immediately afterwards, instead of going through the right channels.

I would understand making a new account so you can message one of the staff members about a bad ban, but you didn't do that. Is administrative conversation code for taking part in a one-sided conversation? And I am not stupid I know tricking wasn't the intention of the ban, but for the circumstance I am in it seems like a very good view on what the ban is, a trick. And you say the ban was supposed to be done quickly but you could have been a little more overt in it. The ban could have had qualities which the person who was being banned knew that the staff were talking about the time. You could have for instance said indefinite time-pending amount of days or something. But in the bracket the description of the first ban was Harassment. I don't intend to attack staff members, if you see what I do more accurately. I never knew that infinite bans were used for times when ban times were unknown, if I did I would have not created a new account, but I have never seen such a case which is why I created a new account, so there kind of is an issue with it because I have never ever seen a case like that.