Since when was this a rule?

[-WooTWooTWooT-]

No, it's not posting personal information when it is blatantly fake. Nor am I posting on behalf of Mwah, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

Thanks.

[Immenseman]

He is actually posting on behalf of mwah. This was a sticky one and what he posted could have easily been used by adding hotmail.com etc. Actually on reflection I do think that maybe I have personalised the edit too much but it was a long hot busy night. The rule is there though - just added to which sometimes is done to explain it further to the member.

People would moan at over editing or under editing, lose lose situation so it's just people trying to kick up a fuss about losing access to the forum for a few days

[-WooTWooTWooT-]

People would moan at over editing or under editing, lose lose situation so it's just people trying to kick up a fuss about losing access to the forum for a few days

He didn't ask me to make the thread, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

[xxMATTGxx]

READ THE LAST PART OF THE EDIT. THEN CHECK THE HISTORY OF THE POST WHICH WAS EDITED.

THAT'S NOT IN THE RULES

*FACEPALM*

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not double post within the 15 minute editing period. Thanks.

He didn't ask me to make the thread, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

You already said.

[Catzsy]

No, it's not posting personal information when it is blatantly fake. Nor am I posting on behalf of Mwah, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

Thanks.

Well perhaps the poster should think about that before posting next time - mods cannot take a chance on it being fake. We have no way of knowing.

People would moan at over editing or under editing, lose lose situation so it's just people trying to kick up a fuss about losing access to the forum for a few days

Yes I guess so. Thanks.

[-WooTWooTWooT-]

Well perhaps the poster should think about that before posting next time - mods cannot take a chance on it being fake. We have no way of knowing.



Yes I guess so. Thanks.

Then why did you decide to add to the post :

Whether it is correct or not does not matter

[xxMATTGxx]

No, it's not posting personal information when it is blatantly fake. Nor am I posting on behalf of Mwah, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

Thanks.

Moderators cannot take the chance whether private details of other members is fake or not. The content would be removed for a precaution anyway.

[Kardan]

*Confused*

Am I right in saying that Adam is appealing that infractions shouldn't be awarded for giving out fake personal information?

Surely he's right? I mean, surely I can't be infracted for saying Immenseman's date of birth is the 1st of January 1901, when we all know that he's not 108 years old...

[Pyroka]

No, it's not posting personal information when it is blatantly fake. Nor am I posting on behalf of Mwah, I post on behalf of everyone who gets unfair infractions.

Thanks.

I know of nobody who gets unfair infractions, I only know of people who moan at their infractions because they break the rules too much and don't learn their lesson. :eusa_whis

And besides he did actually post her email so it was breaking the rules.

[xxMATTGxx]

*Confused*

Am I right in saying that Adam is appealing that infractions shouldn't be awarded for giving out fake personal information?

Surely he's right? I mean, surely I can't be infracted for saying Immenseman's date of birth is the 1st of January 1901, when we all know that he's not 108 years old...

Well no, it's called using common sense to be honest.