(03-09-2019, 07:55 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote:

Quote:If it please the court I would like to submit the following conversation I had with NHC today on the RMB. By his own admission his definition for spam is to be messaged repetitively. He purposefully chose to continue to "Double Post" and violate the RMB Rules and Etiquette policy and decided that the Warning he was received by a duly elected LC member after each violation as spam.

As I explain in this conversation, double posting is not repetition, unless both posts are basically the same thing. The question he gives me with the scenario also doesn't remotely equate to the situation, as I also explain in this conversation. 

I explained to NHC multiple times the definition of double post using both the RMB stated definition and the Urban Dictionary definition.  He chose to disregard those definitions each time and instead attempt to focus solely on repetition.  

He has shown and still shows by his admission here that he is above defined rules.  If we are to allow members to define their own rules as NHC is doing with double posting or as Nat is attempting to explain then I ask the court why we have any oversight of the RMB at all?