If you agreed to it voluntarily then why are you questioning it with "Fennec could have done something other than block me (such as speak to me first)"?
Christiaan
What am I questioning? I'm not saying Fennec wasn't able to do what he did. I'm saying he shouldn't have. It was completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
Just because an admin has the ability to block first and ask questions never doesn't mean they always should. Frankly, when I made the agreement I thought admins such as Fennec would have the common sense to realize that.
That said, I jumped to conclusions when I listed that page on VfD. And as it turns out the block was removed fairly soon after I realized I was blocked anyway, so little harm was done. So whatever, it's not the end of the world.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
If you agreed to it voluntarily then why are you questioning it with "Fennec could have done something other than block me (such as speak to me first)"? Christiaan
What am I questioning? I'm not saying Fennec wasn't able to do what he did. I'm saying he shouldn't have. It was completely unnecessary and counterproductive.
That's one point of view I guess. Another point of view, held by many it seems, including yourself at one point, is that in such cases you are not subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other users. That you are retrospectively arguing a point that you've already agreed to, by suggesting you *should, in some cases, get some type of warning only goes to confirm why you've been striped of such protections in the first place.
Just because an admin has the ability to block first and ask questions never doesn't mean they always should.
Let me quote again, in this case "you are not subject to the normal warnings and protections afforded other users." Could it be any clearer? Whether they _should_ or not doesn't seem up for debate. Christiaan