Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-3242795-20130731152708/@comment-3112181-20130805163535

John Breasly wrote: Parax. wrote: Aight. Similarly to what Garland said, he, Al, and I went onto another chat to discuss the ban when the request was published, though we were all unable to agree on what to do. So anyways, Imma vote on this. Like Garland said, though Goldvane was teasing Breasly, he ceased immediately when I told him to, making a strike or ban unnecessary. Had he continued with his behavior, however, he would've received a strike or cooldown ban. Point is, for what I just said.

So why is it that if I were to do this I would be banned, but he gets a get-out-of-jail free card?

You wouldn't be banned, so long as you complied with the warning when issued, as Goldvane did. I'm not saying anybody is guilty or anybody is innocent here. But if you do look here (the blog where all of this happened), you'll see that Goldvane did indeed stop after the warning, thus a strike is not warranted (nor a ban for that matter). Don't turn this around and put yourself in Goldvane's spot, Breasle; we're not voting on whether you'd be banned in this hypothetical situation or not.

Also, just to update, the current score of the vote is 1-2 in favour of oppose. Let's let this carry out for two more days so we can get the opinion of Pistol and (if Hell freezes over) GenLawrence before deciding the final verdict.

-- Jeremiah Garland