Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I hate to say this, but I have gotten 2 warnings back to back few weeks ago.
It is without saying that the warnings I've received were due to violation of one rule.
At the first time I received, I thought I violated other rule than the one that I did, so I repeated my mistake.
Hence, my suggestion is, when you describe which rule a user violate, use the rule number instead of description. Then, refer to the rule page. Personally, I think it's more logical to direct to the rule page instead of describing what user did wrong.
I think you are wrong. Everytime when an user is warned for not respecting a rule (only in these cases there is possibility to receive a warning) this is announced via private message for that thing. I don't believe that at this time you have 40% level of warning and you do not know the reason. Anyway I tell you now that you have a warning from 14.01.2013 for SPAM especially continue spamming.
I can see 3 warnings in your warning record. Two expired and the last will expire tomorow.
The first one i gave you for pure spam. The others received from another moderator for different faults.
We prefere users sharing with others, helping and posting good material instead introducing himself, complaining and suggesting how to manage this forum.
Our duty is to save this forum clean and your duty is at least to respect our rules. No one have to explain you but you must read the rules and to behave according. You have no English problems as most of us so read instead asking moderators to give you the information you must know if you want to be an user in this forum.
This is an old text but can help you after reading the rules, the manual and looking around before posting suggestions.
Code:
***************************************
Content of this section is hidden, You must be registered and activate your account to see this content. See this link to read how you can remove this limitation:
http://forum.civilea.com/thread-27464.html
***************************************
As mentioned in my earlier post, it is a purely a suggestion. However, I'm gald to see it from the moderator's perspective through this thread. As both 3fan and BennP have mentioned, it is purely my fault for going against the rule. That much is certain.
Yes, as a result, I re-read the rules once more. And I agree with 3fan's point as well. It is not the moderator's role to spoon feed all the rules that members should follow, but I do believe that they should be clear; which, led me to create this suggestion.