Its against the rules to question the legality of something?

**Kilz** · February 21st, 2008

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Heavy handed would have been to issue infraction points or to ban.
A warning was issued. That is not heavy handed.

The warning was reversed, what more do you want ? I ask this as I am confused here ,a decision was madein your favor and you seem to reject thatdecision

No, I am not rejecting the decision. But questioning this

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Kilz please note a repeat will not be tolerated and an infraction not warning will be issued next time

As I read that statement in relation to this.

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

I have pondered over this one for a long time.
I can see where the staff are coming from in this one,but I can also see where Kilz is coming from also.

The warning was for taking the thread "Off topic" and your post was half off topic.

To me it says the next half off topic post will be an infraction. When did the staff start handing out infractions based in part? Am I singled out in this or are you going to start applying it to all the thousands of posts that come in daily? Because , after all if half was off topic, half was ON topic.

**KiwiNZ** · February 21st, 2008

It is semantics as to if it is half the post or all the post .
If it is off topic ,it is off topic

**Kilz** · February 22nd, 2008

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

It is semantics as to if it is half the post or all the post .
If it is off topic ,it is off topic

To me that sounds like glass half empty thinking. It is still on topic, and I would defend and appeal that. Because that would be heavy handed, and imho not something that goes along with Ubuntu.