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