Amanda Van Nuys brings in the Hit Squad!

Community Tools User Group/31-Mar-2011 is in the books and once again Amanda Van Nuys is playing favorites. (again my name was deleted from the participants) This week she brought in the Hit Squad for support to beat down any dissenters. Read the list here. Last week if you recall during the meeting, the subject of amnesty was brought up for first week offenders. Amanda's exact words were (with Lexie in agreement) referring to amnesty:

2011/03/24 13:08]  Venus Petrov: for goodwill sake would it be possible to forgive all but harassment and spam violations from the first week? [2011/03/24 13:09]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): hey, that's a good idea. yes, we can do that. [2011/03/24 13:09]  Lexie (lexie.linden): I like it [2011/03/24 13:09]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): i'll just let the mods know that they should disregard stuff from the first week.

 (Disregard means ignore or that it doesn't count, right?)

This week Amanda decided to play favorites by saying this amnesty only applies going forward with a ban. By saying this she picked her favorites to bypass bans.

Everyone given a ban from a warning issued during the first week will not be given amnesty and the ban will not be rescinded, making Amanda's first statement a lie. 

Either amnesty is given to everyone or it isn't given at all.

Here's what Amanda said this week contrary to last week.

[13:52] Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): again, suspiria. warnings are not deleted, but the ones received during the first week don't count towards bans going forward. that applies for everyone.

What this means is instead of all warnings given amnesty, only the warnings she chooses are given amnesty. Every person banned due to warnings given in the first week will not be given amnesty. Once again Amanda Van Nuys has to play god and dictate who receives amnesty and who does not. Here is the  uncensored version of the minutes.

Now the Hit Squad comes into play. Read the comments from Amanda's Hit Squad asked to attend the meeting to ridicule and stamp out anything anyone saying anything contrary to Amanda Van Nuys. All of them are attacking me at once saying I don't understand how Amanda "didn't" change what she said last week when as you can see, she did, going from all will be forgiven to now only some will be forgiven. Originally it was not "going forward" it was "all".

Here is more on Amanda’s reversal from "all" getting amnesty to only whom she chooses.

[2011/03/31 13:51]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Can we also have equal amnesty and not just for favorites?  [2011/03/31 13:51]  Lexie (lexie.linden): We do not play favorites Suspiria  [2011/03/31 13:52]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Then why isn't my warning lifted?  [2011/03/31 13:52]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): again, suspiria. warnings are not deleted, but the ones received during the first week don't count towards bans going forward. that applies for everyone.  [2011/03/31 13:53]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): So any ban with a warning issued in the first week is reversed right? (Asking to clarify for everyone)  [2011/03/31 13:54]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): no, going forward, all bans under consideration will only include warnings from the second week and beyond.  (this is the key, not past bans with warnings given in the first week only bans "under consideration" Amnesty is NOT for everyone) [2011/03/31 13:54]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): So amnesty isn’t for everyone  [2011/03/31 13:55]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Thanks for clarifying your reversal of statement

Now the Hit Squad/favorites take over. How quaint they all agree with Amanda. For the Hit Squad, reading comprehension isn't a prerequisite. Even after Amanda said twice "going forward" they still don't get it.

[2011/03/31 13:55]  Venus Petrov: i believe the statements have been very consistent Suspiria [2011/03/31 13:55]  Wilhiam Hydraconis: indeed [2011/03/31 13:55]  Caitlin 'Caity' Tobias (caitlin.tobias): yep

So I ask again for Amanda to verify amnesty is not "everyone".

[2011/03/31 13:55]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): How so, last week it was amnesty for everyone, now it isn't [2011/03/31 13:56]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): have i been unclear? [2011/03/31 13:56]  Peewee Musytari: how is it not for everyone?    ( [2011/03/31 13:54]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): no, going forward, all bans "under consideration" will only include warnings from the second week and beyond.) [2011/03/31 13:56]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): I can dig out Amanda's exact words if you like [2011/03/31 13:56]  Wilhiam Hydraconis: no you haven't , Amanda [2011/03/31 13:56]  Venus Petrov: the statement this week is the same as last week's [2011/03/31 13:56]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): not sure how i can be clearer, but happy to guet suggestions fromt eh crowd.

Amanda, you say one thing one week and now you change it to suit your favorites. How can you be clear when you don't stick to the same policy each week and change it to suit your discrimination.

The following conversation:

[2011/03/31 13:56]  Cummere Mayo: suspira im not understanding what is so confusing?  [2011/03/31 13:56]  Lord of Dee (ciaran.laval): Suspiria what happened in week one stays in week one    (Nope) [2011/03/31 13:56]  Venus Petrov: it has always been week one only  (if so why don't mine count?)  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): ok if a warning issued in the first week is given amnesty, how can it count toward a ban?  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Peewee Musytari: if u had a warning in week 1 and ur name gets put up for a ban, ur warning for that week won`t be included in the decision...no matter who u are   (wrong, not warnings for bans "already issued")  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Cummere Mayo: thats the point suspira ... it doesnt   (if so why don't mine count?)  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Amanda just said only going forward [2011/03/31 13:57]  DogWomble Dollinger: suspiria it doesn't   (if so why don't mine count?)  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): So the past is NOT forgiven [2011/03/31 13:57]  Venus Petrov: only things post week one   (wrong, not warnings for bans "already issued")  [2011/03/31 13:57]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Got that part [2011/03/31 13:58]  Wilhiam Hydraconis: only in the first week *sigh* ..  (wrong, not warnings for bans "already issued")  [2011/03/31 13:58]  Peewee Musytari: week one warnings are ignore susp   (wrong, not warnings for bans "already issued") [2011/03/31 13:58]  Cummere Mayo: wait if a first week doesnt count... (Yay Cummere) [2011/03/31 13:58]  DogWomble Dollinger: suspiria the past is forgiven,  (wrong, not forgiven for warnings for bans "already issued")   it's just if you got banned after that first week, it's because of somethign that happened after that first week [2011/03/31 13:58]  Cummere Mayo: but you get three warnings the second week you still get banned   (you're getting it) [2011/03/31 13:58]  DogWomble Dollinger: unless you made yourself unclear and were banned within that first week? [2011/03/31 13:58]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): If first week doesn't count bans given for those warnings should be reversed [2011/03/31 13:58]  Darrius Gothly: To divert the concept of warnings/bans a bit .. when are they "forgiven" .. if they are forgiven at all? If they are not, wouldn't it be fair to delete them after a reasonable "aging" period? [2011/03/31 13:58]  Cummere Mayo: oooh [2011/03/31 13:58]  Cummere Mayo: i see now [2011/03/31 13:58]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Yet Amanda says no [2011/03/31 13:59]  Peewee Musytari: what difference does it make if they are ignored anyway suspiria? [2011/03/31 13:59]  Wilhiam Hydraconis: seems you're clueless about the occasion triggering it    (Amanda's hit squad can even insult in a meeting even though they can't comprehend what's been written)  [2011/03/31 13:59]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): The difference is one warning of three can make a ban unnecessary [2011/03/31 13:59]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): Negating the ban [2011/03/31 13:59]  Darrius Gothly: Umm .. Wil? How about "unclear" instead? [2011/03/31 13:59]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): ok, susupria, i think we've spent a good amount of time making sure that you understand, thanks to everyone who chimed in. :) [2011/03/31 13:59]  Peewee Musytari: a ban that has already been served? [2011/03/31 14:00]  Wilhiam Hydraconis: seems the same to me in her case , Darrius [2011/03/31 14:00]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): this one went quick, huh?! [2011/03/31 14:00]  Peewee Musytari: you can`t really undo that [2011/03/31 14:00]  Kung Fu Marketer (amanda.linden): and, we're at the end of our time! [2011/03/31 14:00]  Lexie (lexie.linden): It did [2011/03/31 14:00]  Cummere Mayo: shes saying if the ban was issued before the decision to give an amnesty will it be stricken from the record or ... at least credit be given amanda? [2011/03/31 14:00]  Suspiria (suspiria.finucane): I've always understood favorites get special treatment

Yes, Amanda hurries to end the meeting because people are realizing she is playing favorites. How typical. Basically she is singling me out as the only person not getting amnesty because she screwed up, again.

Rod, please put an end to Amanda's favoritism and discrimination.