JarredInator wrote:
Some people in this thread are failing to place their constructive criticism in an understandable manner for me. So here is some text.
To begin with @Holly Banker. You said you were showing proof of my recent warns, but as you and me both know there is absolutely no need to do so as the staff team looks into your recent warns if your application is being reviewed. So they will get to know my recent warnings no matter what. So like I said there is clearly no point in placing a picture of my recent warnings here because it seems like you're trying to make me look bad in-front of the public which is not appreciated.
@Dallas$ There is nothing wrong with me asking him on why he is placing unnecessary things and making the thread look like a minge fest. Besides, Para said my behavior was very rude. Very rude ≠ Argumentative
@Aidan|DaleAGaming You cannot possibly compare 2 people in such topic. There are simply too much factors to look at.
@I am the Walrus What do you mean by "It doesn't"? Do you mean that I'm not different? If so I'm a 'he' and not an 'it'. Or do you mean something else? Because I seriously can't tell what you mean by this.
So you want to be referred to as "it"? k makes sense.
Gems wrote:
Why are you guys looking for reasons to deny a perfectly suited candidate, is it a personal grudge or are you running out of work to do?
+S
Some of Jarreds main qualities:
Active
Mature
Experienced
Harsh - which is a lacking quality in the current staff team.
For what reason are you bringing up his warning, are you actually questioning if he knows the rules?
Accidents happen all the time and that's what warnings are for, but this kind of attitude is what makes players believe that a warning is a punishment.
Also, could i have an example of him being rude in a nonconstructive way?
Can he not? Maybe he doesn't? Maybe it wasn't that big of an accident? maybe it was easily avoidable? maybe not?
Lets give the guy a medal for being nice and active, but rather then having a warning turn into a shit talk on an application, he could've explained it and cleared things up without any other useless comment.
SuperSaiyanOnAcid wrote:
it was crossfire his warning was wrong bill didnt listen to his side of the story he just straight up warned him
You shouldn't be the one telling us this(thanks anyway) and Jarred could've also contacted a higher ranked staff member to clear some things up.