Some people is a special treatment in the population Its people begin to persecute others This is the case with well Speaking on any of this, you can only think of those who oppose the Afarieito blog I was showing signs that incorporate Human hate Afarieito blog and other "嫌儲" is growing impudent by this It led to the result of performing the rule change by force even where it is not necessary If you think you do not want done without permission if indeed But instead of to declare it to the user The n hump is on the same responsibilities as administrator
I want to reprint ban users sought from Will you never be criticized certainly if you take that kind of form I can be that the user who asked for it responsibility that should take But Is it not a sneaky way?
Before custodian Although we have sloppy indeed, I did not try to escape from the responsibility of their hiding behind But you did so this time I think that it should not be to shield the user if're in position as administrator
Is performed remarks some people such that misunderstanding, "I received the permission of the custodian" What do you think of as an administrator status quo became a result of confusion in the entire bulletin board? If you do not want to reprint the Afarieito blog Yourself is declared, it should be defined as the rules at your own risk. Just cause might stand certainly the form of the user's intention But Is it not a cowardly way to impose only the user responsibility associated with the rule changes?