Page 1 of 2
Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:47 am
by geisha
on the reasons for Shaitan's permaban? The mod or admin who banned him must have forgotten to notify him about the reasons and also missed to post in the forum thread of shame. I am convinced this is only a little mistake because the moderators are so busy modding these boards.
Anyway, a statement would be nice.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:51 am
by Rienna
hmm.... according to the mod logs:
Agapooka (IP Address Removed) Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:19 pm Banned user for reason “”
» Shaitan
I assume it's for bypassing the ban on the ETL account.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:54 am
by geisha
Oh, I have to add something here. As I was just informed, it was Agapooka himself who banned Shaitan WITHOUT naming any reasons.
Nice methods our head admin has there... First he removes mods and admins for silly reasons and then he bans them without reasons. Impressive.
I think it is time for him to resign? Or get removed? The behavior of the moderator team doesn't surprise me at all if this is how their leader acts.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:54 am
by RepliJake
Rienna wrote:hmm.... according to the mod logs:
Agapooka (IP Address Removed) Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:19 pm Banned user for reason “”
» Shaitan
I assume it's for bypassing the ban on the ETL account.
And I would like some direction to that rule please.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:01 am
by Rienna
well... I think that's more an unwritten rule... it's like... in courtrooms they use previous cases for a judge to base their decisions on... so if you look at how Tok'ra was banned for the same thing, and other spammers like hidden who used multi accounts to post while banned.... though, if you want to use specific forum rules....
*If* I had been the moderator/admin responsible for making the banning I *personally* would have used the justification that with rule 21 stating:
21. You may not post on the part of a banned forum user or help a banned forum user to access the forum through any other means, including allowing the banned member access to your account.
That by posting through the Shaitan account Rhett was breaking rule 23. As by posting through his known multi account he was testing rule 21, he was posting on behalf of himself, a banned forum user.
Though. That's alot of reaching... I think the problem here is that it was an "unwritten rule" and now you guys are looking at the rules and asking where it was. Everyone on the forums knows that creating a multi and posting while banned is a no-no, so it was never officially stated.
Though, that's just the way I personally would have done it with the way the rules are set up, and by no way is me saying that's the way Pookie figured it in his mind.
~Rienna~
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:09 am
by geisha
Regardless what fictional rule this ban was based on, shouldn't a banned user get informed about the reason for his ban?
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:11 am
by RepliJake
But there are "written" rules on why people get banned, aren't there?
And by those rules, the ban is a joke.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:12 am
by Rienna
Yes. I'd like to hope that Pookie just got busy and forgot. He may have thought that Shaitan should be expecting this, I do not know. I know I've forgotten to send messages sometimes when doing moderating, it can be frustrating for those who are not informed, but the mods and admins are just humans who make mistakes.
He probably forgot. I'll send him a pm and remind him
~Rie
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:17 am
by Rienna
RepliJake wrote:But there are "written" rules on why people get banned, aren't there?
And by those rules, the ban is a joke.
On this I *may* be wrong, and I ask any passing through mod to correct me on this one if they can, but from what I remember for what was discussed.... the actually banning, there is no rules on. just a general "it's better if you wait for an admin, but if there is no admin around and a user is being a handful, after 3 warnings ban them".
We had a discussion about this when the new forums were released and we found out that supermods could ban users.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:20 am
by RepliJake
Rienna wrote:RepliJake wrote:But there are "written" rules on why people get banned, aren't there?
And by those rules, the ban is a joke.
On this I *may* be wrong, and I ask any passing through mod to correct me on this one if they can, but from what I remember for what was discussed.... the actually banning, there is no rules on. just a general "it's better if you wait for an admin, but if there is no admin around and a user is being a handful, after 3 warnings ban them".
We had a discussion about this when the new forums were released and we found out that supermods could ban users.
But even that little bit, (after 3 warning)
EtL posted, the FS made a post listing some rules that were supposedly broken, several referring to exactly the same thing, then banned, all in one go.
That is not AFTER 3 warnings.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:25 am
by Rienna
there were three warnings issued.
and I'm probably gonna get flammed for showing this, but here it is anyways:
Report by User IP Time Action
FreeSpirit (IP Removed) Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:45 am The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you:
viewtopic.php?f=101&p=1034919.
Break of rule 18
FreeSpirit (IP Removed) Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:44 am The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you:
viewtopic.php?f=101&p=1034912.
Also breaking rule: 6
FreeSpirit (IP Removed) Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:43 am The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you:
viewtopic.php?f=101&p=1034897.
Youare in violation of rule 3
By posting the warn log, I am in NO WAY saying I agree with the warnings, or what they were given for, or how they were given. That is my own personal opinion that I do not wish to discuss, I am merely posting the warn logs for the entire community to see, that there were in fact 3 warnings.
~Rie.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:27 am
by RepliJake
and check out the time stamps
Also one of them says no reason, just for a post, which as far as I can tell has nothing wrong in it, and one says for a breach of rule 18, which is completely untrue, he misinformed nobody.
As for the breach of rule 6, conveniently this was in referrence to Teal'auc disrespecting a forum user and another mod saying it was ok.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:30 am
by Rienna
Rienna wrote:By posting the warn log, I am in NO WAY saying I agree with the warnings, or what they were given for, or how they were given. That is my own personal opinion that I do not wish to discuss, I am merely posting the warn logs for the entire community to see, that there were in fact 3 warnings.
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:32 am
by RepliJake
Rienna wrote:Rienna wrote:By posting the warn log, I am in NO WAY saying I agree with the warnings, or what they were given for, or how they were given. That is my own personal opinion that I do not wish to discuss, I am merely posting the warn logs for the entire community to see, that there were in fact 3 warnings.
I know, and edited my post
Re: Could we get an explanation
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:36 am
by Rienna
ahhh, it's not up to me to say if Free was right or wrong. I know how I feel and what I believe, but it'll take Free or a forum admin to declare it. I'm just a section mod trying to answer some questions.