[lolwut?]

Finally received a warning for all my shit spamming.  Jesus fucking christ, was that so fucking hard to do in the first place? Holy fuck.

[lolwut?]

Also, I had been spamming a bit before the huge images with no ban resulting.  So tell me again... what is acceptable spam and what is not?  5 god damn pages of discussion and still no results.

[juner]

Why were you warned for something that isn't against the rules?

When I initially post-banned you, it was going to be for a short bit to catch up on cleaning up the mess, then I was going to remove it. Got busy and forgot to remove, and didn't really care all that much since no one was missing out on anything important.

[Blanko]

w0w turns out you don't have to ban him to get him to stop spamming

[juner]

w0w turns out you don't have to ban him to get him to stop spamming

But it isn't against the rules, so why the warning? I do appreciate you acting like this is the exact same scenario with the exact same set of circumstances, though.

[Blanko]

w0w turns out you don't have to ban him to get him to stop spamming

But it isn't against the rules, so why the warning? I do appreciate you acting like this is the exact same scenario with the exact same set of circumstances, though.

Why not? I told him what behaviour is expected from him in order to not get banned. This way he won't get punished for false expectations, as if it were a rule.

[juner]

What behavior would that be?

[Blanko]

Not spamming huge pictures that make people's browsers crash.

[juner]

But it isn't against the rules, at least in CN/AR, correct?

[Blanko]

No, but w0w literally the first reply of this thread:

While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:

6. Moderator discretion

There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.

In any case, my point has never been that you can't step outside the rules, so I hope this isn't just a petty attempt at catching me committing to a double standard.

[juner]

No, but w0w literally the first reply of this thread:

While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:

6. Moderator discretion

There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.

In any case, my point has never been that you can't step outside the rules, so I hope this isn't just a petty attempt at catching me committing to a double standard.

I am not trying to catch you committing to anything. It just seems contradictory, that is all. A warning for something that isn't against the rules can lead to a ban for something that isn't against the rules. It takes a few steps to get there, but it isn't all that much different. I am legitimately trying to determine why your discretion would lead you to an action against your personal opinion about what CN is for, especially something that doesn't violate a rule.

[Blanko]

No, but w0w literally the first reply of this thread:

While I'm not convinced that you should have been banned for shitposting in CN, I feel it's worth pointing out that the manifesto already has a clause allowing mods to refer to their common sense in situations that weren't accounted for by the rules:

6. Moderator discretion

There will inevitably be situations which the rules have not accounted
for. In such circumstances, you may use your own discretion, but you
should consider that the ultimate objective is to maximise the enjoyment
of the forum for all its members.

In any case, my point has never been that you can't step outside the rules, so I hope this isn't just a petty attempt at catching me committing to a double standard.

I am not trying to catch you committing to anything. It just seems contradictory, that is all. A warning for something that isn't against the rules can lead to a ban for something that isn't against the rules. It takes a few steps to get there, but it isn't all that much different. I am legitimately trying to determine why your discretion would lead you to an action against your personal opinion about what CN is for, especially something that doesn't violate a rule.

Nothing contradictory about it. I had an issue with banning fe43 for something he couldn't have known was wrong. What I've done by warning him is letting him know what actions can lead to him getting banned, so he can stop doing said actions. As of right now he has, so I don't see how your claim that "it takes a few steps to get there" is correct in the slightest. I've stopped the "process" at step one without resorting to unfair punishments at all. See how easy that was?

I also have not voiced my opinions on what "CN is for" and it's not relevant in this case at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.

[juner]

Nothing contradictory about it. I had an issue with banning fe43 for something he couldn't have known was wrong. What I've done by warning him is letting him know what actions can lead to him getting banned, so he can stop doing said actions. As of right now he has, so I don't see how your claim that "it takes a few steps to get there" is correct in the slightest. I've stopped the "process" at step one without resorting to unfair punishments at all. See how easy that was?

I also have not voiced my opinions on what "CN is for" and it's not relevant in this case at all, so I don't know why you brought that up.

Yes, he couldn't have possibly known it was wrong, gotcha. You let him know that actions that aren't against the rules can lead to a banning. You have "stopped" the process, yes, at least for now. The temporary ban he already received for for the exact same thing isn't encompassing of a warning to cease a behavior, only a warning achieves that. The claim of "a few steps" refers to a second warning, then a ban (per the rules) for a behavior that is not against the rules (in this case), if the behavior continues.

Yes, you have not explicitly stated your opinion on what CN is for. It was an inference made on your posts in this thread saying that:

I don't think it needed to be handled at all. We don't moderate any other spam in CN, despite it being full of it.

and

So his posts are like everything else in CN. w0w better ban everyone who posts there then

Sorry if that was a stretch. Maybe you should offer your actual opinion then. Especially in a thread that is discussing exactly what should be done based on the pages of conversation that have taken place.

[lolwut?]

So to be clear:  can I spam the fuck out of it again for a second warning?  Or would I be banned?  Furthermore, would the god damn motherfucking ban be temp or perma?  FUCK!

[juner]

So to be clear:  can I spam the fuck out of it again for a second warning?  Or would I be banned?  Furthermore, would the god damn motherfucking ban be temp or perma?  FUCK!

I don't know. Based on what has happened thus far, I would say you should be banned. I am of the opinion that the first ban (whether right or wrong) served as a warning as well. If Blanko issued another warning, that should be a second. Another repeat of the same thing should follow with a ban then, although nothing so far has technically been against the rules. Unless we are getting into the nuances of the behavior of occurring under separate accounts, and whether that matters or not, as we have had instances of users creating alts to circumvent bans.

[Blanko]

Yes, he couldn't have possibly known it was wrong, gotcha. You let him know that actions that aren't against the rules can lead to a banning. You have "stopped" the process, yes, at least for now. The temporary ban he already received for for the exact same thing isn't encompassing of a warning to cease a behavior, only a warning achieves that. The claim of "a few steps" refers to a second warning, then a ban (per the rules) for a behavior that is not against the rules (in this case), if the behavior continues.

If he does continue his behaviour, it would be with him knowing that said behaviour is banworthy, which wasn't the case with your ban. That's the difference and that's what matters.

So to be clear:  can I spam the fuck out of it again for a second warning?  Or would I be banned?  Furthermore, would the god damn motherfucking ban be temp or perma?  FUCK!

I told you that future infractions would result in a temporary ban. That means no further warnings. I'm counting the previous temporary ban as your first warning.

[lolwut?]

Infractions on what?  It's already been stated that I've violated no rules.  Lol, flat earth logic.

[Blanko]

Have you tried reading the warning I gave you?

[lolwut?]

Oh, ok great.  So I can continue to spam the fuck out of CN so long as they aren't massive huge images which crash the browser.  Noted!

[juner]

If he does continue his behaviour, it would be with him knowing that said behaviour is banworthy, which wasn't the case with your ban. That's the difference and that's what matters.

It is still warnings and bans for something that is not against the rules as of right now. I believe discretion should be used, as is stated in the manifesto (and I fully admit that the first banning was too quick, but it is done and over with). The definition of discretion in how we are discussing it is "the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation." This seems counter to your claim:

Moderating based on personal value judgments is literally the worst idea ever.

Because that sounds a lot like discretion to me. I am also of the opinion if we don't want to add another rule, then allow the moderation team to use their discretion, or establish a process for making a decision on something that falls outside of explicit rules.