[flatearther43.2]

Because right now the rules say basically do whatever the fuck you want. I did. Then was banned. Sounds like flat earth logic to me!!!!

Mods agree I broke no rules and yet was banned anyway. No warnings, not shit. Fuck the mods and their fucked up, non existent standards.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[flatearther43.2]

Please tell me how the current dogshit posted in CN maximizes enjoyment. I would argue that the shit spam I was posting was more entertaining than whatever the fuck was there before... Counting threads, threads posting 'e' 45,000 times, etc...

I was banned because a minority of members became butthurt. Enjoyment is fucking subjective.

[Pete Svarrior]

As I said, I'm not convinced that you should have been banned. I just wanted to point out that, strictly speaking, mods don't need a rule to ban you.

[flatearther43.2]

Please understand, I am not lashing out against you, SexWarrior. You remain ever logical despite the fucked up rules of the mods.

May the gods continually bless you.

[flatearther43.2]

So to the rest of you mods I ask: How much spam is too much? What am I permitted to say and not say in CN? Why was I not given a warning? Why the fuck are there no official rules posted in CN like every other sub?

[juner]

It was a short ban on posting only; get over it. As far as how much shitposting should be allowed, try and use your judgment, it will be fine.

[flatearther43.2]

i did use my judgement and got banned so obviously your fucked up moderation team needs more clearly defined rules

[juner]

i did use my judgement and got banned so obviously your fucked up moderation team needs more clearly defined rules

Yes, there should be absolute, objective rules for all situations. We will attend to that post-haste to satisfy a deleted account.

[Blanko]

Why was this thread moved?

[juner]

Because it was an angry rant.

[Blanko]

It may have been riddled with profanity, but it was a legitimate concern. I would like to know as well why he was not warned before getting banned, or where you think the line for bannable spamming in CN is. For the record, I don't approve of the ban either.

[juner]

There is no objective line for me, just as there is no objective rule for the behavior. If it was a legitimate concern, then he could've presented a better case without raging so hard. I made a choice since there was no other moderation happening. If you have some insight to add, please do.

[Blanko]

I made a choice since there was no other moderation happening.

No, you made a choice because you felt your judgment supersedes the rules. No moderation was necessary because no rules were being broken. That still doesn't explain why you didn't hand out a warning before banning him.

[juner]

I made a choice since there was no other moderation happening.

No, you made a choice because you felt your judgment supersedes the rules. No moderation was necessary because no rules were being broken. That still doesn't explain why you didn't hand out a warning before banning him.

What rules were superseded? There literally isn't a rule. Given that it isn't possible for a rule to be created for every scenario, judgment was used to stop someone in the middle of spamming threads to a degree that any rational person would consider excessive. You disagree, and that's fine. You could've certainly mentioned something earlier, prior to the rage quit . He was previously warned for taking his behavior outside the lower fora; the same spam garbage posted everywhere else.

[Blanko]

[...]that any rational person would consider excessive.

So I'm irrational now. Cool.

You could've certainly mentioned something earlier, prior to the rage quit .

And what would have that done? He was already banned at that time. I would've mentioned something prior to him getting banned, but I'm not a psychic.

He was previously warned for taking his behavior outside the lower fora; the same spam garbage posted everywhere else.

Right, he was warned to keep his spam in the lower fora, and then was subsequently banned for doing just that. How does that not strike to you as inconsistent? Furthermore, given that the warning for a separate offense was actually effective, why did you not apply the same treatment for CN spam if you felt it was excessive?

[juner]

Clearly your mind is made up, so there isn't much need to restate the same things over and over again. The concern about what was happening was brought up before, which no opinions were offered on what to do about it. I made a decision to stop the forum from being abused by someone posting browser-crashing junk. I was going to warn additionally to stop in CN, but it was in the middle of a spam fest, and the quickest way to stop it was just that. I really am glad you're so passionate about this one-off instance. Once you put forth an opinion on how it should be handled, I'll be happy to agree with you.

[Blanko]

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.

[juner]

Sounds good

[Thork]

There wasn't one single other person that engaged and enjoyed seeing those posts in CN. It was just one individual using the forum in an anti-social way. The purpose of the rules is to provide protection to the enjoyment of all, from those who abuse the forum. Doesn't really matter if it is in CN. That is just exploiting the relaxed nature of that particular section.

We have a 'don't be a dick' rule ... persistent spamming of a popular part of it is being a dick.