Some More Clarifications

I had hoped my last blog was to be the last, but...

What's Really the Issue?

Before I can submit to Darat reasons to rescind my ban, I must first understand why I was banned in the first place. Whether anyone realizes this or not, nobody on the mod team has told me why. Yes, I've received some infractions, but those get handed out virtually every day. Typically suspensions are escalating in duration (one day, three days, one week, two weeks, one month and possibly probation after that). My longest forum-wide suspension was for three days, and I apologized via PM for an honest mistake. That was in November. Nobody informed me via PM or any other mechanism that I was anywhere near being banned. Personally, I think in the interests of fairness this is sufficient reason to rescind my ban.

Based on what I've been told, Tricky says that I had "numerous infractions, suspensions and actioned reports." By my count I've had about a dozen infractions in 7,000+ posts. By contrast VisionFromFeeling had five infractions in a two day period just two weeks after completing her second suspension in a month. She was not even suspended. I point this out because it indicates that I had no reason to consider that banning was on the table.

I think the heart of the matter is Tricky saying, "he seemed to be interested only in arguing about rather than altering his behavior." What does it matter if I argue about it? The implication here is that had I not availed myself of the appeals process and Feedback/Complaints forums in Forum Management, I might still be there. After all, Plumjam says he has about 50 infractions. He also says that he gave up on making appeals, and last year after the switch to the new format in Forum Management, he stopped participating there and essentially flew under the radar.

As I outlined in my last blog, I most certainly have altered all of my behaviors except one: contesting mod actions. Not only do I contest what I consider inappropriate/inconsistent actions taken against me, I contest those taken against others, even people I personally cannot stand. Is this the behavior that I'm supposed to change? I could explain why I do it, but I don't think my reasons are relevant. The point is that not only is it not against the rules, the system is designed to allow people an avenue for dispute.

The only question should be whether I continue to repeat behavior that the mods have made clear is inappropriate regardless of whether I argue about it or disagree with their rulings. Last year I had some repeated issues with discussing closed threads, but I haven't done that since. The only other "repeated" issue I've had is with Rule 12, which comprises a total of four Rule 12 infractions in a year, the third one coming six months ago, and the last one being disputed by other members as well as myself. That's not an unusual number by any stretch of the imagination and certainly not a pattern of behavior that warrants a ban. Browse through Abandon All Hope and see how many personal attacks receive infractions and how many more receive no action except being tossed to AAH. You'll see a lot of the same names popping up there.

All of this talk about me being such a bad person is irrelevant. While I have clearly refuted the notion that I have an issue with women, it doesn't matter anyway. It's not against the rules, is it? Whether I am liked or disliked is irrelevant, and it's a shame that so many people are basing their opinions on that. Where are the cries of "the mods only enforce the membership agreement" when discussing my ban?

I just want to be treated like other members. Why didn't I receive escalating suspensions like other members? Why wasn't I told I was on the cusp of being banned like those who get put on probation? What is this specific pattern of behavior that warrants my removal, and where's the evidence that I continued to exhibit behaviors I was specifically told were inappropriate?

All I can do right now is point out that I modified my behavior in response to both moderator actions and member feedback in a good faith effort to be a welcome member while at the same time serving as a watchdog when it comes to moderation. I freely admitted that there were times where I intentionally violated the rules (trying to get around thread closures in Forum Management) and other times where I deliberately got close to the line. I also pointed out that there were times where I didn't think I was violating the rules, but even though I disputed the ruling, I didn't repeat the behavior.

The rules are subjective. Everybody knows that. Mods themselves often disagree on whether something was a violation or not. It's not like I violated clear cut rules like hot-linking, posting copyrighted material, swearing or linking to porn sites. None of my Rule 12 violations were egregious posts where I called somebody names and clearly got personal. They fell in the gray area. Sure, I could have avoided the gray area, but people are in the gray area every day, and they shouldn't be banned for getting nicked now and again. It's the cost of encouraging lively debate.

I enjoy the level of debate on the forums. I don't like all the emotional responses, but there are plenty of intelligent people who can get past that and offer challenging arguments. I'd prefer to stay on the forums. If it means staying out of Forum Management, so be it. If it means sucking it up and not disputing an infraction I think is wrong, then so be it. That's a trade I'm willing to make, but it saddens me to do so.