If They Came to Hear Me Beg - First offense = 30 Day+ Ban?

[Micha3l]

Dear Keep Denizens and Moderators,

I came back to my computer after playing some Halo: Reach [and kickin' some ass, too] to the blood-red text of "You have been banished from this room and/or chat". My MSN was flashing. It was there that I was informed of some terrible news:

17:06:51 [Moondog] If anyone has Micha3l's contact information, please tell him that he has been banned from the Keep for 30 days, as he has grossly inappropriate material in his profile (specifically: the tinypic link involving H holding a dick), and it is gratuitous enough that he cannot get off with just a warning. Thank you.

My friend later added: 17:11:33 [Moondog] Edit: More than 30 days. Quite a bit more.

Now, after reading the rules of the Keep listed on the front page of the site, I understand that I was in violation of these terms. However, the page clearly states that a moderator will contact the offender prior to any disciplinary action and ask that the image violation be removed from the profile. This was not done, and I was banned with no contact from a moderator whatsoever. Considering that this was my first offense, I believe that Moondog's perception of my "gratuitous" infraction of the rules is a little over zealous.

As a courtesy, I went back to edit my profile and remove the questionable material, and found that it had been edited to show that my name was "BANNED MCBANNERTON" and my description set to "banned individual".

Now, for the actual content of the violation. It was a sepia picture edit of H holding a penis. It was not hardcore pornography. It was not gore, scat, or any manner of internet shocker media. You see worse on Discovery Channel. It was not done maliciously, but in good-natured humour and was received with much laughter. Had I been asked to remove the content, I would have gladly done so. H herself made no move to ask me to remove it, despite being shown the image on multiple occasions. [I have her on Skype so she has easy access to me].

Let's review:

First offense.
No warning before ban.
No requests to remove the image.
Very tame material.
Willingness to cooperate and remove picture, had I been asked.

Given the evidence presented, I think a punishment of this magnitude is more than a little severe, and I should like to talk with a moderator or two, and ask that it be reconsidered.


Sincerely yours,

Micha3l

[Darling]

2. Profiles may not knowingly contain links to pornography or otherwise sexually explicit materials.

Profile pictures CANNOT show bared crotches or genitalia for males or females, and it cannot show female nipples. Such pictures, or profile text, depicting such a scene will be considered Advertising for Cybersex and is extremely frowned upon. An Admin or Moderator will request the picture or profile to be edited, or possibly removed, dependent upon content. If the User refuses, the Administration (Admin and Mods alike) will /kick or /ban dependent upon repeated offenses/level of transgression.

___

Furries and other anime sex slaves have scandalous photos, and I've witnessed Moondog "stepping in" to go into their profiles and remove the pictures, whilst also putting in a little snarky tidbit (as if the snary tidbit is necessary). Those people have never been banned, though.

Michael had a tinypic link, and gets banned without warning? Yeah, no.

[Mikail]

Hi!

This wasn't your first offense; I banned you for thirty days about a month and a half prior for posting hardcore rule 34. You evaded about three times or so that night (at first under such creative and imaginative names as M1chael), and I meant to make the ban permanent for that, but I forgot to actually change the date in the modpanel. Cue you showing back up a week or so (?) ago, and I tell the rest of the mod staff that I forgot to make it permanent but to give you the benefit of the doubt since I was the one that screwed up, not you. This happened, and I said 'oh, well, whoops, my bad guys.'

In short, he did the banning but only because he got there first, and the duration was my decision as you being back was due to my error. This is at the very least going to be 30, if not longer. There'll be a staff discussion on this, of course, but to say this is Shane's doing (or to say that you have a clean record) is inaccurate; flame me instead.

[Mikail]

edit: Nov 19th, so longer than a month and a half, apologies for the inaccuracy.

[Micha3l]

Ah yeah, Rule 34. I remember that one. You are correct, this was my second offense.

Still, no Moderator asked me to remove the content, which meant that there was a violation of the rules on both parts, unless the Moderators are above the rules that they enforce, which would be rather disturbing in my opinion [and in the opinions of others, I'm sure].

Also, considering the content involved, a ban of this magnitude is hardly appropriate.

[Mikail]

I believe that this is using the letter of the rule against the spirit of the rule. If someone has a picture that is questionably inappropriate with possibly nipples visible under fabric or something, then by all means I'll talk to a user or, if they're not online I'll remove/comment it out and leave a note in their profile (the snarky message trend mentioned is probably also my fault), but as you're interpreting this, you'd like me to politely ask someone with a goatse/tubgirl/whatevershocksiteispopularnowadays picture to remove it, which is not how I have operated, nor how I plan to operate. As someone on the panel that helped rewrite the rules as they are (which included many non-staffers, and actually happened before I was staff), I can very honestly state that the wording was an oversight over what I and what I believe others meant. This will be addressed and fixed, but I don't consider this a defense. This is how inappropriate images of blatant sexual nature have always been handled under this document, it's public knowledge that things are typically handled this way, and you had direct personal experience from your first ban (which didn't have this type of thread, either).

Furthermore, it's not only a second offense, and ban evasion unto itself is far more serious than just posting loldicks; it's because of that compounded with this that I made my decision the way that I did.

[Mikail]

If anything else arises, I'll be glad to address it, but I don't believe I have anything further to add at this time.

[Micha3l]

You're comparing tubgirl and other internet shocker images to a photoshooped picture of a dick pasted into someone's profile picture. As I said before, this is hardly serious, especially given the intent regarding the image, and also the general reaction it received [I.E. LAWL HILARIOUS].

I wasn't expecting someone to politely ask me to remove the image, I was expecting the rules set forth by the staff to follow their own guidelines. A simple "that link is against the rules, remove it or we'll ban you" would have sufficed.

Is it too much to ask that if I am to be held accountable for my actions under the subject of the rules, those rules should also be followed when being enforced? I should think not.

[H]

I did not look at the image, nor did I know it was posted in your profile. You're also blocked on Skype. Sooooo. Whatever!

[Micha3l]

See? Not even H cares.

[H]

No, I care. But your comment made it seem like I had seen the picture and hadn't said anything about it or was bothered by it. I didn't click the link because I figured it would be, in some way, offensive. And I don't need that shit. Annnnd I was right. So in the future, try not being such an asshat to everyone. 

[Micha3l]

You didn't look at it = you didn't care. Your words and actions are saying two radically different things.

[H]

No, it means I didn't want to look.

[Micha3l]

You can say that all you like, but either way you seem apathetic about the matter.

[Xachariah]

I dunno. I wouldn't look at a picture somebody photoshopped of me holding a dick, but I'd care. I just probably wouldn't talk to the person doing it. Ever. Because seriously, man, that's just not something you do.

Also, your defense, after Mikail points out where your letter-of-the-law approach fails, appears to consist of "Other people thought it was hilarious and she doesn't appear to care!" Not exactly grounds for building a defense. Other than that, man, if I ban-evaded three times in one night after being banned for posting Rule 34, I'd act like a fuckin' angel if the ban didn't get permanentized. Like, seriously. I'd even say gosh and darn. Not photoshop dicks into people's hands.

[Inquisitor]

2 cases of posting pornography + Multiple cases of ban evasion = non-permanent ban

[Xachariah]

Yeah, by that math, you ought to feel like you dodged a bullet the first time. I have to admit that I hope you don't dodge this one, as you've already had an undeserved second chance.

[Micha3l]

pornography
 — n
1.    writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement


If you think that shooping a dick into someone's hand is pornographic, you should check out National Geographic and really get your rocks off.

Did I say that I didn't deserve to be banned before? Of course not. But claiming that I'm using the "letter-of-the-law" argument is simple reductio ad absurdum. Like I've already stated, I didn't post any hardcore "pornographic" material, nor did I post anything freakishly obscene regarding bodily fluids and/or other substances. It is a dick shooped into someone's hand. The whole matter is being blown out of proportion, and with that in mind, following the actual rules by giving me the opportunity to take it down is the correct thing to do, rather than go wild with a banhammer.

[Silent.Kamikaze]

If this clown gets a month for doing that.. Its fucked. Theres no way insulting a mod and 'ban evasion' should earn the same punishment as pornographic content especially when its involving another user who clearly wasnt okay with it.

[Micha3l]

Aren't you that Petra person that no one likes?

[Bekz]

pornography
 — n
1.    writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement


If you think that shooping a dick into someone's hand is pornographic, you should check out National Geographic and really get your rocks off.

Did I say that I didn't deserve to be banned before? Of course not. But claiming that I'm using the "letter-of-the-law" argument is simple reductio ad absurdum. Like I've already stated, I didn't post any hardcore "pornographic" material, nor did I post anything freakishly obscene regarding bodily fluids and/or other substances. It is a dick shooped into someone's hand. The whole matter is being blown out of proportion, and with that in mind, following the actual rules by giving me the opportunity to take it down is the correct thing to do, rather than go wild with a banhammer.

True. Even if he was a past offender, I still think it would have been a courtesy to ask first, instead of immediately going for a ban.

If this clown gets a month for doing that.. Its fucked. Theres no way insulting a mod and 'ban evasion' should earn the same punishment as pornographic content especially when its involving another user who clearly wasnt okay with it.

Dude. Get over the ban thing. This is so not about you.

[Moondog]

Didn't you also spend a day or two going around to different rooms with your photoshop and going 'dude check this out! I don't want to get banned for it so I'll just whisper it to you?"

Yes you did. I was there. I saw.

So, clearly you already know what you were doing was wrong and would get you banned. Yet you somehow figured it would be ok to put in your profile. . .

[Kai_Doll]

Uh, Micha3l.

You did whisper that image to everyone so you blatantly knew it wasn't suitable nor appropraite to have in your profile.

That, at least to me, automatically voids the need to tell you THAT ISN'T ALLOWED.

You're just playing dumb, dear. Logic tells me that if you really didn't know that it wasn't allowed, you would have dropped it right there and then into the chat.

You know what you did wrong.

Oh look, Moondog posted. Clearly somebody agrees with my sentiment.

[Frown-chan]

Eh... I have to say, I don't think a month and a half-long ban is warranted for something like this. It's really not that serious, as we've clearly all seen porn before.

At the same time, it was stupid of you to put something like that in your profile, and even dumber not to talk to H about it first.

A week ban seems about appropriate, but... Whatever, I'm not a mod. Just my two cents.

[Kai_Doll]

... Are you being completely fucking serious?

If you've seen it all before, I'd like to know where and when.