Can mods bend the rules however they feel?

[17:17]   <HaraTaiki>   Hey guess what
[17:17]   <HaraTaiki>   The site administration has final say over the interpretation of these rules. These rules are subject to change without notice.

Does that mean they can make the rules that are clearly stated mean anything they want? Also, can they change a rule and punish someone for something before the rule change?

Can someone please explain why Parsifal was banned in the first place?

EDIT: Never mind, I know now.

The response has been amazing.

Lord Wilmore      05:51:24 PM     Viewing the topic Super Mario 64.

The answer to your question is 'no'.

HaraTaiki begs to differ.

This is absolutely ridiculous.  I can understand that it's reasonable for the forum to want to prohibit lurking via proxy, but you can't just ban someone for it before it's even made a rule.  As Parsifal himself pointed out on IRC, ironically, the last ban that he received for report abuse was because new rules aren't supposed to be applied retroactively to old posts.

How many times did I say that I wasn't applying that rule retroactively in the end?

Or better yet, do you bother reading stuff other than what appeals to your point of view?

How many times did I say that I wasn't applying that rule retroactively in the end?

Or better yet, do you bother reading stuff other than what appeals to your point of view?

Well then, please enlighten us as to what really happened.

How many times did I say that I wasn't applying that rule retroactively in the end?

Or better yet, do you bother reading stuff other than what appeals to your point of view?

Now I'm confused.  Was this before the ban was shortened?

One thing I am confused about is why you extended the ban and Hara said weren't going to extend it for lurking with a proxy?

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

But wasn't the original ban-before you lengthened it-only for two weeks?  Did you make a mistake?

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

Thank you for the clarification.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

But wasn't the original ban-before you lengthened it-only for two weeks?  Did you make a mistake?

Yes, that was a mistake.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. Now, why can't anyone else be this civil?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 03, 2009, 07:37:16 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

But wasn't the original ban-before you lengthened it-only for two weeks?  Did you make a mistake?

Yes, that was a mistake.

Quote from: Mykael on November 03, 2009, 07:44:13 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. Now, why can't anyone else be this civil?

Just as a car is fueled by gasoline, so are the Internets fueled by lulz and drama. FES is no exception.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 10:24:13 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 03, 2009, 07:37:16 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

But wasn't the original ban-before you lengthened it-only for two weeks?  Did you make a mistake?

Yes, that was a mistake.

Quote from: Mykael on November 03, 2009, 07:44:13 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on November 03, 2009, 07:35:05 PM

It was decided to only punish for the report misuse. Which, being his "second" offense, the ban is double the first offense ban period.

Thank you for the clarification.

You're welcome. Now, why can't anyone else be this civil?

Just as a car is fueled by gasoline, so are the Internets fueled by lulz and drama. FES is no exception.

I will ignore anyone who cannot use logic and reasoning along with proper etiquette as far as a discussion is concerned. Jumping all over someone before even giving them an opportunity to fix an honest mistake is not how you treat someone.

This site is like life, you can do whatever you want, but you have to pay the consequences. The same applies to mods, we can do what we want but if we mess up there will be consequences for us. That is why everyone should use their common sense instead of just following the rules to the bear minimum and expecting it to go well.

Personally, I believe that following the spirit of the law is more important than necessarily following the letter of the law.

Personally, I believe that following the spirit of the law is more important than necessarily following the letter of the law.

I am generally like that with most 1st offenses. Repeated offenses by the same individuals garner no sympathy from me.

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped, but I just thought of another question.  If the initial decision to permaban Parsifal was reached after consulting with the other mods, then why did you suddenly decide to lift it and not punish him retroactively?  I'm not complaining about it or anything, but normally if a mod's decision is suddenly changed, I would assume that either Daniel or a consensus of the other mods pulled rank and overruled him.

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped, but I just thought of another question.  If the initial decision to permaban Parsifal was reached after consulting with the other mods, then why did you suddenly decide to lift it and not punish him retroactively?  I'm not complaining about it or anything, but normally if a mod's decision is suddenly changed, I would assume that either Daniel or a consensus of the other mods pulled rank and overruled him.

It wasn't enacted after consultation. It WAS the consultation. The permaban was removed and reduced after consultation.

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped, but I just thought of another question.  If the initial decision to permaban Parsifal was reached after consulting with the other mods, then why did you suddenly decide to lift it and not punish him retroactively?  I'm not complaining about it or anything, but normally if a mod's decision is suddenly changed, I would assume that either Daniel or a consensus of the other mods pulled rank and overruled him.

Jesus christ you are bitchy.

Why did you ban him? Why did you unban him? I'm pretty sure the mods could ban someone for goatse and you would demand a minute by minute report of how we decided to ban them.