I am back. Look, the thing about the alt was that I assumed that the ban was some kind of a fluke from an overzealous mod. I thought that when I explained the situation (again, no one was of any help on IRC) the ban would be seen as unjustified and lifted. Of course, I had no idea that the mods would be so firmly devoted to their policies of "Never speak ill of a fellow mod; always claim that every mod decision is fully supported" that they would defend such a stupid ban. Then again, considering how long it took them to agree that Hara was a terrible mod and needed to be removed, maybe I should have foreseen that. Anyway, I appreciate not getting banned for that.
That's right, I am an overzealous mod, drunk with power. Isn't that obvious? My banhammer knows no mercy, no bounds, no logic or reason. I'm sure you can find dozens of examples where I've abused my power, right?
Or... maybe you just broke the rules. You quoted a post from 2009 in a long-dead thread that contained forbidden language. You did it for no other reason than to attempt to break the rules without (according to your weird logic) actually breaking the rules. Or... maybe you were just testing the rules? If so, well done. Now everybody knows what will happen in the future if they take your lead.
So, apparently this ban is telling me that anyone who quotes a post is instantly liable for anything said in that post. Does that really sound like anything other than a crock of shit to you?
Not at all. As I see it, you put a new post on the forums containing that language, again, from a post that's nearly a year old and existed when the rules were much more lax. Take a look at the rules again. It strictly forbids using such language on the forums. By quoting that post, you used that language on the forums. I don't believe for a second that you're not grasping this.
For explicit pictures, maybe, but a post of solely text, in the same thread?
Why exactly do you think there should be a distinction there?
Anyway, what I don't understand about this ban is that IT WAS A QUOTE. Is this really the new policy? Quoting someone makes you fully responsible and liable for whatever is in the quote? If that's the case, then 90% of this forum should be banned, along with virtually every single mod. How many times have the mods quoted someone to give them a warning, or announce that they were getting banned?
Are you really trying to argue this?
Really? I know you see the difference between quoting a nearly year-old post purely for the sake of mischief and quoting a post that's maybe a couple hours old purely for the sake of warning against posting in that manner in the future.
I really hope you can get over this with me, because I didn't enjoy banning you. I felt it was the appropriate action. I'll allow for the possibility that it was a rash action in which you momentarily misinterpreted the rules, but I find it hard to believe that you can't see the reasoning behind it.
For Christ's sake, it was a
minimum ban.