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.
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?
@Saddam - Hey sorry to hear about the bann thing.
@mods - but Saddam made some important points.
I agree on several issues ...1) re-quoting someone probably should not have gotten one banned - of course I did not know in what context - like if you were agreeing with them (the quote) and adding fuel to the fire by whooping it up OR not. But normally I would say no bann. Why was it not caught when it was originally posted?
2) re-quoting others would make sure that many (about 90%) were banned - also agreed.
3) We should not have to agree with mods in order to NOT fear them. - Agreed
4) Also agree it took the mod team WAY too long to ban Hara.
5) Agreed IRC is no help - except one person helped either Blanko or Beardo.
Usually though I think mod Roundy is fair and James too, and no problems with Wilmore either, but the alt thing - - well that really was a no-no. But all in all Saddam handled it well later by saying it set a precedent. He's still a cool guy.