Banning for reasons unknown

basilmarket.com forums : Site talk | 15 posts archived

thread starter Crusadedd Jul 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

I just finished my recent ban. Again. I was banned twice in a row. Let me list the reasons I was banned. 1: Rule #2: Read the rule here Ends: Jul 16 2009, 10:45pm BT Warning: if you attempt to bypass this suspension in any way ALL of your accounts will be permanently erased. Your original post: Lmao at first poster! I was banned because I quoted the first commenter, and notified him I thought his post was funny. 2: Rule #2: Read the rule here Ends: Jul 17 2009, 10:45pm BT Warning: if you attempt to bypass this suspension in any way ALL of your accounts will be permanently erased. Your original post: Trolls. Lots and lots of trolls. After scouring Basil for the new HeroTex hacking situation, I came across a thread asking how this all came to be. As 75% of basil believed, I told him it was trolling. Now I can understand an error on the first ban, where as we are not allowed to do the "first post" type of thing on basil, but what about the second one... IMO it's a bunch of bullcrap. Let's look at "Rule #2" shall we. Rule #2 - Spamming Do not spam. This includes but is not limited to: � Making irrelevant, off topic posts or links � Bumping (posting just to keep thread alive) / necroposting (posting in a really old thread just to revive it) � Posting or PMing memes (rickroll, screamers!), chain letters, ASCII art � Posting the same thing in multiple topics � Making parody threads � Intentionally posting false/misleading information The only thing I can find here that would be somewhat close to a good reason why I was banned the second time is "Making irrelevant, off topic posts or links". Or maybe "Intentionally posting false/misleading information". IMO it was neither. It was not only on topic, but the fact was based on many threads over Basil. Side Note: As I tried to post this, it didn't let me post for a word in their own rules. Hint: Over 8999

tokyoaok 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

quoting inappropriate posts is suspendable too

Crusadedd 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

But the post I quoted wasn't inappropriate, and if it was I would not be banned for Rule #2, as it is not mentioned in there.

tokyoaok 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

well then QQ more

stefan812 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Seems as if a mod were trying to reach quota but since I believe there's no quota on basilmarket there seems to be an abuse of power.

Kevvl Jul 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Calling another user a troll, even if they are a troll, is considered an attack as well as spam. Next time just report it.

cantuciwin 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

stefan812 said: "Seems as if a mod were trying to reach quota but since I believe there's no quota on basilmarket there seems to be an abuse of power." That's what they want you to believe.

Crusadedd 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

And I believe I'm not the only one either. Either someone is abusing too much power, or their auto ban system fails hard.

PhillyFresh 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Kevvl said: "Calling another user a troll, even if they are a troll, is considered an attack as well as spam. Next time just report it." It doesn't look like he attacked a user.

Playstation 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Kevvl said: "Calling another user a troll, even if they are a troll, is considered an attack as well as spam. Next time just report it." Honestly, that's completely ridiculous. Some people can't figure out if someone is a troll unless notified. For me, if they say that someone is a troll, something clicks in my head and it puts all the pieces together and I see that they are a troll.

PhillyFresh 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Not only that it was under rule number 2.

Kevvl Jul 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Playstation said: " Honestly, that's completely ridiculous. Some people can't figure out if someone is a troll unless notified. For me, if they say that someone is a troll, something clicks in my head and it puts all the pieces together and I see that they are a troll." I mostly suspend for it because of this reason, although it was suspendable before I became a mod. If the user is not a troll, then calling them a troll is clearly spam - and if they are troll, you should still report it and move on, rather than feeding the troll by posting.

LimusocoBobo 07/17/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Crusadedd said: "But the post I quoted wasn't inappropriate, and if it was I would not be banned for Rule #2, as it is not mentioned in there." While I'm not personally familiar with your suspensions, I'd like to say a few things about them: Your first suspension could have been off-topic. The first poster could have said something that had nothing to do with the thread and, instead of you posting about the topic of the thread, you instead just laughed at the off-topic post. This made your post off-topic, and therefore, suspendable by rule #2. Your second suspension, I don't know what context your post was in so I really can't say much about it. It does seem a little off to me. You should have reported/appealed it to the site admin and it may have been removed... instead you come to the forums to complain about it after the fact. In general, you seem to take the rules too literally. Be careful with that kind of attitude. For some reason or another, there's plenty of things that aren't explicitly mentioned on the rules page that are, in fact, against the rules. For example: even though it doesn't say that you can't quote inappropriate posts, that is actually against the rules and may get you suspended. Depending on the kind of post you quote, you may be suspended for being off-topic (#2) or if you quoted bad content (#3).

Kevvl Jul 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

LimusocoBobo said: " While I'm not personally familiar with your suspensions, I'd like to say a few things about them: Your first suspension could have been off-topic. The first poster could have said something that had nothing to do with the thread and, instead of you posting about the topic of the thread, you instead just laughed at the off-topic post. This made your post off-topic, and therefore, suspendable by rule #2. Your second suspension, I don't know what context your post was in so I really can't say much about it. It does seem a little off to me. You should have reported/appealed it to the site admin and it may have been removed... instead you come to the forums to complain about it after the fact. In general, you seem to take the rules too literally. Be careful with that kind of attitude. For some reason or another, there's plenty of things that aren't explicitly mentioned on the rules page that are, in fact, against the rules. For example: even though it doesn't say that you can't quote inappropriate posts, that is actually against the rules and may get you suspended. Depending on the kind of post you quote, you may be suspended for being off-topic (#2) or if you quoted bad content (#3)." It says not to quote bad posts when you quote posts, Bobo. =P

PhillyFresh Jul 17 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

If what he says is true about the 2nd one, he is not attacking another user.