Discord ban appeal

Banned by Ryan for violation of 1d and further encouragment of breaking 1c & 1d (I believe those are on section 2)

He will have to review your appeal, as of right now, there isn't much I can do.

The ban was a result of comments made that were in violation of the conduct policy and were encouraging others to do the same.

It was section 2 offences not section 1 as nick suggested, that was my bad banning on my phone.

There's a conversation ongoing as to if this falls under section 1b as a result of this not being the first time you have been sanctioned from discord, and the ongoing behaviour was deemed inappropriate.

vouch

Vouch. From what I've seen, this ban looks like an excuse to remove fssp from the Discord community because he raises questions which are not meant to be asked.

Wild did not take the opportunity to provide chat logs, any examples of what John could've done to warrant this ban, or a simple illustration beyond pointing to the "conduct policy" which explains nothing.

Quote

@wild1145#7564 It was section 2 offences not section 1 as nick suggested, that was my bad banning on my phone.

Apparently there are multiple conduct policies, one being the "server conduct policy," while the other one exclusively applies to Discord. I presume that Wild is referring to the Discord-only policy in this quote, as the "server" policy is not categorized by numbers. If this isn't confusing enough, I can't find anything to indicate that the Discord-only policy is posted anywhere outside of the Discord server.

This is terrible practice. John can't even cite the policies you are quoting, and from what he's told me in private, the "official reason" for his ban does not include the actual policy: it only includes the section number.

I doubt that John did shit. If he happened to say something along the lines of what Wild is claiming, I am willing to put money down that it has been hilariously taken out of context, and did not warrant him being banned from the server without prior warning.

@fssp#7567 you made a racist comment in the general discussion, that along with all your chat history was wiped on ban due to the nature of the ban not to mention me re posting it here would violate the forum posting guidelines. You then were encouraging someone else who had also made a racist comment to continue doing so. That's why you were banned.

Quote

@moriarty#7570 This is terrible practice. John can't even cite the policies you are quoting, and from what he's told me in private, the "official reason" for his ban does not include the actual policy: it only includes the section number.

The policy is specific to the platform and you agree that you have read and fully understood it before you post. It should not be required to be posted elsewhere if you genuinely read and agreed to it prior to posting as you have to here.

Quote

@wild1145#7578 The policy is specific to the platform and you agree that you have read and fully understood it before you post. It should not be required to be posted elsewhere if you genuinely read and agreed to it prior to posting as you have to here.

You seem to be missing the point of preserving a policy in its current state when banning somebody for violating a section of that policy. If the rule were to change, or if the policy were to be revised completely, your ban reason would not demonstrate what the original policy commanded at the time that person were punished.

My point has nothing to do with holding users to their agreements or keeping the current incarnation of a set of rules exclusive to one platform because you'd like to ensure that members of your community do not skim over the rules to which they agree, which is a stupid doctrine regardless of whether or not you understand my post, because everyone knows that the majority of customers or users signing up for something do not read license agreements (or rules, for that matter) in great detail, if they enact to read them at all before clicking that little green checkbox.

People do not store the entirety of an end-user agreement or conduct policy in their head for the sake of later recitement because they agreed to one, either. I'm sure that you can't cite a random section of Google's privacy policy on the spot, even though you did agree to that privacy policy when you made an account with them. The fact that John can't reference the rules you are citing, because they are only available on Discord, means that he can't properly defend himself.

@fssp#7601 Yeah I was the other person and I honestly don’t even care anymore. If I am in a community and I just get banned without notice for posting a video that contained the n word, then I just don’t really want to be a part of that community tbh. As of right now I don’t have any intention of appealing my ban, but I just thought I’d voice my
opinion

The inherent lack of weight regarding racism from all three of you is despicable. wild1145 has made the right call here - you were very much on a "last chance" basis, given your very rich history regarding bans and the topic of racism. You and your posse have a terrible attitude, a terrible mindset regarding a huge and pertinent issue in our society, and most of all, you have a terrible god complex; one which is purely superficial.

If you do want to remain on this discord server (i doubt you even care that much), the rules are not hard to follow.

I still have no idea wtf is going on.

@redeastwood#7630 It seems like you're using this thread as a political soapbox despite the fact that John has made clear on several occasions that he didn't make any remarks about race or racism to provoke this ban.

Quote

You and your posse have a terrible attitude, a terrible mindset regarding a huge and pertinent issue in our society, and most of all, you have a terrible god complex; one which is purely superficial.

I would say the same of you. You have a desperate tendency to exploit situations to push your agenda, as you're doing now. Nothing in the conduct policy sets a reasonable standard for users to be banned or removed based on their personal opinions. When it comes to attitude, this thread seems to have been respectable enough prior to your appearance. It looks like you are the trouble-maker and only person in this dispute with a "terrible attitude," as you're accusing others of having a "[superficial] terrible god complex (lol?)" and a "terrible mindset." Creative writing.

@moriarty#7642 First of all, condemning racism is not an "agenda", and second, what you and fssp consider to be racism clearly differs from that of many people in the community. It is a fact that a significant number of people have had many issues with you two and your comments in the past. That at least warrants an investigation, it can't be a coincidence and it can't just be written off as those people being insane, either.

Regardless, I'd still like to know the specifics behind the ban. In general it's a good idea to keep records of what people are punished for, so you can reference them later. Evidence is frequently posted on indefinite ban requests and forum sanction requests, yet the people making those threads are not punished as they are only posting the evidence within context. It's also helpful for me and others as Discord moderators to know these reasons, for future reference and use.

Quote

@Darth#7647 First of all, condemning racism is not an "agenda", and second, what you and fssp consider to be racism clearly differs from that of many people in the community.

Turning somebody's ban appeal into an argument about racism and a condemnation of their personal views signals that they have an agenda. That's not "condemning racism," considering there's nothing to show that John has done anything "racist" to warrant this ban. There are no logs because of the charming way Ryan decided to handle this matter. Mosley has repeatedly denied making remarks "which could be perceived as discriminatory" (those are his words) prior to him being removed from the Discord server.

Quote

It is a fact that a significant number of people have had many issues with you two and your comments in the past. That at least warrants an investigation, it can't be a coincidence and it can't just be written off as those people being insane, either.

If an investigation is warranted by "a significant number of people having had issues with us two in the past" or such an investigation is ongoing, then John should only be punished when that investigation has concluded, and when there are legitimate results. As of now, this decision seems fragile, as if it had been a cheap excuse to rid the community (or Wild's mailbox) of somebody who "raises questions which are not meant to be asked" as I said earlier.

object, this user has been known to start drama and flame wars with many other people within the discord, and even when told to stop, or try and limit the amount of arguing, still does this; as that is a violation of our discord rules, I do not believe that this user should be unbanned, at least not for the time being