Pyrate being banned- Fair or not

[hoyboy]

Just a question about the recent banning of pyrate83 for advertising an auction of his textbooks. Fair enough to warn him that it was against the AUP, but was a instant banning called for. Maybe he has done this sort of thing before and I haven't seen it but it all seems a little arbitary to me - what do people think?.

[hardcoreruss+probs]

Definitely should not of been banned, far to harsh.

[flaninacupboard]

WTF?! when did -that- happen? i like that dude! he's in our class picture!

right, time to find a can of whoopass.

[Rookie64]

I vote for removing the link first - since that's the no-no and we can all still see the auctions

[Faustus]

Not my decision, however I stand behind offline's decision as that is the board rules and we were told to ban this type of behavior. As was said in the thread he can speak to Baldrick about getting back in. I doubt it will be much of issue provided the party involved doesn't over react.

[flaninacupboard]

Offline...........

Silly Rabbit!

[offline]

I got no joy from it I assure you. Just following a well known
directive against advertising. As I said when I issued the ban, he
can appeal to Baldrick, and I hope he does.

Mod instructions are plain. Unsolicited advertising is to be banned.
No if's no but's.

[zzyzzx]

No. This should be a poll.

[888888]

Since being a member of VideoHelp, I have had many auctions for my used textbooks on eBay. NEVER have I gotten the urge to post links to them for a few extra hits and maybe a few extra bucks. It is so obviously against the rules.

If he had enough of a lapse of judgement to do it, then he must face the consequences. However, a removal of the link and a warning would be enough. If he did this the second time, then he should be banned.

[offline]

zzyzzx,

your signature pic is still oversized. This will be the second
time I have brought this to your notice.

Signatures Rule
Please note the signature rules and adjust yours. Thanks
Max 3 lines text using font size 12(bbcode font=Normal) or smaller and using forum width 680 pixels.
Max image size 400x60 and max file size 10kbyte.


Mod Offline

[indolikaa]

I got no joy from it I assure you. Just following a well-known directive against advertising. As I said when I issued the ban, he
can appeal to Baldrick, and I hope he does.

Mod instructions are plain. Unsolicited advertising is to be banned.
No if's no but's.

I don't see a problem with this. The rules on advertising are pretty well-known around here...

[pyscrow]

zzyzzx,
Love ya signature picture (although be it oversize).

We have a large feral cat problem here in Australia, and it is good to see RIAA doing something useful to benifit the community for a change.

I must endeavour to help them be of public service as much as possible. Now where my P2P software got to......

[sacajaweeda]

No. This should be a poll.

**** that noise. Rules are to be abided by, not voted upon.

[Supreme2k]

Who the F cares who gets banned? Just let it go. We don't need a "rallying around" whenever someone gets banned or gets carded. Just let Baldrick and his squad deal with people on a one-to-one basis.

I second sacajaweeda on the poll.

[Phlexor]

The question remains then, why hasn't zzyzzx been banned for the oversized sig picture? I mean you claim that everyone knows the rules, so what is the excuse? Seems like a double standard to me.

[Capmaster]

The question remains then, why hasn't zzyzzx been banned for the oversized sig picture? I mean you claim that everyone knows the rules, so what is the excuse? Seems like a double standard to me.

Not every offense calls for banning. In fact, very few do. Spamming, bypassing the AUP by creating a different user account to continue after being banned, repeated misc. other offenses, 5 yellow cards, etc.

Lesser penalties:
Yellow card
Informal public warning.
PM asking member to stop


zzyzzx just received an informal public warning from offline in this thread

[Phlexor]

I would think that anyone not obeying the rules stated at the top of the page before posting would get an instant ban as they are always displayed before posting. Anything else should be a warning or the offending post removed with a warning. Repeated violations after warning(s) would also result in a ban. Taking your emotions into account when banning someone is such a big no-no. When the result of infractions are determined by the mods "mood of the day/hour" then the inconsistancies cause massive debate and splits the group. This will destroy the board and make it look childish and unprofessional.

Just my thoughts.

[Cobra]

It depends on the circumstances surrounding the post. It is not fair to see it in black and white - there will always be shades of grey. As moderators, we are trusted to use our own judgement.

I support offline's actions, and I believe that he made no discrimination between users, and dealt the appropriate punishment for the infraction. If the offence had required a warning, I am sure offline would have given it to him as he would myself, a user with 5000 posts or a newbie with just one post here. He acted fairly, and offered advice on appeal given the circumstances.

We could not have asked any more of him, and if I were pyrate83 I would be relieved to have been treated with such impartiality.

I do, however, see what you are saying and I respect your opinion.

Cobra

[ZAPPER]

HANG HIM! What nerve to try and sell educational material!

Just kidding. And as far as enforcing the rules to the letter goes Bah Humbug! I would rather see some flexibilty than strict enforcement. A little room to play gives this site some human character or personality that attracts many I am sure.

It is the mods and administrator that get to make the final call. We can help by pointing out any violations or redeeming qualities. I suspect that with a request to be reinstated and an apology or a slap on the wrist everything will be nicey nice again.

[Capmaster]

I would think that anyone not obeying the rules stated at the top of the page before posting would get an instant ban as they are always displayed before posting. Anything else should be a warning or the offending post removed with a warning.

All the forum rules are stated at the top when posting. The ones that are spelled out, regarding warez, pertain to common infractions. The remaining rules are linked just below those. There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules when posting.

Because there are so many "gray areas" as Cobra mentioned, a menu-type penalty list is impractical. The tone of the post, the member's join date (many spammers are recent registrants and have only a few posts), past infractions, etc. all factor into the mod's decision when he decides what's appropriate.

I fully support offlines actions because he did what he felt was proper. I also respect your opinions and encourage feedback and discussion if anyone needs clarification of the current policy Feel free to PM a mod if you'd rather discuss it in private

[Supreme2k]

My two cents:

Even someone posting "I just downloaded Alien Vs. Predator. How do I make a DVD?" shows much more respect and at least a tiny bit of understanding of this site than someone blatantly posting eBay links to textbooks and even bumping the topic, to top it off. Hell, people rarely (if ever) solicit video related equipment or software here. There's actually less of an excuse for "old timers" since they should be pretty well versed in the rules. It's not like it's a "No wearing white shoelaces on the second Monday of alternate months" rule. It seems more than reasonable.

[stiltman]

My two cents:

[indolikaa]

I would think that anyone not obeying the rules stated at the top of the page before posting would get an instant ban as they are always displayed before posting. Anything else should be a warning or the offending post removed with a warning. Repeated violations after warning(s) would also result in a ban. Taking your emotions into account when banning someone is such a big no-no. When the result of infractions are determined by the mods "mood of the day/hour" then the inconsistancies cause massive debate and splits the group. This will destroy the board and make it look childish and unprofessional.

Just my thoughts.

Individual responsibility plays a role in this, too.

Everyone has to agree to the Forum Rules/AUP before they sign up. It's their responsibility to read them, to understand them, and to accept them before they join. The moderators are not here to hand out tissues and hold people's hands. If you can't understand the rules, you don't belong here.

You are WAY OFF on your assessment of this situation, and to suggest that offline banned the guy because of his 'mood' is, quite frankly, bullshit. Mood has nothing to do with it. This is a private forum, the rules are set in place by the Executive Committee (see Baldrick) and executed by his Staff (see Moderators) and that's the end of this discussion. This is not a democracy.

This thread is about someone who felt the need to bitch publicly about the conduct of a moderator in question. Pyrate got what he deserved in both cases: an instant ban, and a reprieve once he apologized for his conduct. I fail to see the issue here.

I have no doubt that had I posted something like that, and it was done in seriousness, I would have been banned as well. I don't believe for one second that moderators play favorites.

If the offence had required a warning, I am sure offline would have given it to him as he would myself, a user with 5000 posts or a newbie with just one post here. He acted fairly, and offered advice on appeal given the circumstances.

Yeah, did anybody notice that offline practically apologized for giving the ban AND strongly suggested the user contact Baldrick immediately about the situation?

I am sorry to rant, but I am sick of hearing from newbies, or those who don't post often enough to care, that post count equates to preferential treatment. That's what this discussion is all about; how dare a veteran of this board be banned for breaking the rules!

Pyrate's a good guy. He's never crossed my path, so I have no reason to say otherwise. He made a mistake, he owned up to it. Why others feel the need to take a stand is beyond me.

[presto]

Thanks to all the mods for helping to keeping this site great.

[The village idiot]

Why is this still being discussed?

The person that owns the site has set a rule in concrete, only he can change the way that rule is interpreted. There is no fair/unfair involved. This is the way it is. Don't like it? Then you can move along.

Please forgive the wasted bandwidth for this trivial prattle

[offline]

I suspect that with a request to be reinstated and an apology or a slap on the wrist everything will be nicey nice again.

Which is exactly what happened some hours before most
of you even posted today. Although the outcome in this case was
fait accompli, it was interesting to hear all your points of view.

I feel that everybody should always feel free to comment
and provide feedback on anything to do with this site
including Mod decisions. Your feedback, if constructive, helps us do our respective"jobs".

Unsolicited ads remain a banable offense. Please don't do it.

[tygrus2000]

Having rules that are more restrictive than some 3rd world countries is hardly a productive way to run a forum that is supposed to be based on the FREE exchange of ideas, the FREE exchange of technical information and the concept of FREE AND FAIR USE OF video material.

Dont you realize every time you mention a piece of software or hardware on this site, you are shilling for that company. Heck the forum even provides an automatically link to the name when you put it in your message. That is just as bad as a mistaken post about selling his text books.

Give him a polite warning, refer him to the rules and be the end of it. Dont ban after 1 infraction - even criminals have a 3 strikes policy.

[Supreme2k]

Hear, hear! When you ban a member, the terrorists have won!

/

[indolikaa]

Having rules that are more restrictive than some 3rd world countries is hardly a productive way to run a forum that is supposed to be based on the FREE exchange of ideas, the FREE exchange of technical information and the concept of FREE AND FAIR USE OF video material.

Dont you realize every time you mention a piece of software or hardware on this site, you are shilling for that company. Heck the forum even provides an automatically link to the name when you put it in your message. That is just as bad as a mistaken post about selling his text books.

Give him a polite warning, refer him to the rules and be the end of it. Dont ban after 1 infraction - even criminals have a 3 strikes policy.

What 3rd world country are you referring to?

You are shilling for God. What's the difference?

[Cobra]

tygrus2000, advertising is not productive to video. Naming packages is productive as it guides a person to the correct tool for the job. It cannot be considered advertising.

Those posting adverts usually sign up exclusively to do so, ignoring the site rules laid down by Baldrick. A spammer will not pay any attention to a yellow card and continue to post adverts, and so an instant ban is the better course of action. As such, a moderator must not discriminate between users. If someone with one post gets banned for it, so must someone with 1000 posts.

As I said, there are shades of grey. Pyrate was in one of those situations, but it is Baldrick who can make that discimination.

The rules on this site do not seem to restrict the free flow of information. They restrict warez, spamming, offensive behaviour etc. in order to keep this site a good place for new users to come and learn.

Cobra