I got banned for something unrelated. All I did was, yet again, utter CamCamm's name or likeness. None of my bans have been related to #Gaming, and in fact, moreso to that single person, so shut your hole. Edit: Oh, and I have something in the works that will probably get my ultra-banned on my main and every alt I own. Can't reveal it now though. Edit2: Oh, and the account in this thread's OP actually isn't banned. Recon just gave me a "slight warning" for a thread that I had no clue was even against the rules (asking who has conducted self-harm). I'll probably switch to it after I make the big reveal on this one, if the mods don't decide to create a special incentive to kill me.

[quote]I got banned for something unrelated.[/quote] masterful. [quote]All I did was, yet again, utter CamCamm's name or likeness.[/quote] no, you sugarcoated a rather derogatory post. [quote]None of my bans have been related to #Gaming, and in fact, moreso to that single person, so shut your hole.[/quote] your ban on the account that you used in your op is [i]nonexistent.[/i] [quote]Edit: Oh, and I have something in the works that will probably get my ultra-banned on my main and every alt I own. Can't reveal it now though.[/quote] well that's just splendid!

[quote]no, you sugarcoated a rather derogatory post. [/quote]You mean I implied being disrespectful? I made a point using her and Camnator, a point related to the moderation of this site. Not once did I even imply disrespect towards her, but yet again, the white-knighting moderator banned me for what I consider to be a completely illegitimate, misinterpreted circumstance. [quote]your ban on the account that you used in your op is nonexistent. [/quote]because I simply saw that my topic disappeared, so I logged out and created a new alt before even verifying my ban. What ended up happening is that I was given a "light warning" for a topic that I had no clue was prohibited, which was related to self-harm. There's nothing in the rules about a neutral poll asking if one has ever cut themselves, and for me to get any sort of disciplinary action, even a "light ban", is absurd, and goes to show just how much power these moderators gained. [quote]well that's just splendid![/quote]Oh, it'll be splendid alright.

[quote]You mean I implied being disrespectful?[/quote] not how i remember it. of course there's no way i can prove it, so we've gotta lean to your side for this case as the burden of proof is on me. [quote]because I simply saw that my topic disappeared, so I logged out and created a new alt before even verifying my ban.[/quote] lol [quote]What ended up happening is that I was given a "light warning" for a topic that I had no clue was prohibited, which was related to self-harm.[/quote] can i see what the topic was about please? [quote]There's nothing in the rules about a neutral poll asking if one has ever cut themselves,[/quote] there is definitely something in the coc about discussing harm. [quote]and for me to get any sort of disciplinary action, even a "light ban", is absurd,[/quote] [i]no it is not.[/i] [quote]and goes to show just how much power these moderators gained.[/quote] [i]gained? [b]gained?[/i][/b] your original account is [b]five years old.[/b] i don't understand how you don't know that the core philosophy that the b.net moderation team runs on is that [i]you have no rights.[/i] [url=http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post?id=1214120]play nice.[/url] they haven't gained a shred of power from b.old. in fact, they've [i]reduced[/i] their hold on these forums.

[quote]not how i remember it. of course there's no way i can prove it, so we've gotta lean to your side for this case as the burden of proof is on me.[/quote]You're taking the easy way out with this one, so here is what I said. [quote]...but even remotely-referring to CamCamm, even as indirect as possible, will get you insta-banned? You see, bullshit like this is why Waypoint is better. At least they're fair with every individual. You can also see others' posts that have been banned (unless it's leaked content), and find out which mod handed you said ban. You might think I'm insane or a troll for saying this, but it's quite true when you think about it. The member titles might have went away with Bungie.next, but the culture surrounding them hasn't gone anywhere. Just sayin'. Oh, and before mods make a smartass move like banning me for mentioning Camnator, I don't even know anything about Camnator or who he even is.[/quote] Where is the obvious or even implied disrespect? Even if I implied anything just the slightest (which I'm confident that I didn't in this circumstance), that doesn't warrant a ban. You're obviously implying disrespect towards me, and you could say the same for me, but we're not getting banned for this conversation. [quote]lol[/quote]Yea, el oh el. I made an assumption, and wasted an alt. Like I said though, I'll probably go back to it later. [quote]can i see what the topic was about please?[/quote][url=http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post?id=63599514]Yes, certainly.[/url] The text simply read, "Have you ever, or do you currently, cut yourself?" Like I said, nothing even remotely stating that this is prohibited in the Code of Conduct. [quote]there is definitely something in the coc about discussing harm.[/quote]No, there isn't. That's why the mod didn't just outright ban me, because he certainly would have if the official jurisdiction for that situation was there. [quote]no it is not.[/quote]Yes, it is, because the Code of Conduct is supposed to stand as a basic representation of what to do and what not to do. Unless, of course, you're one of those people that thinks that ultimate power justifies any course of action. [quote]you have no rights. play nice. they haven't gained a shred of power from b.old. in fact, they've reduced their hold on these forums.[/quote]...aaand there you have it, before I even read that line.

[quote]You're taking the easy way out with this one, so here is what I said.[/quote] i was going off memory. [quote]Where is the obvious or even implied disrespect? Even if I implied anything just the slightest (which I'm confident that I didn't in this circumstance), that doesn't warrant a ban. You're obviously implying disrespect towards me, and you could say the same for me, but we're not getting banned for this conversation.[/quote] you're right. well i guess the mods just don't like you, or, probably more likely, you said something in the replies. either way i'll have to defer to your judgement [the same way i did before] as i can't prove it. [quote]Yea, el oh el. I made an assumption, and wasted an alt. Like I said though, I'll probably go back to it later.[/quote] lol [quote]Yes, certainly. The text simply read, "Have you ever, or do you currently, cut yourself?" Like I said, nothing even remotely stating that this is prohibited in the Code of Conduct.[/quote] that was the reason it was [i]a warning[/i] and not a ban. [quote]No, there isn't. That's why the mod didn't just outright ban me, because he certainly would have if the official jurisdiction for that situation was there.[/quote] true. i assumed that you were descriptive about it. my mistake, i guess. [quote]Yes, it is, because the Code of Conduct is supposed to stand as a basic representation of what to do and what not to do.[/quote] it is a basic representation of what to do and what not to do. [quote]Unless, of course, you're one of those people that thinks that ultimate power justifies any course of action.[/quote] unless, of course, you're one of those people who doesn't understand that this is the philosophy that bungie.net has always run on. [quote]...aaand there you have it, before I even read that line.[/quote] yeah, before you even [i]read[/i] the line you knew you were wrong? nah, that would be expecting far too much from you.

[quote]you're right[/quote]Clearly you're not see wha-... wait... did you just say I'm [i]right[/i]? Well then, I'm shocked. [quote]well i guess the mods just don't like you, or, probably more likely, you said something in the replies. either way i'll have to defer to your judgement [the same way i did before] as i can't prove it.[/quote]They more likely than not have a vendetta against me. My first warning was for making a joke of "the forbidden one", so I have a track record of being disrespectful to "the forbidden one" (I'm not going to run the risk of even mentioning their gender/sex [have to also say "gender/sex" so I don't mean disrespect towards those of different genders that don't necessarily conform to their biological sex]). However, my latest bans for uttering "the forbidden one's" name have NOT been disrespectful, at all. [quote]that was the reason it was a warning and not a ban.[/quote]Then why is something like this not in the Code of Content, including any statutes for offensive content, or spam? You see, this is the issue that comes forth when you have such overly simplified rules. I want the old BNET rules back, and not the ones that Achronos wrote. The ones that Duardo had, which were so clear that you had to be an absolute idiot to be banned for. Nothing wrong with having a short version of it though, like the current CoC, for newer members so they don't feel discouraged to post. Newer members will typically post fail-safe posts anyway until they begin to feel more comfortable. [quote]it is a basic representation of what to do and what not to do.[/quote][i]Too[/i] basic. Way too basic. Like I said above, we need a list the goes into much more detail below the basic CoC. "Ultimate power" is simply discouraging to both me and new members when you ultimately realize that you can get banned if the mod simply doesn't like you. [quote]you're one of those people who doesn't understand that this is the philosophy that bungie.net has always run on.[/quote]I know it has, but almost every internet forum follows this as well. They, of course, have clear enough statutes to follow. It's not very logical to just ban for whatever they want without giving clear enough standards to follow so that you're less likely to run the risk of a ban. In conclusion, the current, stated (not implied with "ultimate power") rules are way too broad, and need to either be added upon, or a more specific version needs to be developed below them. In addition, I'm getting banned for disrespect that is simply nonexistent, and it's the mod who is making very broad and far-reaching assumptions.

[quote]Clearly you're not see wha-... wait... did you just say I'm right? Well then, I'm shocked.[/quote] yes, you've actually done a nice job arguing your points here. i'm definitely not going to say that you're wrong if i don't truly believe that you're wrong, and you've managed to convince me otherwise numerous times in this subthread. for a change. nice work. [quote]They more likely than not have a vendetta against me. My first warning was for making a joke of "the forbidden one", so I have a track record of being disrespectful to "the forbidden one" (I'm not going to run the risk of even mentioning their gender/sex [have to also say "gender/sex" so I don't mean disrespect towards those of different genders that don't necessarily conform to their biological sex]). However, my latest bans for uttering "the forbidden one's" name have NOT been disrespectful, at all.[/quote] well i don't have context. if i knew what degree of disrespect you displayed to her prior, i could fully understand the mods taking extreme action against you for smaller actions, if you really harassed her prior to all this. [quote]Then why is something like this not in the Code of Content, including any statutes for offensive content, or spam?[/quote] A) because the topic you made may [i]lead[/i] to some of the rule breaking content. that's why it was a warning and not a ban. B) recon and i recently dealt with some stuff regarding other users and... self harm. i don't blame him for acting in the way he did. [quote]You see, this is the issue that comes forth when you have such overly simplified rules. I want the old BNET rules back, and not the ones that Achronos wrote. The ones that Duardo had, which were so clear that you had to be an absolute idiot to be banned for.[/quote] we haven't had those since... 2011, i believe. the moderation has gotten less strict from then and personal bias in bans hasn't increased at all. [quote]Nothing wrong with having a short version of it though, like the current CoC, for newer members so they don't feel discouraged to post. Newer members will typically post fail-safe posts anyway until they begin to feel more comfortable.[/quote] agreed. [quote]Too basic. Way too basic. Like I said above, we need a list the goes into much more detail below the basic CoC.[/quote] yes, you've managed to convince me otherwise. in fact, i'll actually make a thread about it right now. [quote]"Ultimate power" is simply discouraging to both me and new members when you ultimately realize that you can get banned if the mod simply doesn't like you.[/quote] it has [i]always[/i] been like that. well, always after 2011. [quote]I know it has, but almost every internet forum follows this as well.[/quote] except for lolwaypoint, who just bans pretty much everyone by arbitrarily creating new rules on a whim. seriously, the escalation discussion ban was completely dumb. [quote]They, of course, have clear enough statutes to follow. It's not very logical to just ban for whatever they want without giving clear enough standards to follow so that you're less likely to run the risk of a ban.[/quote] we'd have to have standards for every single ninja's personal biases, then. [quote]In conclusion, the current, stated (not implied with "ultimate power") rules are way too broad, and need to either be added upon, or a more specific version needs to be developed below them. In addition, I'm getting banned for disrespect that is simply nonexistent, and it's the mod who is making very broad and far-reaching assumptions.[/quote] i'll concede. you've done well with this one, fatmarshall, and i'm genuinely curious about why the mods actually seem to have a vendetta against you.

[quote]well i don't have context. if i knew what degree of disrespect you displayed to her prior, i could fully understand the mods taking extreme action against you for smaller actions, if you really harassed her prior to all this.[/quote]I simply have a track record of being legitimately disrespectful towards her. The last ban I received on my main account is "questionable", since I only made a "disrespectful" reference to her without posting her name. However, the latest warnings and bans to my alts have been completely unjustified. [quote]B) recon and i recently dealt with some stuff regarding other users and... self harm. i don't blame him for acting in the way he did.[/quote]I don't blame him either, but if it's a topic that shouldn't be discussed here, then I would like some clarity in the rules. [quote]we haven't had those since... 2011, i believe. [/quote]Yup. I've been here since 2008, and I remember the way things were before. [quote]the moderation has gotten less strict from then and personal bias in bans hasn't increased at all. [/quote]From my own personal view, bias has increased, as well as interpretation due to a broader set of rules. Achronos's newer rules really weren't that bad, but these new CoC rules are over the top. [quote]well, always after 2011.[/quote]Exactly. I liked the older rules. The elders would say otherwise, considering they have so few bans. They could give a damn about ban policy since the mods will defend them much more so than any other member here. That was proven to me when I encountered a dispute with burritosenor in the Halo: Reach forum [i]after[/i] the 2011 rule changes. [quote]except for lolwaypoint, who just bans pretty much everyone by arbitrarily creating new rules on a whim. seriously, the escalation discussion ban was completely dumb. [/quote]Waypoint is a very odd situation. If they clarified just how strict they really are, as well as properly explain their statutes, it would actually be a lot better there. In addition, the moderators have significant over-interpreting powers, at least when it comes to ban lengths. The organization of that system needs to ultimately be rebuilt, from the specific rule statutes, to the moderation team's policies. Thank you for sympathizing with me on this issue. Oh, and about the "walls of text" that you mentioned in a response I have yet to read on another post, it's due to the compounding of our conversations. I like to type entire paragraphs for specific points if it concerns me enough.