View Topic

Alright so I have two things:

1) The ban is technically not allowed. The Ban was for mute-evasion which is not against the rules specified in Administration Rules and Guidelines Topic (located here). Specifiably this section:

Ban Evasion: Any action taken with the purpose of evading a ban from an area of the region, such as creating a new account or utilizing Zaphyr's message function to contact people in the chatroom while banned from it.

This section ONLY applies to bans. Not to any other administrative action taken. There is also nothing giving the authority of the Administrative Team to ignore the fact that it's not an offense and ban members willy-nilly for made up infractions.

2) The ban was excessive. Assuming that the Administrative Team could ban me for Mute-Evasion (and as 1 points out, they can not) a 48-hour ban is more than excessive as it is my first offense/ban. If it were my second, or third, I could understand. However in this instance a 12 hour ban would have been more than enough to get the point across. Further with the Mute-Evasion rule thrown out the only things I would be even slightly capable of being accused of performing is Trolling and Flaming which has a precedent set for a first-time Trolling/Flaming ban being 12 hours. I point to the Banning of Tim during February 2015. This is just one example that comes to mind, of many in reality, that can be used to demonstrate this. Further it shows that the administrator that issued the ban failed to take into consideration the amount of bans that have been issued against me, which is none until this one, and instead ruled emotionally. 

tl;dr - Ban was excessive for a first-time ban AND was for an offense not actually against the rules. While the action might not be wanted, it is certainly not listed among the Unwelcome behavior section and there is nothing allowing the team to take an action against it according to their own rules. Further the banning itself is excessive due to the fact that it was a first-time ban (and thus was a failure of the mod to actually take into account the history of mine) and was WAY to excessive according to history for similar types of behavior I could be banned for.

tl;dr of the tl;dr - Ruling was too long and was for a non-existent rule.

I'm assuming you want the chat op team, not the moderators...since that would be over the forums.

We will discuss your appeal and may ask questions in this topic or request evidence accordingly. At this point only the chat op team should post in this topic.

These are my complete logs of the situation: http://pastebin.com/PFpHyN5d

Most of that is actually irrelevant....given that I am not contesting the muting itself, but the banning. Given that all that is TRULY relevant is the muting and then the banning (along with what caused the banning).

What was Hugsim's stated reason for the ban? Because it looked like he was banning you for trolling, something I can definitely get behind.

It was for mute evasion.

Where is it stated?

EDIT: If not stated anywhere, that's a bit dodge. I fear that if it wasn't stated anywhere, or if the reason for the ban is mute evasion, then this has no grounds. If the ban was for trolling, even after action had already been taken against Chanku in the form of muting, then this works. Of course, it doesn't work if the reason was never explicitly stated before now.

Where is it stated?

EDIT: If not stated anywhere, that's a bit dodge. I fear that if it wasn't stated anywhere, or if the reason for the ban is mute evasion, then this has no grounds. If the ban was for trolling, even after action had already been taken against Chanku in the form of muting, then this works. Of course, it doesn't work if the reason was never explicitly stated before now.

We were muted for arguing and getting personal after arguing about Bernie Sanders. 

After he and I were muted, he changed his nick, left, rejoined, got auto-voiced, made a quip to me, then quit.

That's when Hugsim banned him. 

Hugsim told me he notified Chanku privately. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

Hugsim directly notified me, by query, that it was for 'mute-evasion'

By unanimous decision, the chat op team has voted to uphold Hugsim's decision and deny this appeal.

Ultimately it should be known that it's not alright to evade any administrative action, especially in order to continue disturbances that the op is trying to resolve. Additionally, there is also past precedent for such a mute evasion ban, considering that someone else was previously banned for 48 hours for the same offense.

Precedent or not, if there's no explicit rule against it, there are no grounds. Even if a rule is now created this very instant, it can't be enforced on offenders who've previously violated it before such a rule was in place. I'm not happy with this, even if it is Chanku, and even if his behaviour warranted a ban for a different reason. Political pressure be damned.

Precedent or not, if there's no explicit rule against it, there are no grounds. Even if a rule is now created this very instant, it can't be enforced on offenders who've previously violated it before such a rule was in place. I'm not happy with this, even if it is Chanku, and even if his behaviour warranted a ban for a different reason. Political pressure be damned.

It's generally considered poor etiquette to evade a ban or a mute by an IRC operator (Mod). 

I got a 48 hour ban when I mute evaded by accident earlier (since my Internet disconnected), and while I objected, I still endured the punishment.  Chanku isn't above the law and he needs to be held to the same IRC standards myself and others have. 

If I had known about such a ban taking place against you, for that reason, I would definitely have raised a fuss about it.

Correct. No one should be above the law. That means no one should have the protection of the law taken away from them either, no matter how much they may deserve it. There's a reason murder cases get thrown out of court if the police didn't follow the proper procedure. It prevents institutionalised corruption from taking place, and holds the police to a higher standard.

The principle of the matter is what has me up in arms now, and I'm not backing down until this situation gets fixed.

If I had known about such a ban taking place against you, for that reason, I would definitely have raised a fuss about it.

Correct. No one should be above the law. That means no one should have the protection of the law taken away from them either, no matter how much they may deserve it. There's a reason murder cases get thrown out of court if the police didn't follow the proper procedure. It prevents institutionalised corruption from taking place, and holds the police to a higher standard.

The principle of the matter is what has me up in arms now, and I'm not backing down until this situation gets fixed.

Well we don't really have regional jurisdiction over the channel.  It's not under Wintreath law.  The ops team handle the guidelines

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

It is still up to the chat ops team to enforce the rules they set up, and ONLY the rules they set up. Just to be clear, it is reasonable for a rule to be created to enable them to ban someone for evading the mute, but before such a rule is actually created, there are absolutely no grounds for banning someone for such an evasion. It is corrupt. End of story.