You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
Viewing a Post
Regardless of whether I can provide an example or not, the point still stands that you were told to stop, and you didn’t. You were told to stop by two different Moderators, and you didn’t. You were given the option to pursue your agenda along different paths, and you still didn’t.
Your primary defense seems to be that since Phineas wasn’t ‘actively’ bumisting a specific player, then the rule in question didn’t apply. This is a very weak argument, for a number of reasons.
1. The situation was occurring in INCIT, which is Phineas’s specific domain. While INCIT is running, and he is in there, he is actively bumisting players, in the general sense.
2. Phineas may have been engaged in a private conversation with another player. Since you are not privy to his private communication, you have no way of knowing whether or not he was bumisting a specific player or not.
3. As far as the rules are concerned, I bring your attention to two very important clauses:
IMPORTANT NOTE: These rules are intended as guidelines. The absence of a specific rule prohibiting a specific action is not to be considered permission to engage in that action, nor is it a defense against any consequences for said action.
This alone is more than sufficient in this situation.
If a moderator is trying to help someone (in IDC, Flamebate, etc.), don’t **** them off. It is at the discretion of any moderator/administrator to ban a user temporarily or permanently. Don’t make them want to.
This is the rule you keep referencing. You seem to think that the first sentence is some type of requirement clause for the rest of the rule to apply. It is not. In fact, the first rule quoted should make that perfectly clear. Just because it’s not listed as a specific rule doesn’t mean there can’t be consequences for the actions.
In fact, if you actually consider that first rule carefully, then any claim of Mod Abuse on your part is sort of ridiculous. The fact is that 99% of the time, we only take action based on those things that are specifically listed in the rules. But that is actually self-imposed limitation, not a requirement. Occasionally, we feel compelled to delve into that 1%.
In other words, you danced on the line at your own risk, and you accepted full responsibility for the consequences of those actions.Sergeant Cid edited this message on 10/12/2009 10:28AM
|Posted On: 10/12/2009 10:27AM||View Sergeant Cid's Profile | #|