My 6-month partials just expired...

.

My six-month partial access for the religion section expired a while back, so I was hoping someone could just unlock that for me again...

.

Partials don't actually expire, you know? They’re basically given on an indefinite basis—they just stay there permanently. Now, once six months have passed, you can certainly put in a request to have them removed, but honestly, there’s no guarantee the moderators are going to do you any favors.

.

Look, nobody ever actually sat me down and explained why I was partially banned. Honestly, I didn't even get a formal warning before they pulled the plug on me, so I'm thinking this was probably just some former moderator holding a grudge. Maybe it was personal. I was a highly respected member over at the religion forum, and I don't think many users there have dealt with fewer strikes than I did. So, really, there shouldn't be any reason to keep me off the chain...

.

The whole partial ban thing isn't just some random decision made by one single moderator because they felt like it; it’s actually a collective call from the entire moderation team regarding a specific subreddit, triggered directly by how someone was acting on there.

.

Look, I honestly don't think Tyler Cruz32 or Bubbles have any beef with me. Like, they’d probably just let me back in if I asked...

Hopefully, I won't get hit with some massive, nasty surprise coming from them?

Let's hear it...

.

I think you’re still missing the fundamental mechanics of how this works...
The partial status is permanent. Because of that permanence, they aren't handed out lightly; they only come after extensive consultation among all the moderators within a specific subforum. Once someone actually receives one, we have an agreement that the user can request its removal every six months. However, for that to happen, the individual has to convince the moderation team that they won't go back to creating the very issues that led to the partial in the first place. Essentially, if your attitude hasn't shifted, the chances of getting it removed are non-existent.
Right now, you’re doing exactly what not to do—blaming everyone else for your partial and demanding it be lifted just because one moderator stepped down. You might want to try a different approach.

.

Alright, look, I’ll be the first to admit it—I messed up too...

I promise I won't screw things up again...

.

Arthur Flores2 said:.

Look, nobody ever actually sat me down and explained why I was partially banned. Honestly, I didn't even get a formal warning before they pulled the plug on me, so I'm thinking this was probably just some former moderator holding a grudge. Maybe it was personal. I was a highly respected member over at the religion forum, and I don't think many users there have dealt with fewer strikes than I did. So, really, there shouldn't be any reason to keep me off the chain...

.

Arthur Flores2 said:.

Alright, look, I’ll be the first to admit it—I messed up too...

I promise I won't screw things up again...

.

So, this isn't actually your first partial ban on the Religion board; it is your second.
The first one occurred during the restructuring back in the summer of 2012.

Following that initial ban, you were given another opportunity to participate, yet based on what was presented, it was painfully obvious that you had no intention of changing your behavior; in fact, you persistently engaged in trolling, sarcasm, and mock jokes—which weren't jokes at all, but were truly repulsive.

Even now, in the post I am quoting, you are claiming there is some personal animosity from Bob toward you, which is an outright falsehood. You are asking for your ban to be lifted and expecting us to believe you've changed, while simultaneously spreading baseless lies about our colleague—furthermore, your comments about being "unleashed" do nothing to inspire confidence; if anything, they do the opposite.

My assessment is that you have no intention of reforming, a fact you have demonstrated once again here.
Had you actually desired to change, you could have done so following the first ban when the opportunity was provided.

Therefore, my decision regarding the removal of your partial ban is negative.

Additionally, you have also accumulated warnings over on the Politics board, which also fails to convince me that your conduct has improved or is acceptable.

.

I guess the only thing left that might save me now is a positive word from the moderator, Bubbles...

Hey Bubbles, I'm waiting on your response...

.

We don't need any of Bubbles' quotes here. Whether we're talking about removing a partial or assigning one, it requires moderator approval—and we already know that isn't happening, given that Tyler Cruz32 has clearly stated and justified her position. Personally, I find myself in full agreement with her.

.

Alright, look, since ego refused to actually explain why I got my second strike, can anyone here even clarify what the deal is? I’m talking about the second strike, specifically. Not the first one, the second. Nobody would even show me the proof for either of the two posts ego pointed to. It’s obvious as hell they don't qualify for a strike, but hey, feel free to try and prove me wrong. I’m ready to argue this until the cows come home if I have to. Let's see what I supposedly did to earn a second strike...

And I’m taking back what I said about being a troll. I wasn't trolling anyone; I just said that because I felt like you guys wanted me to grovel. Truth is, I haven't messed with anyone. That’s just a headspace issue for some moderator, I guess. If they can't handle a joke about atheists, or if they're so insecure about their own religion that they have to hunt down anyone on the religion subforum who questions their faith, then they shouldn't be moderating. People like that aren't fit for the job, and regular users shouldn't have to suffer for it...

.

No, let’s not waste our breath rehashing a dispute that has already dragged on for six months. There have been numerous attempts to demand a re-evaluation of this specific ruling, but frankly, it’s a futile exercise. Instead of obsessively questioning why the decision was made in the first place, the focus should be on determining whether any mitigating circumstances exist that would justify overturning it. This is particularly relevant here, given that we are dealing with a second ruling; this current decision was necessitated because once the initial one was rescinded, the underlying reasons for the original action were reinstated.
As far as I am concerned, this matter is closed. If the Administrator wishes to offer further input, she is welcome to do so. However, regarding the Religion moderator's decision, the ruling stands.