Appeal for fair moderation: Request to lift permaban on Zika Reddit

Since user Black Velvet received a ban at her own request, I expect the same courtesy to be extended to me regarding my permanent ban on Zika, based on the following logic:

I was hit with a permaban on Zika, just like Black Velvet was, at my own request. She was banned before the new rule was implemented (the one stating that permabans aren't granted or lifted upon personal request). I’m honestly not sure if my ban happened before or after that rule change, but either way, there’s a solid reason to lift it:
a) If I was banned before that new rule kicked in—meaning I'm effectively in the exact same position as Black Velvet—then in the interest of fair and consistent moderation, I expect to be treated exactly the same way she was.
b) If I was banned after the new rule regarding the refusal to grant or lift permabans on request was established, then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. That would mean there was a major oversight by the Zika moderation team (hopefully an unintentional one), and my permaban should be unconditionally removed.

I expect fair moderation and equal treatment for every single person on Reddit, myself included. Based on the points above, I expect my permaban on Zika to be lifted.

P.S. When exactly was that new rule introduced? I’ve been scouring the rules here on Reddit, but I can't find anything about those specific restrictions. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. 😁

Just so there isn't any twisting of the facts or people trying to spin this—I didn't just get handed a partial settlement out of nowhere. I requested it myself. Here’s a post from one of the moderators

Look, there’s a real distinction between a permanent move and a partial one. Plus, you've got the timing issue—there was a gap between when VB put in for the permanent transfer and when you requested the partial. And don't forget the rule: you can't even ask to pull a partial (let alone a permanent one) until six months have passed, whether it was approved by request or just granted by luck.

🙂

Does anyone have a direct link to those rules regarding partials and perms? I'd really appreciate it if someone could drop them here. 😁

This is the last thing I managed to dig up—though there were notices from both Nice and Starlight prior to this.

Austin Harris8 said:Where can I find those rules about partial bans and perma bans? Can someone drop a link? I'd really appreciate it. 😁

It’s mentioned right here -> click.

2) Permanent bans aren't handed out on request. If you're done posting on Reddit, feel free to just log off. Partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by users carry the same weight as admin-issued ones—meaning you can't use alt accounts to bypass them while they're active.

ZKa Rules

• Permanent bans aren't something you can just ask us to split up or divide, you know? If you’ve reached a point where you simply don't want to participate on Reddit anymore, you are more than welcome to just log out. Whether it's a partial restriction or a temporary suspension triggered by a report—or even one handed down directly by the admin team—the rules still apply in full force. That means trying to bypass a ban by using alt accounts is strictly off-limits while the penalty is active.

Elizabeth Anderson63 said:This was the last thing I managed to track down, but there were notices from both Nice and Starlight before this one. http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=44655250&postcount=2

It didn't really hit the mark for what I'm actually trying to figure out, but thanks anyway for doing the legwork. 😉

The core issue for me is this: back in the day, were partial bans treated exactly like permanent ones? As in, could you request them or have them lifted at your own discretion? Because from what I'm reading here, those rules changed, and now you can't just request a perm ban to be lifted or applied anymore.
Basically, I'm asking if perms and partial bans sat in the same category under those old rules. Logically speaking, there’s no reason they wouldn't be treated the same way. A ban is a ban—a permanent one is just a broader version of the same restriction.

@loneraven25
Yeah, that’s how it works under the new rulebook. It wasn't like that before, which is actually why VB was slapped with a permanent ban in the first place. That said, there’s absolutely nothing written here regarding partial bans... so what happens if someone requested a partial ban back then? What was the protocol?
If perms and partials could both be requested or lifted at will, and I was handed a partial ban via my own request before the new rules kicked in, then I’ve got a legitimate case for getting that partial ban removed.
On the flip side, if I was given a partial ban by request *after* the new rules were implemented, then they shouldn't have even been able to grant it—which would mean they violated the Reddit rules.

I already laid this out above. 🤷

It’s pretty straightforward—if you want a perm removal on request, you need the admin's blessing. If you're looking to get a partial removed, you'll need the okay from that PDF's moderator.

It’s not that simple.

If we're judging by what you can actually gather from loneraven25's post regarding partial bans or temporary suspensions, the rule is incredibly vague and poorly defined. Look at this specific sentence:
"Partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by the user carry the same weight as those issued by administration; therefore, using alt accounts during their duration is strictly prohibited."
The only thing that's transparent here is that you aren't allowed to use alts while a partial ban is active. That’s it. Nothing else is clarified. 🤷

So, are partial bans and temporary suspensions only mentioned in the Reddit rules in that one single sentence? Is there actually anything in the official guidelines about requesting or lifting a partial ban, or how long they even last? 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:If you want a requested partial ban to be lifted, you have to get the blessing of the moderator in charge of that PDF.

In my case, I was told I have to wait six months.

How am I supposed to expect this place to function normally when even you moderators can't seem to agree on the most basic, elementary details? 🤷

Where in the Reddit rules is it clearly and concisely stated that I can request a partial removal at my own discretion? - because I certainly can

And where, specifically in the Reddit rules, is it clearly and concisely defined that removing a partial post requires approval from every single moderator listed on that specific PDF? - because it absolutely does

Furthermore, where in the Reddit rules is the duration of a partial removal clearly and concisely laid out? - First, the mods told me it lasts six months, now Anthony Jackson2 is telling me I need to get a "blessing" from the moderators, all while failing to mention any actual timeframe at all...😕

Where in the Reddit rules is any of this actually addressed? 🤷

The Reddit rules don't cover everything—like this whole partial thing. But I'm speaking from experience and what I've seen around here 🤷

this six-month rule has been in effect forever—didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you 🤷

Look, you can tell me or any other user on Reddit whatever you want, but when it comes down to the actual rules, the only thing that matters is what’s officially written in the site guidelines. And in those guidelines, I don't see anything stating that if I request a partial adjustment, I have to wait some arbitrary six months before I can ask for a pardon. Yet, here I am, stuck waiting.

On top of that, does this even make sense? I get a partial adjustment based on my own request, and then I’m supposed to go begging for approval from every single moderator just to be sent right back to the exact same PDF that granted the initial adjustment in the first place!?

Who is actually losing their mind here? 🤣

A partial ban is basically just a permanent ban on a specific PDF—the rules apply exactly the same way either way.

Just because you don't see something explicitly written in the Reddit rules doesn't mean it isn't the case. Admins are essentially above the rules—if they decide something, you're stuck dealing with it. Of course, I'm just talking hypothetically.

From what I've seen, this is how things work—whether you like it or not. I could be wrong, and the admins could strip a partial ban tomorrow, but I’m telling you how it is based on my experience.

Wait, if you were going to come crawling here to complain immediately after, why even bother requesting a partial refund? You clearly need to go get laid—maybe it'll help you clear your head... 🤔

Austin Harris8 said:It wasn't like that before—which, honestly, was the whole reason they slapped a permanent ban on VB.

Look, I’ve got zero issue with anyone getting banned—rules are rules—but I just want to point out that VB didn't lose her perm status solely because of what you're claiming. Or, at least, not *exclusively*. The admins haven't gone on record anywhere stating that was their specific motivation for pulling her perm.😉

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't really anything more than being permabanned from a specific PDF, so you might as well realize the rules are exactly the same for both.

That’s exactly what I was getting at in my previous post.

Austin Harris8 said:Here’s what I’m actually trying to get at: back in the day, did the rules for partials work the same way they did for Perm? Specifically, could you request to add or remove them on your own terms? Because from what I’m reading in this thread, it sounds like that rule changed, and now you don't have that same level of control over adding or dropping Perm whenever you feel like it.
So, let me get this straight—are we saying that perms and partials actually sat in the same tier when it comes to that specific rule? Logically speaking, there’s really no reason they shouldn't be in the same category. A ban is a ban; PERMA is just a broader, more expansive version of the exact same thing.

Based on that...

Austin Harris8 said:Since Velvet Black was granted the ban she actually asked for, I’m expecting the exact same courtesy to be extended to me regarding the ZK PDF, based on the following:

So, Velvet Black and I both ended up getting permabanned from ZK—though, to be fair, we actually requested it ourselves. She was banned just before they rolled out that new policy stating that permanent bans can't be issued or revoked upon request. Honestly, I can't even remember if my ban went through before or after that rule change was implemented, but regardless, there’s a solid argument to be made for overturning this:
Look, if I managed to secure this before they rolled out the new rule—basically putting me in the exact same boat as Velvet Black was—then I expect some level of fair play here. In the interest of decent, consistent moderation, I’d expect them to handle my situation just like they handled hers.
Look, if I got hit with a permanent ban right after they rolled out that new rule about not requesting or keeping permissions for yourself, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed. Honestly, it feels like a massive oversight on the part of the ZKa moderation team—though I’d like to believe it was just an honest mistake. Either way, the ban is unjust and needs to be wiped from the record immediately.

The difference between me and VB is pretty clear when you look at it this way: she’s dealing with a permanent ban, whereas I'm just facing a partial one. So, we’re right back to where we started on...

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't really anything more than being permabanned from a specific PDF. At the end of the day, you're playing by the exact same set of rules for both.

Given everything I’ve laid out above, the conclusion is pretty straightforward:

Austin Harris8 said:I expect fair moderation and for every single user on Reddit to be treated with respect, including myself in this instance. Based on the points I've made, I expect my permanent ban from ZK to be lifted.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I honestly feel like I need to get it off my chest. There’s a certain level of noise lately that I just can't stand, and frankly, it feels like we're missing the point entirely. We spend so much time circling the drain on these minor details that we completely overlook the actual core of the issue. It’s frustrating, really. You see people jumping to conclusions without even looking at the data, acting like their gut feeling is some kind of substitute for actual logic. It isn't. It’s one of those things where if you just took a second to step back and look at the big picture, everything would be obvious. But instead, we get caught up in these endless, circular debates that go absolutely nowhere. It’s exhausting to watch. We need to start holding ourselves to a higher standard of reasoning if we want to actually make any progress. Otherwise, we're just shouting into the void, and quite frankly, it's a waste of everyone's time. kaže:
Look, I’ve got nothing against you downloading whatever you want, but I have to jump in here. VB didn't lose her permanent status based solely on the reasons you're laying out. Or, at the very least, that wasn't the only factor involved. The admins haven't made any official statement claiming that was the specific reason they decided to strip her of her perm. 😉

Look, let’s be real here... if we start making special exceptions for everyone, we might as well just give in to every single person who asks. There's always going to be someone out there looking for a handout or a custom deal, and if we start playing that game, there's no end in sight. 😉

The rules regarding how bans are lifted need to be crystal clear. Right now, there’s a massive gray area in the guidelines—specifically when it comes to partial bans versus temporary ones. As it stands, the policy doesn't explicitly define what happens during a partial ban, which is exactly where my situation falls through the cracks. If we're being logical, a partial ban should essentially be treated as a permanent ban from a specific PDF. That’s just common sense, and frankly, that logic should apply to both of these scenarios.

Austin Harris8 said:Look, if I managed to secure this before the new rule was even drafted—meaning I’m essentially in the exact same boat that Velvet Black was in—then I expect the moderation team to play fair. In the spirit of being consistent and reasonable, the same logic applied to her should absolutely apply to me.
Look, if I got hit with a permanent ban right after they rolled out that new rule about not requesting or transferring permissions to yourself, then the whole thing is fundamentally flawed. We’re talking about a massive oversight on the part of the ZKa moderation team—which, hopefully, was just an honest mistake rather than intentional—but either way, it's a mess. Because of that lapse, this permaban needs to be wiped from the record immediately. No questions asked.

There’s actually a solid basis here for pulling a partial.

Based on everything I’ve laid out here, I expect a partial ban on ZK. After all the arguments I've presented, anything less than that would call the entire moderation team's competence into question—and I don't just mean on ZK, but across all of Reddit as well.

Look, I honestly couldn't care less if the rules are vague or poorly defined. That’s just noise to me. Anthony Jackson2, thanks for the heads-up. 😁 You actually ended up doing me a massive favor without even realizing it. 😉 The weight of this whole thing comes from the fact that you didn't write this as just another user on Reddit—you wrote it from the perspective of a moderator.

Twisting my words just to suit your narrative isn't exactly winning you any points—it's just deflection. You’re still ignoring the fact that while the Reddit admins call the shots on site-wide bans, the moderators handle the specific subreddits. Since the admins had the power to deny a VB ban, those subreddit mods have just as much leverage to deny yours.

Let’s not play games here. I didn't twist your words, and anyone with an IQ 100 or higher can see exactly what my point was. It’s pure logic.

Sure, the mods have the power to deny my partial ban appeal, but they also have the option to approve it. And why would they approve it? Well, modesty aside, I consider myself a high-quality contributor to this Reddit community, and I bring real substance to the discussions I join. I even contributed to those threads over on r/pics (though I'm not sure how one "contributes" to a thread dedicated to photos of women, other than by trying to post as many pictures as possible 🤣). Contributing to the discourse was actually one of my arguments in favor of VB. As for her, I don't see any other strong argument for lifting her permanent ban—not that I wasn't also in favor of lifting it back then; you can find my old post on the subject
.
The fact remains that the logical arguments I've laid out here serve as additional weight in favor of lifting my partial ban.