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

And you could probably come up with plenty of reasons why you shouldn't take it off

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...5&postcount=11

But honestly—you haven't even hit the six-month mark yet—so there's almost zero chance they'll pull that partial, just like they didn't with your last appeal.

And honestly, you shouldn't just be giving a reason to yourself—you need to give the UN mods a legitimate reason why this stuff should be taken down too.

😉

When I actually stop to look at it, over the last month or two, there’s been a constant stream of complaints about the NAACP moderation. It’s happening way more frequently there than in any other threads. Hmm... that says something, doesn't it? 🤷

P.S. Boss, you really ought to be given a moderator role over at the NAACP, considering how much you stick up for them. You're all over this thread and that other one started by kiss me. You're quick on your feet, I'll give you that. 😂

there’s a thread on Reddit full of posts targeting you 🤷

not that it really matters—at the end of the day, the mods hold all the cards anyway.

appealing to the UN isn't your problem, so it's just stupid to try and pin those complaints on you using some nasty language.

And honestly, none of this counts until those six months are up—and even then, you'll still need the mods to give you the green light to get removed.

Austin Harris8 said:—which, if we’re being honest—was actually one of the main arguments used to support Black Velvet.

The crux of the matter, however, is that the value Black Velvet brought to these debates was validated by a significant number of people on Reddit—not just by the group itself. 🤣

By taking this approach to the debate, you’re actually making a logical, grounded case for getting that Partial ban lifted early,
which would naturally happen anyway once the scheduled six months are up. But honestly, why even bother waiting?

Nica said:You’re totally within your rights to ask for the Partial ban to be dropped before the six months are out, though at the end of the day, the moderators can either take your suggestion or just say no.

Anthony Jackson2 said:It’s not even about whether any of this matters in the grand scheme of things, because at the end of the day, the mods are the ones calling all the shots anyway.

Sure, they make the call, but that doesn't mean they can actually challenge their own moderation decisions—especially after that post I linked.

graniteridge6 said:Look, the bottom line is this: the real value added to the Black Velvet discussions didn't come from the platform itself, but from the massive turnout of contributors on Reddit. It was the people, not the site, that made it happen. 🤣

They’ve got me backed up against the wall here, and I am fighting back with absolutely everything I’ve got. 🤣 It’s not like I’m refusing to pull my weight when it comes to the fund. 🙂

loneraven25 said:By approaching the debate this way, you’re actually helping make the case for lifting that Partial ban through logic and common sense.
Look, you don't need to worry about what comes after the initial six months. Those subsequent phases aren't even worth your headspace right now. Just let them be.

Austin Harris8 said:Sure, they get to make the final call, but that doesn't mean they have any obligation to actually look back at their own moderation choices—especially after the point I made in that post I linked.

The same goes for Nica. If she actually has the stomach to go back and read through those few threads on the UN where I ended up in some heated debates, she’ll see the pattern. It’s always the same small circle of women constantly clashing. And honestly, if you look closely, there are maybe two posts from any given person that actually carry weight. 🤣 The "other side" is getting totally dismissed, while my kid—who was doing basically the exact same work we were—is being treated like a complete amateur. It’s ridiculous. Even this one bystander, someone who wasn't even part of those specific debates and was just quietly observing everything from the sidelines, noticed the discrepancy. And she's smart enough to see exactly what's happening here.

I’ll say it again: the same logic applies to Nica, too. There’s a chance she might actually change her mind once she digs into those controversial threads. Then again, maybe they're just shouting into the void. 🤷

Austin Harris8 said:...or maybe they’re just lost in the woods. 🤷

There is no "maybe." You were already on the path toward your Partial,
which was officially assigned to you back on May 8, 2013, at 09:24 following your own personal request,
yet somehow, you find yourself right here, opening a thread to ask questions about that very same Partial at 23:37 on that exact same day. 🤔

After the admin tells you that everything will be reviewed in six months,
here you are again, stubbornly trying to lecture us all with your own little interpretation of the Rules. 😲

Look, we shouldn't be treating moderation like some kind of rigid dogma. If you want proof that things should be handled with more nuance, just look at the Black Velvet situation and why that ban was eventually lifted. I’m talking about the specific reasons—the ones involving subjective judgment—that aren't explicitly laid out in a rulebook.

When you consider my entire history here on Reddit, specifically the final paragraph of this post View on reddit, the fact that our community guidelines don't explicitly state that a Partial suspension lasts for six months, and the overarching point that moderators shouldn't be acting like zealots...
Given all of that, I’m hoping my Partial suspension from the UN will be lifted.

loneraven25 said:There might not be. You were right on the verge of getting a Partial.
What was assigned to you on May 8th, 2013? 09:24 Upon personal request,
And you’re stuck dealing with that same old routine all over again today. 23:37 I’m starting a new thread here to get everyone's thoughts on Partial. What's the consensus? 🤔

Look, at the end of the day, it was about the principle of the thing. Honestly, just let it go now. Anyway,

loneraven25 said:Then the admin just drops this line on you, claiming they’re going to "take it under consideration" after six months. It's such a classic stalling tactic.
And here you go again, tripping over your own feet and trying to force your weird little interpretation of the Rules on everyone else. 😲

What kind of "rules" are we even talking about when there aren't any rules to begin with? It’s honestly wild how people try to impose structure on total chaos. 🤣

Give me the answers to this.

Austin Harris8 said:Where exactly does that fall under the Reddit rules? Clear and concise. Period. Can you actually request to have a partial removed on your own accord? And honestly, can you even ask for that?

Where exactly is that located in the subreddit rules? Clear and concise. Straight to the point. So, let me get this straight—to pull a Partial, you actually need to get the green light from every single moderator listed on that specific PDF? That sounds like a massive headache. And then there's the whole "what else do we need" argument.

Where exactly does that fall under the Reddit rules? Clear and concise. How long does a partial usually take to wrap up? First, I was told by the mods that this would take six months. Now, Anthony Jackson2 is telling me I need to get the "green light" from the moderation team, yet he won't say a single word about a timeline. It’s incredibly frustrating.😕

Where exactly are we supposed to find the rules for this on Reddit? Honestly, I feel like they’ve just completely vanished into thin air. 🤷

🤷

Since none of what was written actually follows the official Reddit rules, I’m left with no choice but to rely on pure logic. And logic dictates that a partial ban on a specific PDF is functionally the exact same thing. If we're treating them as identical, then we're back down to the two options I laid out earlier—and in both scenarios...

Austin Harris8 said:a) If I received this prior to the new rule change—meaning, if I’m effectively in the same boat as Black Velvet was—then in the interest of fair and consistent moderation, I expect the same treatment she received.
b) On the other hand, if this permanent ban was handed down after the new policy regarding requesting or removing one's own permissions went into effect, then this shouldn't have happened at all. It represents a massive oversight by the NAACP moderation team (which I assume was unintentional), and as such, the permanent ban needs to be wiped from the record immediately.

There is a legitimate basis here for lifting the Partial status. Especially under option B.

Look, I’ve said it before, but you’re really just making things harder on yourself here,
there's absolutely no need to derail the whole discussion by dragging someone else into this,
especially since you two aren't even coming from the same starting point.

Austin Harris8 said:Given everything we've discussed, I'm hoping my Partial status gets cleared by the UN.

All things considered, I really just hope the request goes through in full compliance with the Rules.

loneraven25 said:Look, there’s really no need to go around trolling the thread just to pick a fight with another user.
Because you two aren't even playing the same game.

If that’s how things stand...

Austin Harris8 said:If you base your entire understanding on what loneraven25 wrote, then the rule regarding partial bans and temporary suspensions is incredibly vague and poorly defined. In this specific sentence:
Look, let’s get one thing straight regarding partial bans and temporary suspensions requested by users: they carry the exact same weight as any disciplinary action handed down by the administration. There’s no loophole here. If you're under a ban, that means you're out. Attempting to bypass the restriction by posting from an alt account is strictly prohibited while the ban is active. Period.
It’s actually pretty straightforward: the rule is simply that you aren't allowed to post using clone accounts while a Partial is underway. That’s really all there is to it. 🤷

So, let me get this straight—are partial bans or temporary suspensions only covered in the rules by that one single, solitary sentence? Is there actually anything written in the guidelines regarding requesting to have a partial ban lifted, or even how long these things are supposed to last? 🤷

And especially when you get an answer like that from a moderator.

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial ban isn't actually any different from being permanently banned from a specific PDF; at the end of the day, you're playing by the exact same set of rules regardless.

Give me a break—how on earth can anyone claim we aren't on the exact same level?! 😕 🤷

Do you actually get the logic I’m operating under here? Like, do you truly grasp the reasoning that forces my hand, especially when the subreddit rules are so incredibly vague about things like partial bans or temporary suspensions?

Why on earth would anyone go out of their way to request a Partial? Is it truly so difficult to grasp the concept of simply choosing not to include certain information on a PDF document? 😕

jadesailor said:Why on earth would anyone go looking for a Partial on their own? Are you seriously being that dense? It’s not rocket science—just don't type directly onto the PDF. 😕

🤣

It's a long story... 😁

Austin Harris8 said:🤣

It is quite a lengthy saga to recount... 😁

I find myself uncertain as to whether one could even formulate a meaningful response to such a point, but I suppose so. 🤣

What purpose would the ability to post on the UN serve you anyway? 😂

Anthony Jackson2 said:Admins basically operate above the rules here; if they make a call, you’re pretty much stuck dealing with whatever they decide.

That kind of logic only holds up when the rulebook is actually solid. But when things are vague—like how the Partial rules or temporary bans are handled, where the official policy is barely more than a single sentence—you end up with massive amounts of room for an admin to just wing it based on their own mood. Honestly, having a huge amount of leeway for subjective judgment while the actual formal rules stay this thin isn't a good look, period.

loneraven25 said:Given everything I've laid out, I trust this request will be processed in full compliance with the Rules.

It’s truly heartwarming to see the moderator clique leaning so heavily on "official" forum rules. Honestly, you guys keep inadvertently siding with me without even realizing you're doing it.

When it comes to Partial bans and temporary suspensions, the forum rules address them in exactly one single sentence:
Partial bans and temporary suspensions issued upon request carry the same weight as those handed down by administration; specifically, posting via alt accounts during their duration is strictly prohibited.
Fine, everything will proceed according to the rules. I won't use alts while my partial is active. That is the only rule regarding partials and temporary bans that can be clearly derived from the text above. Just one single rule. 🤷

Since the forum rules don't actually specify anything concrete or clear regarding partials and temporary bans—aside from the fact that you can't use alts—we are left with nothing but arbitrary interpretations. It's quite interesting to see a moderator offering such a specific reading of the text.

Anthony Jackson2 said:A partial is essentially just a permaban applied to a specific PDF, so the rules apply identically to both.

Which is logically sound. Therefore, if that's the case, my situation and Black Velvet's situation should be viewed through the exact same lens. Which means:

Austin Harris8 said:a) If I received this partial before the new rule was implemented—meaning I am effectively in the same position Black Velvet was—I expect, in the spirit of fair moderation, to be treated exactly as she was.
b) If I received this partial after the implementation of the new rule regarding the refusal/removal of permissions—specifically a partial requested by the user—then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. This represents a massive oversight by the NAACP moderation team (which I assume was unintentional) and therefore needs to be unconditionally revoked.

There is a basis for removing the partial in both scenarios. 🤷 In option B, I could even go as far as demanding an apology from the NAACP moderation team.

I have dismantled your arguments here. Because the rules are so poorly defined, I simply followed logic (what else was there to 🤷?) and pointed out how vague the regulations are concerning partials and short-term bans. Instead of actually upgrading the rules so users know exactly where they stand—rather than being forced to rely on the arbitrary whims and subjective judgments of mods and admins—you decide to reward my reasoning by stripping my partial.😂, this is exactly how you people operate. 🙂 🤣

I can hold out for another four or five months—however long it takes until I can officially petition to have my Partial lifted—but honestly, I’m just glad the Reddit community gets to see this. Now everyone can see exactly how things actually work when it comes to Partials and bans and how the moderation is handled.
The "moderation" here is basically 90% arbitrary interpretations and subjective whims from the admin team, while only about 10% is actually written down in the rules. Where in the official rules does it state that you can request to have a Partial removed? Where does it say a Partial lasts for six months? How are users supposed to know that? 🤷 The only thing users can rely on in the rules is that during a Partial or a ban, using clone accounts is strictly prohibited. Everything else regarding Partials and bans is just subject to whatever random interpretation, individual logic, or gut feeling a specific moderator or admin decides to apply.

There is, technically, an unwritten rule that you can ask to lift a Partial after six months have passed, provided all the mods agree on it. But if you want to be taken seriously as a legitimate forum, you need to actually put that in the written rules. 🤷 Right now, it’s just some vague, unwritten guideline that carries zero weight. Especially considering how much you all love to hide behind "official policy" and the rulebook. 🤷

Austin Harris8 said:which is logically sound—if that's the case, then Black Velvet and my situation are basically identical. So, basically

You're dealing with two separate issues here

1. There’s nothing stating they won't grant Partials upon request—it just says permanent bans aren't being handed out. I was drawing a parallel between lifting a perm and granting a Partial, not about whether they'd be given at all. We're back to you twisting my words again.

2. You were issued a Partial after the new rule kicked in—meaning, just like any other user getting a Partial from a moderator, you're stuck waiting six months for it to be lifted.

Anthony Jackson2 said:you have to wait six months before they take it down.

To be more precise, you have to wait six months just to earn the right to file an appeal,
which, let’s be clear, absolutely does not guarantee that they’ll actually pull it down. 🤷

Anthony Jackson2 said:You’ve got two problems on your hands.

Look, there isn’t a single rule stating that Percival won't be granted upon request; the rules specifically say that permanent bans aren't to be handed out. I was drawing a parallel between lifting a permanent ban and granting Percival—I wasn't talking about the refusal to provide them. We keep circling back to people twisting my words, and frankly, it's getting old.

Truth be told, I’m right there with you on this one. If you actually look at that specific line in the rules—the part about how Percival and temporary bans can be issued upon request—it basically admits the door is open for people to ask for them directly. It’s written right there in plain English.

Anthony Jackson2 said:Look, you got hit with a Percival. Because that’s how the new rules work now, you’re in the same boat as anyone else who gets flagged by a moderator—you've got to sit tight and wait out the six-month period before that mark is cleared from your record.

It’s nowhere to be found in the rules—not clearly, and certainly not concisely—that I’m supposed to sit around and wait six months. Yet, everyone keeps hiding behind the subreddit rules like they're some kind of holy scripture, acting all dogmatic about them. 🤷

I’ve been looking over the recent discussions on Reddit, and honestly, some of the takes I'm seeing are just baffling. There's a certain level of noise lately that feels less like actual analysis and more like people just shouting into the void to hear their own voices. It’s getting a bit tiresome to wade through the nonsense just to find one scrap of common sense. You see it all the time—people making these massive, sweeping declarations without a shred of evidence to back them up. They act like they've cracked the code, but in reality, they're just grasping at straws. It’s frustrating because it drowns out the people who actually know what they’re talking about. If we want any kind of meaningful discourse, we have to demand better than this superficial, reactionary clutter. We need substance, not just loud opinions designed to trigger an emotional response. kaže:
To be more precise, you have exactly six months to file the appeal.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: just because you're taking something off doesn't mean you have to strip it down to the studs. It’s a common misconception, and honestly, it's a mistake people make way too often. You can pull back a layer without completely dismantling the entire foundation. There's a massive difference between a strategic adjustment and a total teardown, and if you can't see that distinction, you're going to end up making a mess of things. 🤷

It doesn’t say anything in the rules about having to file a formal petition just to get my Percival status removed. Honestly, it’s a complete joke—considering I requested the Percival status myself in the first place, making me jump through hoops to undo it is pure absurdity. 🤷 🤣
And don't you dare try to pull that "I was already on my way to getting Percival" argument out of your hat, claiming I would have secured it eventually anyway. That’s a total non-starter. The bottom line here is that I requested Percival on my own terms, not because some moderators forced my hand. In this context, that distinction is everything.

What really adds to the sheer absurdity of this whole situation is the fact that, for all practical purposes, everyone... 😕 The mods really need to step up and figure out how to scrap Percival once and for all. Honestly, the way things are currently set up just makes it unnecessarily difficult for anyone who actually managed to land one.

So, here’s how it works: you request a Percival on your own terms, but then you’re stuck waiting six months before you can even submit an appeal to get it lifted. And even then? You’re basically at the mercy of whether every single moderator decides to get on board with your request. It feels like a massive bureaucratic headache. I honestly wish I hadn't ended up with a Percival in the first place, especially since I didn't exactly break any rules to get it—I asked for it myself. 🤣