Partial ban

A partial ban for "unpleasant discourse"? That’s what the explanation says.

I picked up three or four direct bans for insults on a subforum within a pretty short window (I haven't dug through my records to check the exact count yet). Honestly, I’m not even complaining about that part—I’ve already corrected my behavior. But I can't just let this slide, and there are two reasons why: 1) that vague "unpleasant discourse" phrasing, and 2) the fact that it was explicitly stated in a private message that I shouldn't even bother trying to appeal for the next six months. So, am I being stripped of my right to appeal before I even try?😕

What does this actually mean, and what kind of massive offense did I commit to get hit with a double penalty immediately? I don't know if anyone else on any other forum has dealt with something like this where they were told not to complain because their partial ban wouldn't be lifted anyway.

If you look at the thread itself, you can see exactly what happened. The person who triggered my partial ban called the thread starter "creepy." I shot back that she was the pathetic one, then she mocked me, and finally, I gave her a reality check.

(I can't link the thread directly via PDF, but it's titled "How to meet someone when you don't have friends or something like that.")

So, who actually started it? Who was being rude? Who decided to unprovokedly vent their venom on a thread starter who was just looking for advice rather than getting attacked by everyone in the room? Who ended up getting punished here, and who got off scot-free?

Look, we all know how it works: you have former moderators, you have certain cliques, and then you have people like me who aren't allowed to defend themselves against rudeness, belittling, or outright insults. It seems the easiest way to "resolve" a conflict is to just slap a partial ban on someone like me while the other side walks away without any consequences. Is that fair? Is that balanced moderation?
Of course, I'm sure it isn't.

So, I’m asking for this case to be reviewed and for this stupid partial ban to be removed, because there is simply no basis for it. (And hey, if you need to give me a warning for trolling or another ban instead, go ahead.)

I should also mention that I received this partial ban because someone reported me. Now, someone might argue that I should have just reported them instead of arguing. If it's my mistake for thinking I didn't need to call for the authorities over every little thing, fine—but that still doesn't justify a partial ban.

Raymond Ross33 said:Just to be clear, I only got my ban partially lifted because I reported it. Now, someone’s bound to argue that if I was going to report things, I should have just done that instead of arguing—and fine, if it’s my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to call my dad to fix every little thing, then so be it. But honestly, that doesn't justify why the ban wasn't fully removed.

The reason you didn't get a full reinstatement isn't about that one single report; it’s because of the long-standing, absolutely toxic discourse happening here. We're talking about calling women "anchors," "trash," "fat," or "losers" just because they have experience, and suggesting they should go find some guy to settle down with—all that kind of nonsense.

I already told you, you aren't going to be asking to have this partial ban wiped away in six months, because you won't get my vote to lift it, and the mods need to reach a consensus to make any changes.

There's no reason to revisit the decision on the partial ban; the mods are all on the same page.

Raymond Ross33 said:What exactly does this imply? What could my offense possibly be of such magnitude that I was met with an immediate double penalty? I am unaware if anyone else on any other sub-forum has experienced something similar. If someone were to write it out like this, they shouldn't complain when their partial ban isn't rescinded.

Just a technical observation here: a partial ban (much like a permanent one) is permanent. You haven't actually received a "double" penalty, as a permanent status cannot be intensified. While forum tradition allows for a request for clemency after six months, that doesn't mean the intended duration is specifically six months. That custom exists simply so users under a partial or permanent ban don't spend every few days begging for an unban. Therefore, once those six months have passed, a user may attempt to convince the moderators that their circumstances or behavior have changed—changes which might ensure that, should the ban be lifted, the original reasons for the disciplinary action won't resurface.

Matthew Anderson said:You didn't lose your membership because of one single comment. It was the constant, toxic sludge you kept spewing. You spent all that time calling women anchors, losers, trash, and fat—basically just insulting them for having any life experience at all, or telling them they need to go find some "extreme" ways to get laid. That kind of discourse is exactly why you're out.

Look, I already told you—there’s no point in you asking to have that partial ban lifted in six months. You aren't getting my vote on that, either. If we're going to make any changes regarding how these bans work, the mods actually need to get on the same page and reach a consensus first.

No need for any partial revisions here—everything lines up perfectly.

Wow, thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I definitely wasn't expecting such a fast response. 🤷

Do you think the mods actually agree that I got a partial ban? Let’s be real here—the mods don't actually care about this stuff. They aren't out there investigating the details; they're just going to side with whatever you tell them. If you frame the situation a certain way, they’ll just nod along and validate whatever you say, including my partial ban.
You really went overboard with that claim about how I "label women." That’s just not true. I don't go around calling every woman I meet names like that—I only ever used those terms for specific women I was actually clashing with.

On top of that, I received my partial payment completely out of the blue. There was zero notice and absolutely no heads-up beforehand. As we’ve all seen from those other PDF reports, giving a warning is standard practice—it's basically an unwritten rule in this industry. I'm strictly talking about the partial payment here, though.

There wasn't even a single heads-up or a warning.
They told me straight away that I could forget about clearing the balance in six months—or honestly, ever.

I have a question for the administration here—and I’m talking to the higher-ups, not the mods. Everyone seems to be on the same page except for one specific moderator who targets me exclusively with bans and warnings. Is this actually fair? Is this how things are supposed to work? Out of the four moderators we have, I am the only one getting hit by this one individual. It makes you wonder if there's some sort of bias going on. To make matters worse, he barely even shows up on the staff list, and since he works over at a local tech firm, he basically just swings an axe whenever he feels like it. I actually tried to have a civilized conversation with him about it, but he completely shut me down. He literally told me to my face that he only moderates based on user reports because he "doesn't have the time" to read through all the nonsense and garbage people post on here. So, what's the verdict? Am I being singled out for no reason?
Look, without getting bogged down in all the backstories, I want to clarify something. Every time I use a harsh epithet—like calling someone a goat or fat—I’m not just talking trash; I’m basically inviting an immediate ban or at least a partial one. But apparently, if someone engages in "subtle" trolling, or even that creepy, unsettling stuff, they get a pass. Even when people straight-up call me a misogynist, it seems like they don't face any real consequences. Is that actually considered an insult, or is it just dismissed as "bad discourse"? If I try to defend myself, I just end up right back where I started. But if I don't report it—and honestly, I don't want to create extra work for the mod team over every little thing because I'd rather just handle it myself—then I'm the one who ends up suffering for it.

William Bennett53 said:Just a quick technical heads-up on this: whether it’s a partial or permanent ban, it’s considered a single, lasting action. You aren't getting "double punished" because you can't escalate a permanent status. I know there's a common understanding here that you can ask for an appeal after six months, but don't mistake that for the ban actually expiring at that mark. That rule exists mainly so people with partial or permanent bans don't blow up our inbox every couple of days asking to be unbanned. The idea is that once those six months have passed, you can reach out and try to show the moderators that things have changed—maybe your behavior has shifted or your circumstances are different. The goal is to prove that if we do decide to lift the ban, the issues that caused the initial trouble won't just pop up all over again.

Look, please don't lecture me on the technicalities because they have absolutely nothing to do with my situation. What matters to me is how these sanctions actually play out in the real world. We all know how it works—rules aren't applied consistently. It’s common knowledge just how "disastrous" a conversation has to be to trigger a partial ban like the one this little lady handed down to me (and I say that with all due respect, though apparently, I’m the only one who gets labeled with "disastrous discourse" just because I'm talking to women).

I get it—when things go south, it’s much easier for the administration to just side with the moderators. It’s the path of least resistance. It’s easier to deal with one grumpy user than to lose a moderator, especially since these people are volunteers giving up their free time (so everyone just jumps on the bandwagon without even knowing what they're agreeing to). But still, I am asking the admin team to take a much closer look at my history, review my warnings and strikes, and reconsider this partial ban. Honestly, if you have to offend the lazy person who isn't even reading the threads but just moderating based on reports to get this ban overturned, then fine—let them resign.

Please, try to remember why you stepped up to manage this forum in the first place. You did it to ensure fairness and to resolve conflicts in a way that makes the community and its content better. The goal should be helping users navigate trouble and keeping them around, not just taking the easy way out by banning them. Let’s be real here: this sanction has effectively kicked me out of the community.
Did I really deserve this, or is this just a coordinated effort where a handful of users and current mods decided to "liquidate" me because, let's face it, they can't handle me verbally? If that's the case, is that really my fault? 😕

So, I’m calling on you one more time: look at this objectively and judge for yourselves whether I truly need to be removed from this forum. If you decide I have to go, then just permaban me and let's be done with it. Because if I'm not welcome here, then frankly, neither are you. Thanks for understanding.

I just happened to stumble upon this, and man, it really highlights the double standards here. It’s crazy to see how I get treated compared to everyone else.

Basically, they're being blatantly insulting while simultaneously admitting the whole post was just meant to troll and stir up drama. For a moderator, that should be an automatic 45-point deduction and a warning for harassment.

If I had posted something like that—which I never have, especially not to people I don't even know—I wouldn't just be getting points docked. I’d be looking at an immediate ban, or at least a hundred or two point penalty.😉

Look, if you want to join the conversation, please drop the insults. We aren't interested in that kind of behavior here.

The point is...