The Rayaan / Jacob(smooth) Situation

[Waratah]

So you would agree thatthe "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption?

Not asumptions, but based on our investigations. We can never take action against members based merely on assumptions.

Your investigations results in assumptions due to the fact you do not control other websites. The information you use is accessible publicly, therefore however unlikely it is, it is possible that someone else created some of those users. Your reply is confusing because your second sentence suggests that there is assumptions used to take action. Since internally I would assume there are no assumptions, that would mean externally there are assumptions. I will ask again, Do you agree that the "your information ..." external part is based on an assumption that it is their external information? The bolded bit is new to the question to make clear the assumption I am talking about.

That 'rule' is a guideline and has nothing to do with 'spamming', which is what was being discussed.

Yes, that's a guideline, but it is also related to the no spamming rule (rule # 2) because when a member goes around copy-and-pasting things on this board at an excessive rate, then he is clearly not making an attempt at discussion, which then falls under spamming. Read what the "No Spamming" rule says (emphasis mine):

No Spamming
"This not only refers to blatant attempts to advertise but to any post that is not an attempt at discussion."

I call bullshit.

1st Post: Opening post to a thread. No one can add to a discussion from a first post.

2nd Post: Reply to Tiberius. Added to discussion. I know he did copy/paste in part with this post, but it was relevant and included a link to the copy/paste.

3rd post: Another opening post to a thread.

Where did I use the word only. I posted this:

"I have never known anyone being banned for trolling, spamming or flaming outside the forums, always from within."

My communication here may be missing something ,but the above to me is talking about being banned from activities outside the forum.

and your reply first off is:

"I have. I provided one situation below where we have done this."

Here to me you are saying you have seen where someone was banned for outside activities, hence my confusion.

Well, now I understand the reason for your confusion. But again, the point is that no one gets banned from here simply based on their off-site activities.

The guy was banned based on his outside activities and inside activities, not just because of what he did outside the forum.

Let me state quite clearly that I have never suggested that anyone gets banned based only on outside activities.

As far as I am aware the person posted three times. First one was the one with the large amount of text. Second one was a reply to Tiberius and the third post was the redacted one for this reason "You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules.You posted this test verbatim yesterday. Stop spamming. In addition, this post (as well as the other) contained a commercial link in violation of the rules."

Where was the multiple posts of large text that I have missed?

He made only 3 posts apparently, which I overlooked before when I said that he copy and pasted "multiple" times. Two of them were copy-pasted, and the third post was a reply with some copy-paste in it as well.

However, the thing is that whether or not 3 posts makes a sufficient number of posts to take an action, he still qualified as a spammer according to staff consensus because he plastered the same thing in several other forums without showing an interesting in discussion. In other words, the majority of staff members at that time agreed that he is more of a spammer as opposed to someone who came here for having discussions. And that was the reason for his banning. (I hope I've made it clearer now).

Could you please show where in the spamming rules it talks about copy/pasting in other forums?

User did add to discussion with his second post.

The activity on other forums is based on an assumption that it is their posts.

He was banned 38 minutes after his 3rd and last post as far as I know.

That seems correct.

So do I understand this correctly is that according to you he was banned for breaking a guideline and posting 3 times?

No, not exactly.

He was banned for breaking a rule (Rule # 2: No spamming), but not for posting 3 times.

This scenario actually highlights my issue with the use of outside activities influencing decisions.

Would you agree that the user would not have been banned based on internal activities only?

Would you agree that a users outside activities can not break rules of this forum, especially since we cannot say for sure if it is the users outside activities, it can only be assumed?