The Rayaan / Jacob(smooth) Situation

[Waratah]

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.

Let me clear up your confusion, as I am the mod who moderated two of his posts and who banned him.

His first post was pushing a book, and contained a link to where the book could be purchased. This *can be enough to justify a ban*.

His third post was a duplicate of the first, clearly a second violation of our spam/advertising policy, and *this alone* is enough to get someone instabanned (two identical violations of the same rule in 3 posts).

The outside posts only confirmed what we already knew, and in any case a ban was justified with or without it.

Thanks for clearing some of that up.

Would you agree that the third post was the first spam violation since it was the first duplication?

So the user was banned due to the second advertisement?

Would you agree that there was no need to investigate the users outside activities since the users outside activities were irrelevant?

[Jackalope]

Let me clear up your confusion, as I am the mod who moderated two of his posts and who banned him.

His first post was pushing a book, and contained a link to where the book could be purchased. This *can be enough to justify a ban*.

His third post was a duplicate of the first, clearly a second violation of our spam/advertising policy, and *this alone* is enough to get someone instabanned (two identical violations of the same rule in 3 posts).

The outside posts only confirmed what we already knew, and in any case a ban was justified with or without it.

Thanks for clearing some of that up.

Would you agree that the third post was the first spam violation since it was the first duplication?

So the user was banned due to the second advertisement?

Would you agree that there was no need to investigate the users outside activities since the users outside activities were irrelevant?

No, the first was a clear violation - and is often enough to justify a ban. It depends on the circumstances. If it was a clear hit-and-run post, it would have been. The second made it instaban-worthy.

I would agree that it is rarely necessary or relavent to investigate outside activity. In a case where a member reports that they've seen an apparent copy-pasta elsewhere, yes we're going to at least look into it, if only to add additional confirmation to what we already have learned.

[Waratah]

Thanks for clearing some of that up.

Would you agree that the third post was the first spam violation since it was the first duplication?

So the user was banned due to the second advertisement?

Would you agree that there was no need to investigate the users outside activities since the users outside activities were irrelevant?

No, the first was a clear violation - and is often enough to justify a ban. It depends on the circumstances. If it was a clear hit-and-run post, it would have been. The second made it instaban-worthy.

I would agree that it is rarely necessary or relavent to investigate outside activity. In a case where a member reports that they've seen an apparent copy-pasta elsewhere, yes we're going to at least look into it, if only to add additional confirmation to what we already have learned.

Why was the first post a clear violation of the spamming rule?

[Jackalope]

No, the first was a clear violation - and is often enough to justify a ban. It depends on the circumstances. If it was a clear hit-and-run post, it would have been. The second made it instaban-worthy.

I would agree that it is rarely necessary or relavent to investigate outside activity. In a case where a member reports that they've seen an apparent copy-pasta elsewhere, yes we're going to at least look into it, if only to add additional confirmation to what we already have learned.

Why was the first post a clear violation of the spamming rule?

Because it contained, in addition to the text of the post, a link to where the product described could be purchased. In *most* cases, we instaban people who do this on first post.

[Minimalist]

we instaban people who do this on first post.

Is that by just adding water?

[Jackalope]

we instaban people who do this on first post.

Is that by just adding water?

No, by adding banhammer.

[Waratah]

Why was the first post a clear violation of the spamming rule?

Because it contained, in addition to the text of the post, a link to where the product described could be purchased. In *most* cases, we instaban people who do this on first post.

Fair enough. I would have call it a violation of the "no advertising" rule due to the fact that the text and advertisement was relevant to the forum(I know, just difference of opinion), therefore not a blatant attempt to advertisement.

I totally agree with the banning for the internal reasons. I also understand that the investigation occurred due to a members report. It's just that to me outside activities should not matter because the rules do not cover outside activities.

[LastPoet]

I totally agree with the banning for the internal reasons. I also understand that the investigation occurred due to a members report. It's just that to me outside activities should not matter because the rules do not cover outside activities.

The rule of thumb is, when a mod/admin is in doubt, he/she will post a report on the matter and gather whatever evidence they have to support a decision. We usually start lightly with a verbal warning by PM. Then we discuss the stuff.

Outside activities can count when you check that username is known for posting one liners with links to an "atheist carpet cleaning company". Google is your friend. But only after discussing it with your peers.