1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

bhavv v Bootstoots

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by Camikaze, Jul 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,834
    Location:
    Sydney
    Moderator Action: This appeal thread is in its original form, save for the removal of PM correspondence due to the lack of the poster's consent.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    bhavv has requested a review of a 3 point infraction received on 21 June for this post. The infraction PM is as follows:
    <removed>

    The entire PM correspondence with Bootstoots following the infraction is as follows:
    <removed>

    He never replied to Bootstoots. Presumably he's not contesting the two day ban, which has now expired, but simply the number of infraction points (though these points have also expired and did not contribute to his current ban - he won't be unbanned if successful here). A 'genuine attempt' to resolve concerns is a precondition of a review, and I've told him this, because he also wanted to appeal his infraction by leif, before he'd bothered discussing it with leif. In this case he at least sent one PM, and Bootstoots is happy for the review to go ahead, so I haven't rejected the review out of hand.

    bhavv adds the following in the review request and a subsequent PM:
    <removed>
    <removed>

    On the page of the thread before the infraction, Bootstoots gave this warning. So two things that are irrelevant are 1) whether the post would normally be in breach of the non-RD thread OT rules, and 2) whether the mod text was necessary in the first place (as the mod text is binding regardless of its necessity).

    The question then is whether in the context of the mod text warning, this post is worth 3 points.
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,834
    Location:
    Sydney
    Bootstoots has provided further reasoning:
    I would subscribe to that view and uphold the infraction.
     
  3. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,533
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    Particularly with the further reasoning in mind, I uphold the infraction.
     
  4. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    23,670
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
  5. Petek

    Petek Alpha Centaurian Administrator Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,385
    Location:
    Berkeley, Calif., USA
    Also vote to uphold.
     
  6. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,285
    Location:
    Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
  7. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Also vote to uphold.
     
  8. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,834
    Location:
    Sydney
    I have sent bhavv the following PM:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page