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. This is an appeal of an infraction (see this internal infraction thread) given to Domen by Bootstoots of four permanent points (PPs), for abuse of the PM system (or 'abusive PMs'). At the time of the infraction Domen was serving a two week ban, having breached the 15PP threshold. This infraction resulted in Domen breaching the 21PP threshold, thereby triggering a permanent ban. Importantly, this appeal deals solely with whether the infraction was justified - Domen was well aware that as per policy for those on the permanent point program, every infraction received would be permanent points, and upon reaching 21PPs, he would be permanently banned. The permanent ban is for the accumulation of permanent points, the application of which is itself the result of an accumulation of long-standing rule-breaking behaviour, and not for this incident itself. A line was clearly drawn for him, and he happened to cross it with this infraction. The infraction PM and correspondence are as follows: Spoiler : <PMs redacted> So there were two PMs, one to Future PM and one to a number of other users. The first PM to Future PM was: The second PM sent to a number of other users was: We were made aware of these PMs via the report system, so we can be sure of their contents (and Domen does not contest this). As these were two separate PMs, they were regarded by Bootstoots as two separate incidents, thereby justifying the application of more than the standard 3PPs - in this case 4PPs, chosen presumably because it triggered the 21PP threshold, any additional points being superfluous. Bootstoots followed the correct procedure in issuing permanent points, soliciting multiple other opinions in the report thread before applying the infraction. Domen seems to partially accept that the PM to Future PM was deserving of an infraction, but appears to want some leniency because he thought deleting it from his outbox would prevent Future PM from reading it. But he thinks that the other PM is not worth an infraction, and in any case forms part of the same 'incident', and so he should not receive more than the standard 3PPs. So I guess the essential issues are: Whether each of the PMs are worth an infraction. Whether each of the PMs should be regarded as a separate 'incident' (or whether they are part of the same 'incident' of abusing the PM system). I've asked Domen whether he has any more correspondence to add, and Bootstoots whether he has any more reasoning to submit for consideration.