Domen vs ori

Moderator Action: This thread has had two edits. The first edit was the removal of all PM's sent by Domen and this was done at his request. The second edit was the addition of the internal infraction log data to allow you to see the original post and the reason it was infracted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Domen would like to appeal his last infraction leading to his permanent ban due to accumulation of non-expiring points as per his placement on the permanent points program.

The infraction is below:

Spoiler :

Our Communication to date is posted below in chronological order.

Could someone else take this from here on, please - as I am involved and won't participate in this review any further.

 

Moderator Action: This post contained the Private Message exchange between Domen and ori. Domen requested that his PM's not be published, so I have redacted the PM's.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

There is no review on foot until he follows the steps described in the rules. It is his responsibility to contact a supermoderator with a review request, which he hasn't done. We cannot conduct a review if there has been no valid review request. It is important that this process is followed in a published review, so as to not raise any expectation that the outlined process can be subverted.

 

So...I take it that we're waiting for that before we discuss it any further?

 

He asked Ori (a supermod) to appeal, didn't he? I skimmed the massive wall of PM's, am I missing something?

I'd vote to uphold, this is a pretty crystal clear infraction as he was warned about this numerous times, and he has a record a mile long of doing this stuff.

 

If we are voting, then mine is to uphold; the post was spam after all and Domen has had numerous warnings. I'm sure he knew what he was doing but probably felt we wouldn't do what we've done - well, tough - we did infract and permaban him.

 

Vote to uphold.

Please see this thread Bootstoots compiled in the recycle bin of Domen's recent posting of spam. Any one of these could have been infracted but it seems we held back because we were reluctant to permaban him.

 

Admittedly, the rules don't explicitly set out that you shouldn't make the review request to the supermod who has issued the infraction. But as "the supermod you contact will preside over the review", it's implicit in the rules that this should not be the infracting supermod. So the process isn't that the poster can just declare their request for a review as part of their "genuine attempt to resolve their concerns" and make the infracting supermod do the rest. They're actually meant to present the issue to another supermod - to make a case of sorts beyond their PM discussion with the infracting supermod.

Beyond just creating more work for the infracting supermod, the course Domen has chosen prevents the review process from being properly 'presided' over. It's procedurally problematic to have the review initially framed by the infracting supermod, and then to not have a supermod designated as presiding. Step 4 is pretty much avoided, too.

 

I note that this is not an RD thread, and I note that He has had multiple specific warning on genetics spam. How do these two interplay?

 

In my opinion the multiple explicit warnings override the usual freewheeling leeway we give non RD threads.

Cami I think you're right, the infractee should ask another supermod other than the infractor, but since that is not totally clear in the rules, I think we should lean on the side of just getting the appeal started and not get too hung up on the technicalities.

 

Fair enough, so long as a take-away message for any readers is to please follow the procedure set out in the rules.

I agree that user-specific instructions trump the regular non-RD rules. When Domen was told to not spam this sort of thing, it was clear that the instruction didn't simply apply to RD threads. So this seems to be pretty clear spam, and an infraction of 2 points is therefore justified (the higher number of points simply being to properly give effect to the consequence of the infraction).

Of particular relevance is this warning (for this post), which was in a non-RD thread.

Though it should probably be noted that there was later on this warning (for this post), in which the wording was a little more ambiguous. But not ambiguous enough that he should've been under any misapprehension as to the allowance for making the post the subject of the infraction now under review.

In this infraction (predating his place on the permanent points program, for this post), it was specifically noted that the user-specific rule in relation to Poland applied to non-RD threads; there's no reason to think that spam on other topics would be fine in those threads.

 

Just received a PM from Domen and my answer:

Spoiler :

Moderator Action: PM's redacted as requested by Domen.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

Seems it is unanimous to uphold, save Lefty's question.

Other comments please.

 

I am satisfied, that he had direction on the issue.


Vote Uphold

 

Perhaps appropo of nothing but is he spamming Leif via PM with irrelevant stuff in the same PM that he is appealing a very similar infraction? Or were you guys recently discussing Attila the Hun?

 

We were not discussing it. I think he was trying to be helpful.

 

I was thinking the same thing as illram - where did the Attila the Hun stuff come from? Spamming whilst appealing a ban due to spamming!

 

It is from this thread.

 

Sent this to Domen: