I wasn't on Bluemoon on Saturday and didn't ban you personally, but, if I were to guess, I'd say you were given your 24 hour temporary ban for the following post:-
I thought it might have been, but how does a joke like that warrant a ban? Sincerely?
The other week I saw a regular make a joke about Madeleine McCann likely having been long raped, strangled and buried in Portugal.
He wasn't banned. And I wouldn't advocate for him to be either by the way, he's a good poster and a funny bloke.
But where's the consistency? Why do I cop a ban for a post someone else wouldn't?
The "but he said something bad too" defence is never a good one.
Personally I thought your "joke" was in piss poor taste, and reflected badly on City fans in general. We have a general rule regarding the use of Munich on here and, whilst you weren't using it as a derogatory term for United fans, you were using it in a disparaging manner.
As for why you "cop a ban" when someone else wouldn't, firstly it's impossible to accurately claim that as each person's post is different. Secondly, I'd suggest, if you are treated a touch more harshly than others then possible it's due to history. Saturday's 24 hour ban was on the back of 4 previous warnings in the last 4 to 5 months, for various different offences. If you post stuff, on a regular basis, that is problematic then you don't build up any goodwill and therefore when you are deemed to have overstepped the mark you're more likely to be "dealt with" from a moderating perspective.
That's not my defence mate, I'm simply asking where is the consistency?
How am I supposed to know what is and isn't fit for the forum if there isn't consistency as to what is deemed unacceptable?
And that's precisely my point, I know my joke was in bad taste. But then a lot of jokes are, and where does this line about taste lie and a ban worthy offence lie? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. That's why I gave the example of the McCann joke, if you think my joke was in poor taste, then how would you describe that?
Fairly sure I'd have been banned for posting it for example.
Re the previous warnings, I've checked my pms and unless you're including last night's ban then there were 3 warnings. One was for a potentially libellous short but amusing tale about a footballer, one was for "derailing a thread with personal arguments", and another was for telling a poster who was deliberately baiting me to "fuck off" (which I got a week's ban for due to a topping up process).
I accepted them all in good grace, but there's a prime example of the latter two aimed against me in this very thread, with no such action.
That's the inconsistency. You not think that's worth highlighting?
I'm perfectly happy to take my punishments, but aren't such punishments supposed to be universal with us all being judged by the same rule book and to the same standards?
Again the argument of "where's the consistency" is one only used by someone who has posted something inappropriate in the first place. Those with no warnings don't seem to be overly concerned with consistency when it comes to warnings, in fact consistency, or a lack thereof, wouldn't be an issue if people didn't post things that they shouldn't.
You know what is and isn't fit for the forum by reading the Code of Conduct and using your own judgement. The idea isn't supposed to be that you push the boundaries until such time as you fall foul of the rules. Consistency is a myth, as I said, every single post is unique so it's impossible to be truly consistent, and each moderator, whilst using the Code Of Conduct as a guideline, also needs to use their own judgement, we are individuals not machines and will therefore differ in our moderating.
There are 4 warnings, excluding the 24 hour ban, 10th July for a libellous post, 16th July for derailing a thread with personal arguments, 30th July for derailing a thread with personal arguments, and 8th October for abusing another member.
It seems that BM is proving an increasingly attractive playground to elements from the wilder shores of the Internet.And it wasn't just that post either. There were a number of different reports from people complaining about posts of yours and another mod decided it was in everyone's best interests if you had a 24 hour ban while we sorted things out. If they hadn't done it, one or other us would have. I gather you've had a pm conversation with one of the mods and he's OK with it - for the moment. So can I respectfully suggest that you give it a rest, stop trying to be so self-righteous and just think about the impact your relentless negativity and passive-aggression has on others.
We're a reasonably tolerant bunch in the Mod Forum but we have our limits and you're in severe danger of pushing those.
The "but he said something bad too" defence is never a good one.
Personally I thought your "joke" was in piss poor taste, and reflected badly on City fans in general. We have a general rule regarding the use of Munich on here and, whilst you weren't using it as a derogatory term for United fans, you were using it in a disparaging manner.
As for why you "cop a ban" when someone else wouldn't, firstly it's impossible to accurately claim that as each person's post is different. Secondly, I'd suggest, if you are treated a touch more harshly than others then possible it's due to history. Saturday's 24 hour ban was on the back of 4 previous warnings in the last 4 to 5 months, for various different offences. If you post stuff, on a regular basis, that is problematic then you don't build up any goodwill and therefore when you are deemed to have overstepped the mark you're more likely to be "dealt with" from a moderating perspective.