Inappropriate ban length

Sid_Justice

I was banned from the UL forum on 05/11/2011 by Bobblehead Panda and then erroneously site banned by Zaph on the 15/11/2011 which was later rescinded.

At the time I thought it was very harsh because firstly I didn't believe I was deserving of even a one day ban. Bobblehead Panda gave me the following reasons "Persistant Flaming/Backseat Modding" but couldn't provide any examples of either.

I didn't complain then because I didn't think I'd have a very substantial case because 'the mods word is gospel'. But on reflection and in light of recent proceedings I think it has become obvious, even to a neutral that:

Certain moderators seem to have taken a personal disliking to me and are out to get me.

Firstly I apologise for using such loaded phrasing and I acknowledge the paranoia it probably emits.

My case is simply as follows:

UL forum has a SU/establishment slant. Majority of posters and the moderators are pro-SU and pro-establishment.
Anti-SU anti-establishment posters like myself are by definition biased against because our genuine thoughts will appear as flaming.
Pro-SU/Establishment mod makes a ban because anti-su/anti-establishment poster makes too many post criticising SU/establishment.
Cmod (bubblehead) reviews but obviously comes to the erroneous conclusion anti-su/anti-establishment poster is contravening charter because the charter is biased towards protecting SU/establishment.
Admin (trout) is already biased because is seeing everything from the perspective of the mods and cmods who are already biased.
Admin (zaph) is aware of issue and is obviously getting things whispered in his ear,mentioned on mod forums and swoops in to take me out once and for all (site ban)
Admin (zaph) is categorically proven to be mistaken, his assumptions were all wrong and his actions were all wrong, apologises and unbans.

Because I had technical proof on my side I was able to show that Zaph was wrong about the site ban. Unfortunately, there isn't technical proof available to show that people in positions of power are biased.

So in summary:
I should never have been banned at any point.
Previous erroneous ban is grounds for further banning.
Further banning has no independent grounds and is inappropriate length.
Proof of mod/admin bias: erroneous site banning
Possible explanation: small group of anti-Sid Justice people are pressurising mods to silence and censor me and this pressure/bias is filtering up the food chain to the admin - case in point - my erroneous site ban by zaph.

What I want:
Unban from UL forum

smashey

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Proof of mod/admin bias: erroneous site banning

An erroneous banning is just that, an error, which has since been rectified.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Possible explanation: small group of anti-Sid Justice people are pressurising mods to silence and censor me and this pressure/bias is filtering up the food chain to the admin - case in point - my erroneous site ban by zaph.

There is no pressure being exerted on any mods, cmods or admins from any group. They (we) remain impartial.

I'll go through the events that led to your ban and post back here.

smashey

I'll get straight to the point here. Your ban is totally justified and will remain.

Trolling, abuse, back-seat modding and some serious unfounded allegations. It's a surprise to me you lasted as long as you did there.

Locked