Posting on behalf of banned members

This morning before I went off to my lecture, I posted a thread in the spam forum on behalf of a certain banned user. This person, who I will not name, contacted me on Skype earlier in the morning and asked me if I could post some nonsense, troll thread in the spam forum. Although I was hesitant to do it at first, I said "fuck it - its only the spam forum after all". The content contained nothing inappropriate or against the site rules.

When I came back I found that I was SF banned for 2 weeks and infracted for circumventing staff decisions. I was not aware this wasn't allowed and if I had known, I certainly wouldn't of done it. Also, I'm not really bothered by it - due to the current state of the SF, that was my first post in that section in weeks and that was my first infraction in like 3 months. Anyways, I am not making this suggestion to complain about or dispute it.

I then proceeded to take a look the official rules, and no where did I see anything stating that users would get forum banned and/or infracted for posting content of behalf of a banned user. What I am suggesting is that the rules be amended to have it state that: posting content on behalf of a banned user is not allowed and may result in a forum ban and infraction, since that is what happened to me.

Oh, and please don't tell me "this was a given" or "I should have known". I can name at least a dozen instances where users in the past have posted threads/content on behalf of banned users both inside and outside of the spam forum (Kina, TPM, ASAP, Laptop, Zuzel, to name a few off the top of my head)

 

Yeah I've seen lots of other people having posted things on behalf of banned users also. This discrepancy in moderation needs to be addressed.

 

Agreed, I know people posting on Ooga's behalf was supposed to stop, but I didn't know posting for banned users was a bannable offense.

 

Who said this was against the rules? I've posted on behalf of Daily at his request since 2009 and nobody has said a word. You should be unbanned, especially if there wasn't a rule in place at the time of your post.

My opinion is that it should be allowed unless the post pertains to the market and could put someone at risk to get scammed. I'm not sure what you posted for that other banned user but if it was tame and in the spam forum I don't see any harm.

 

I knew you were not to discuss ban reasons in the spam forum but posting on behalf of a banned member isn't the same thing. I think it needs clarification.

 

I think it may be because of who the user was, posting for him or about him has been discouraged for a long time. As for disputing the ban/infraction - you'll need to contact the staff member who issued it to you.

 

Thanks for the support however...

I'm not here to dispute the ban/infraction. It's not really a big deal and I've been meaning to contact Superman anyways and ask him to ban me from the spam forum again because I'm sick of seeing shitty threads in that section. I already knew that posting stuff for a banned user outside the sf was discouraged and highly frowned upon, but in the sf? I just think the rule needs some clarification, that is all...

 

I support the rule clarification at least I think that's needed.

 

I support. The rule should be clarified so that there's a standard as opposed to the current one mod approves and another doesn't.

 

It all depends. I've been given a TWC in the past for posting on the market for a banned user. It depends on who the user is.

 

I've never asked anyone to post something for me in the SF.

And it's honestly common sense. If you want to post a dispute / high pardon for someone then that's usually okay, but anywhere else is unnecessary. Tell them to get unbanned if they want to post something.

 

Just be glad you didn't post a bikini model, you would have been site-banned for a month. So if that is site-bannable, then I can see why anything else would be =].

Seriously though, I think I'm going to say what you said not to say... you should have known better than to post that junk. I saw a post you made and it was horrible; I'm glad I didn't see the thread. Don't complain about the SF when you go in and make posts / threads like those.

That being said, no you shouldn't be banned because of the matter of fairness (JohnG constantly does Martin's beechwork), but I don't care either way.

 

The suggestion is simply to add the rule to make it set in stone that this is against the rules..

Not sure why people are posting about telling him what he should or shouldn't have done.. or anything other than what he's saying in his post.

If something is bannable or infractable (not words, i know ), then it should be stated in the rules.

Edit: And still people are posting that he should be banned, it was warranted or what not.


THIS THREAD IS TO SIMPLY ADD A RULE, NOT DISPUTING HIS BAN OR ANYTHING. Damn.

 

You and I both know that's a bunch of malarkey.

I'm not even surprised. I had a feeling you were going to be one of the people to mention something like this, despite me already addressing it in the OP. smh (See below)

wait what...? I'm so lost here... (See below also)

Jesus Christ, thank you. Someone can actually read.

 

ok go find proof of me asking someone to post something in the SF for me, because I know I never have.

Report the threads if they annoy you?

You've yet to link any examples.

 

Even in the SF you shouldn't be encouraging discussion about people like Ooga, staff should try putting a rule in about posting about banned users, I remember John posting on behalf oh him as well.. and I believe he was defending him? I didn't read the whole thread but as far as I'm concerned there should be a rule about it.

 

@Heads tl;dr... you shouldn't be banned, but I wouldn't mind if a rule was in place, but I don't care if it isn't implemented. When you look at it, what's the point of being banned if people post and/or PM on behalf of banned people? It seems silly, but I know that's one thing that our lovely Floridian always does.

 

Honestly, there should be no need to create a specific rule about this.

The user is banned. They lost all rights to post on this forum by being banned. Why in the hell would we allow someone to circumvent said ban, and let them post on their behalf? THE USER IS BANNED.

USE SOME COMMON SENSE.


The ONLY exception is for a dispute or information we might need for a scam report/serious issue.

 

i wouldn't personally post for somebody who is banned on sythe, if he wants to post he shouldn't be banned on the first place. it is his/her fault, we're not responsable for that action

 

This exactly.