I posted a link

[Unregistered XSafire]

I posted a link to leaked information.
I admit it was a dumb idea, and that I was pushing the rules, however, a perm IP ban is a bit severe under the circumstances. I have never been involved in any scam situation, and I feel like all I do is contribute to the community.

I'm sorry I posted that link. If I am pardoned, I will keep myself in line not to even get an infraction.

Thanks.

 

[OldFinn]

I don't support a pardon on these grounds:

1.) Posting a link to leaked information is clearly against the rules.
2.)

fuck it

http://(link omitted)

its a search. If this is ban worthy then go fuck yourselves.

Other opinions?

 

[Hahanerd]

You basically asked for a ban. Although it is a public domain, you were asking for trouble and wanted to stir drama on this site.

 

[FireZ]

Obviously did not care when he posted that link and thats not going to change over night.

 

[Karl]

Sensitive information can be damaging, like Tyro said, and asking for a High pardon so early, it would be almost like you're getting away with it.

Im in favour of having a shortened ban sentence rather than a permanent ban.

 

[Govind]

I vote no, as well.

 

[Gohan]

From him:

Can I ask what the nature of the IP ban is for?

I'm all for being banned. I understand there has to be a line and I crossed it, however, a perm ban seems a little over the top.
Can a temporary ban be up for discussion?

 

[FireZ]

The best your going to convince me to is 60 days and more then likely 90.

 

[OldFinn]

I will not concede to a temporary ban personally - he spent a great deal of time procrastinating over whether to post the link, suggesting that he knew it was an unconscionable act.

I recommend we take his own advice: ''If this is ban worthy then go fuck yourselves''. I don't mind seeing this voted upon, but think it would be a shame to unban a chronic troublemaker and individual who has sought to damage the site in his recent posting of a link to leaked materials.

 

[Gohan]

His reply:

Finn,

The nature of how I posted the link isn't the point. The only reason I was procrastinating was because I was debating if I could actually get banned over it. After some other members had some valid points as to how I couldn't, I was convinced that I couldn't get banned as I wasn't breaking any rules. I understand now that the rules are specifics, and that there is room for deviation. Pissing off the staff isn't a good idea regardless of the rules.

Also, how am I a "chronic troublemaker?" I have had very few incidents with the rules. I know you don't like me, you've made that crystal clear, but I feel like your own personl bias is getting in the way of the facts. Like Tyro said, I didn't technically leak, but it was clearly against the wishes of the staff. Since I was in no direct violation of the rules, I think at least a vote should be taken on wheather I should recieve a temporary ban or not.

I also wasn't determined to harm the site, or the staff in any way. My post wasn't about trying to spread leaked information, it was more about the irony of randomly finding Sythe leaks indexed on Google. My intentions weren't as bad as you make them seem.

Lastly, the "go fuck youself" comment wasn't directed at the staff in general. It was my way of saying that it would be stupid if I got banned for my post. I apologize if this was misunderstood, and if any offense was taken.

 

[OldFinn]

You guys can vote if you so choose, but I've made my position unequivocally clear. He's also been ban evading.

 

[FireZ]

I'd rather not have a temporary ban either. He knew exactly what he was doing...

 

[HamJam]

I'd rather not have a temporary ban either. He knew exactly what he was doing...

This, he knew what he was doing... he wanted negative attention, and that's what he got. He was testing the staff's actions, much like he did before when he spam forumed that he had scammed this much money etc. The staff let him go for that, he should have learned from that, unfortunately, he hasn't and deserves to be punished in the most way possible.

 

[OldFinn]

I'd also hasten to remind staff that pardons are not to be distributed sparingly. As defined originally by Sythe, only users who have contributed exceptionally to the site and have demonstrated evidence of character reform should be considered for a pardon. Whilst I understand the current staff furor in regard to pardon requests, given that the collective approach remains novel, we should not deviate from Sythe's policy that only the most-deserving and legitimate users should be granted pardons.

Please bear this in mind when reviewing pardon requests -- they are not to be given out lightly. If there is any further support from staff that are yet to voice their opinion, this will be voted on.