Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

Summary:

Violated direct staff instruction after asking if they could break guidelines

page 1 of 212next »

Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 04:42

New site member CQHD, new account 99luft (account age 8 days, site membership 6 days) sent me a PM about a day ago:

I know I’m only allowed two posts a week and it’s only been five days but I’m going through something tough right now and I’d love something to take my mind off it, so may I please have permission to post two days early? You can delete all my other ideas, they aren’t going anywhere.

I sent back the following reply:

I’m going through something tough right now and I’d love something to take my mind off it

If you're going through something tough and need support, please seek professional help. The SCP wiki is not and never will be a substitute for professional care.

so may I please have permission to post two days early?

No. Given that you already know about the required reading guidelines, it sets a bad precedent for other authors who will feel entitled to the same exception to the rules.

You can delete all my other ideas, they aren’t going anywhere.

Staff only delete threads that contain severe rulebreaking content. The reason the thread limit exists is so authors will be more conscientious about the ideas that they post, making sure that they take the time to commit to finishing the ideas they are working on rather than just trying out anything without intending to follow through.

About five minutes ago, they posted a new thread: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13459581/new-scp-idea:local-produce-name-pending which I promptly locked since it broke the required reading forum guidelines.

I've revoked their membership and sent a PM. Given that this is pretty flagrant ignoring of a direct staff action with full knowledge that they were breaking guidelines, do we want to discuss a short ban?

Last edited on 29 Jun 2020 05:33 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

taylor_itkin 27 Jun 2020 04:44

I wouldn’t be opposed to something like a week.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 04:50

Noting that I got two immediate replies from them:

+ show block

I’m sorry that I have been breaking the rules. I am really bad with technology and websites, so I was confused about editing my own comments and it understand now so it won’t happen again. If there is anything else I am doing wrong please let me know. They won’t happen again.

I see the problem, and it was a misunderstanding. I was looking at the original post I had which was in the 20, which was a week ago. I didn’t mean to go against you, it was a simple mistake.

I sent back two replies noting that a. anyone can see comment editing history and b. attempting to edit an old thread into new content is basically trying to cheat the system, which is still problematic.

ETA: more PMs

I’m not trying to cheat, I promise I’m not. I didn’t go back to edit anything except I asked the reviewers if there was anything else I should do differently. I missed it by one day because I was looking at my first post which was on the 20th and the second was on the 21st. I was looking at the one on the 20th, and I thought since you gave me permission to make a new thread it didn’t count as 2.

I also tried to follow up on them but both weren’t good. I messaged squid on changes to the first one but she never got back and the thread was buried, and three reviewers told me that my idea was too similar to other ones so I couldn’t go through with that. Right hand up to god I’m not trying to cheat the system. It was a weird coincidence considering that my first one got redone, so I missed this one by one day.

Of note, their first thread had so many misunderstandings that I allowed them to create a repeat of that thread. The user made a repeat thread, then made a new thread, and then made a third new thread.

And most recent reply:

Alright, I won’t post anything for the next three days and I’ll reread the guidelines to avoid further confusion. I will say that my newest one wasn’t rushed, as I came up with the idea on Monday and thought out what I was going to say for the entire week because I thought I was able to post today. You have my word that if I post anything else in the next three days you can ban me for life, but may you please open my latest thread back up soon? I know I’m in no position to ask for favors but I already contacted reviewers and it wouldn’t be fair to them. Thank you for your understanding

Where they continue to ask for exceptions to forum guidelines. I told them that threads locked for being overflow/spam are never unlocked and they would need to make a new thread instead.

Although… if they already messaged reviewers asking for critique of the new concept, that means they were planning on using the new thread that they were told not to make.

ETA ETA: and more.

+ show block

Sounds good, just don’t want my idea to be stolen. Assuming that I have been kicked from the website officially now do I just register again the same way as the first time? I would also like to bring up that I am a mobile user and it fit comfortably on my screen do I don’t often collapse articles, but I can start doing that. There was also another issue that could lead to more confusion and its that the dated for my previous articles don’t match up. On my end it said that I made the first one on the 20th, (which is why I thought I could make a new one today on the 27th,) the fixed one on the 22nd and the woods one on 23 or fourth, but for you it says I made them each a day later.

Last edited on 27 Jun 2020 05:47 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

DrEverettMann 27 Jun 2020 05:41

Yeah, time is definitely due for a ban to let them rethink things.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 05:49

Weeklong ban enacted.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 07:17

Got another PM response after I informed them of the weeklong ban and linked them to this thread:

Couple questions if I have the right to at this point, as I can’t see the report. Is it possible I talk to them myself to try to appeal? It was an odd situation because I honestly thought that because my first one was on the 20th I was allowed to make another one today one week later as I thought the remake didn’t count as it’s own and the actual date not counting is something most people wouldn’t think of. There was no attempt to purposely cheat the system because why would I wait this long anyway instead of trying to post another one immediately, or am I pushing my luck here. I may not have a say in this and this isn’t even directed at you anymore but doesn’t a one week ban for being off by two days in my first full week excessive? If I’m pushing my luck here and the one week ban won’t budge fine I’ll take it but I’d like to plead my case if I could.

Sent back:

+ show block

---

Couple questions if I have the right to at this point, as I can’t see the report. Is it possible I talk to them myself to try to appeal?

Per the Site Rules: http://www.scp-wiki.net/site-rules ban appeals are held in #site17, the SCP wiki's IRC helpchat channel.

It was an odd situation because I honestly thought that because my first one was on the 20th I was allowed to make another one today one week later as I thought the remake didn’t count as it’s own and the actual date not counting is something most people wouldn’t think of. There was no attempt to purposely cheat the system because why would I wait this long anyway instead of trying to post another one immediately, or am I pushing my luck here.

Staff already allowed one exception for you on the forums (the early creation of a repeat thread to take the place of the original, error-heavy thread) because you repeatedly misunderstood forum guidelines. Repeated requests for exceptions due to continued misunderstandings is indeed pushing your luck. In the future, confirm the timing with a staff member or in the Questions Desk forum before creating new threads so soon in succession.

I may not have a say in this and this isn’t even directed at you anymore but doesn’t a one week ban for being off by two days in my first full week excessive?

Per the Site Rules:

If a staff member warns you about your behavior, and you do not follow the instructions they give you, you will be revoked or banned.

If I’m pushing my luck here and the one week ban won’t budge fine I’ll take it but I’d like to plead my case if I could.

You're welcome to make an appeal in #site17. However, given your current site history, it is unlikely that the ban will be lifted.

---

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Tuomey Tombstone 27 Jun 2020 08:34

ARD took an appeal in 17 which hinged on the idea that the first thread which was reposted with permission should count as the start date (potentially a reasonable path) and also that we wouldn't know about them asking Zyn for permission to post a third thread and they could just lie about it (utterly ridiculous behaviour).

Needless to say denied, temporarily namebanned from 17 so they can cool off after flat out lying to staff during an appeal and continuing to lie/get mad while the situation was explained to them by your friendly neighbourhood tombstone post-appeal. Someone undo that in a couple hours maybe.

+ show block

08:31		* CQHD joined #site17 ~moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:32	CQHD	May I please make an appeal for my ban?
08:33		* CQHD quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) ~moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:33	cybersqyd	CQHD: I'm gonna see if anyone from disc is around; you may need to come back later-
08:33	cybersqyd	oh
08:35		* CQHD joined #site17 ~moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:39	Calibri_Bold	cybersqyd:
08:40		* CQHD quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) ~moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:43		* Naveil joined #site17 htom.nikceh.doog.a|487324diu#htom.nikceh.doog.a|487324diu
08:45		* Ensophos joined #site17 ~ten.knilneddus.nyd.ser.10ktmcakre.A7FAF64F-CRInys|criigc#ten.knilneddus.nyd.ser.10ktmcakre.A7FAF64F-CRInys|criigc
08:46		* CQHD joined #site17 moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:46		* Raddagher quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity) moc.duolccri.llewkcorb.93B59C27-CRInys|608683diu#moc.duolccri.llewkcorb.93B59C27-CRInys|608683diu
08:46	CQHD	May I please make an appeal for my ban?
08:48	cybersqyd	CQHD: from what I can tell, no-one from disc is available right now: you may want to come back in ~8-14 hrs, during the day for america.
08:49	CQHD	Oh hey squid, seems like you always get stuck with my problems
08:49	CQHD	Oh hi, long time no see
08:49		* CQHD quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client) moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:49		* CQHD joined #site17 moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM#moc.wzvym.63-242-471-bus.97556C65-CRInys|tibbiM
08:50	CQHD	It was a real mess this time squid, and just a big confusion.
08:50		* nukii joined #site17 ~PI.67DDEAB2.24CE53E4.0FD01EA5|tibbiM#PI.67DDEAB2.24CE53E4.0FD01EA5|tibbiM
08:51		* nukii quit (Quit: nukii) ~PI.67DDEAB2.24CE53E4.0FD01EA5|tibbiM#PI.67DDEAB2.24CE53E4.0FD01EA5|tibbiM
08:51	CQHD	Is there anyone else on who I can appeal my ban to?
08:52		* weizhong quit (Connection reset by peer) gnohziew.repmes|cis#gnohziew.repmes|cis
08:52	cybersqyd	As far as I can tell, no; everyone from disc is currently sleeping or unavailable: like I said, you're gonna have to come back when it's not the middle of the night for america, since most disc members are american.
08:52		* weizhong joined #site17 gnohziew.repmes|cis#gnohziew.repmes|cis
08:52	CQHD	Darn, I don’t suppose you can help me out?
08:53	CQHD	I think I have a real case to get my ban lifted
08:53	cybersqyd	Uh, I'm doing as much as I can but I can't take your appeal and no-one who can is around right now.
08:54	CQHD	Do you mind hearing it to see if I have a chance?
08:54	ARD	CQHD: i'll take your appeal
08:55	CQHD	Oh thanks, so it may take a while to explain but please bare with me
08:56	ARD	Mhm
08:56	CQHD	So for my first article I was making standard rookie mistakes because I was unaware of the new required formatting.
08:56	CQHD	Since they weren’t yet added to the rules site
08:57	CQHD	On top of that, I’m admittedly bad with computers and website, so I left multiple messages instead of just editing one. Rookie mistake for a first article.
08:57	CQHD	This was on the 20 when it went up.
08:58	CQHD	So Zyn let me redo it because it was hard to navigate, and I requested that it got deleted so it wasn’t spam.
08:59	CQHD	So I then made another idea post on the 23 because I had a lot of solid ideas before I became a user.
09:00	CQHD	So now today on the 27, one week later from my first post as the rules say, I made another idea thread, and I got hit for supposedly knowingly cheering the system because the updated version on the 22nd counted as a separate idea with a separate start date
09:00		* forbiddenquest joined #site17 ~PI.9C5E9FF1.582FDA18.6D882B7E|criigc#PI.9C5E9FF1.582FDA18.6D882B7E|criigc
09:01	CQHD	And the offense was knowingly cheating the system
09:01	CQHD	Which I received a one week ban for. There was no attempt because I waited a week from the original article and not posted it one day later.
09:02	CQHD	An admin also brought up that the site doesn’t use the actual date but instead the approximation, which wasn’t stated anywhere.
09:03	CQHD	Finally, I got hit because I didn’t collapse my articles for mobile users, but I am one and my articles have no problem fitting on my screen, so I do t know how long is too long
09:03	CQHD	Don’t
09:03	CQHD	‘
09:04		* minmin quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity) won.sedis.htob.morf.snwolc|kool.i#won.sedis.htob.morf.snwolc|kool.i
09:04	CQHD	Sorry for typos, I hate screen keyboards
09:05	ARD	OK. let's take this from the important bits
09:05	CQHD	Sure
09:06	ARD	your ban, as i understand it, stems from you A) being told that you are not allowed to have more than two ideas posts in any given seven-day period, but B) proceeding to create three ideas posts between June 20 and now, June 27
09:07	ARD	did you or did you not create a new ideas post today AFTER you were PMed and told that you could not make a third ideas thread
09:08	ARD	CQHD: please answer
09:08	CQHD	I did not, I know I couldn’t make a third, but I was under the assumption that the first two counted as one
09:09	CQHD	Because they were the same, I had permission to do so, and I specifically requested it got deleted for spam
09:10	ARD	ok so
09:10	ARD	you are claiming that you only had two unique ideas
09:10	CQHD	They weren’t separate ideas. They were exactly the same, just with fixed formatting. I in no way tried to get an advantage over others because I didn’t even edit the main source material
09:10	CQHD	Yes
09:10	ARD	but i am looking at your post history right now
09:10	ARD	and i am seeing the following three separate threads
09:10	ARD	http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13459581/new-scp-idea:local-produce-name-pending#post-4701894
09:11	ARD	http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13448815/scp-concept:the-woods-awaken#post-4697316
09:11	ARD	http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13446551/bethanys-burns-scp-concept-fixed
09:11	ARD	these are three completely separate ideas threads
09:11	CQHD	Right. I’m not arguing that
09:11	ARD	within five days
09:11		* HammerMaiden quit (Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)) ~ten.dtp.4tlf.stmc-ser.343936B3-CRInys|iaMremmaH#ten.dtp.4tlf.stmc-ser.343936B3-CRInys|iaMremmaH
09:11	ARD	So did you only make two ideas posts this week?
09:11	ARD	Or three?
09:12	ARD	Because I count three separate ideas
09:12	CQHD	But what I’m saying is the original one to Bethany’s burns was made on the 20, which is one week from today, so I made a new one because Bethany’s burns was a week ago
09:12	ARD	and yet you say you know you couldn't make a third and didn't
09:13	CQHD	And because I got permission to EDIT it, not change it, and because I specifically asked for it to be deleted, I was going under the idea that the start date was still the 20th
09:13	ARD	if you had to be granted special permission to remake the Bethany Burns thread on the grounds that it would be considered the new burns thread, why would you think the date would start from the old thread?
09:14	CQHD	Because it isn’t new. Zyn locked the first one due to simple mistakes and let me make a new one
09:14	CQHD	So the idea started on the 30th
09:14	CQHD	20th’
09:15	CQHD	I also asked for it to be deleted, so the time that the idea was up was still 1 week no matter what.
09:15	ARD	and you were told that we only delete severely rule-breaking threads
09:16	CQHD	Wrong formatting and an over abundance of messages isn’t severely different from the standard?
09:17	ARD	Not enough to be deleted
09:17	ARD	anyways, the point is that you can't claim "it was going to be deleted" as a defence
09:17	CQHD	The point of the 2 a week policy as I was told by Zyn is that it’s supposed to stop lots of bad ideas, but since it was the same one that shouldn’t count as cheeting
09:17	ARD	or "it should have been deleted" because the onus is not on us to delete garbage threads but for you to not make them at all
09:18	CQHD	My point is that it is no different from the first one, so I’m not getting an advantage
09:19	ARD	even if we strictly go by 2 per week and assume the original Bethany Burns thread and the new one are the same — which they aren't, one isn't full of your useless spam comments — you still have thirty minutes to go before a week will have elapsed between then and now
09:19	ARD	there is simply no interpretation of the rules in which you were allowed to make a third idea post between then and now
09:19	CQHD	I’m in a different time zone
09:19	CQHD	It’s June 27 here
09:19	ARD	it's june 27 here as well. wikidot tracks the time comments were posted and localizes them to your time zone (or EST, one of the two)
09:20	ARD	either way, i'm seeing that Bethany Burns 1 was posted at 4:47 AM on June 20.
09:20	ARD	it's currently 4:20 AM where I am.
09:20		* degadd joined #site17 ~PI.D06056DF.BAED96E.A22E84CB|criigc#PI.D06056DF.BAED96E.A22E84CB|criigc
09:20	CQHD	How was I supposed to know that you don’t use the dates but the approximations? It didn’t say that anywhere
09:20	ARD	and you posted Local Produce four hours ago
09:20		* taylor_itkin quit (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity) klaw.tceps.er|637242diu#klaw.tceps.er|637242diu
09:20	CQHD	And that’s splitting hairs is it not.
09:20	ARD	if anything we aren't using approximations, we're literally going by one week
09:20	CQHD	It’s 4:200
09:21	CQHD	Today is the 27
09:21	CQHD	My first one was on the 20th
09:21	degadd	i can't delete my application on wikidot
09:21	CQHD	That’s one week.
09:21	ARD	splitting hairs is you trying to claim that a fresh ideas thread not full of spam comments and criticisms is perfectly identical to one full of spam comments asking to be deleted
09:21		* UraniumEmpire quit (Ping timeout: 184 seconds) ~uraniumem@66F86FEE:83CE34BB:C0EC8685:IP
09:21	TSATPWTCOTTTADC	degadd, you will need to wait until the application is denied before you can delete it. It takes a few days.
09:22	ARD	your appeal is, to put it bluntly, denied
09:22	CQHD	Dude, my claim is cheeting
09:22	degadd	oh ;(
09:22	CQHD	KNOWINGLY cheeting
09:22		* degadd quit (Quit: CGI:IRC) ~PI.D06056DF.BAED96E.A22E84CB|criigc#PI.D06056DF.BAED96E.A22E84CB|criigc
09:23	CQHD	I got PERMISSION from an ADMIN that I can make a knew thread, identical to the old one without formatting errors.
09:23	CQHD	How is making the same thing again when I had permission getting ahead of everybody else?
09:23	Tuomey	Okay bro
09:23	Tuomey	let me make something clear here
09:23	Tuomey	First, your appeal has been denied already
09:24	Tuomey	Second, the real issue is not "cheating"
09:24	Tuomey	It is that you asked to make a third thread, you were told not to, and then you did it anyway
09:24		* Andrew_Murphy quit (Client exited) ~ac.lleb.lsd.BAF6D1F7-CRInys|uM_werdnA#ac.lleb.lsd.BAF6D1F7-CRInys|uM_werdnA
09:24		* Andrew_Murphy joined #site17 ~ac.lleb.lsd.BAF6D1F7-CRInys|uM_werdnA#ac.lleb.lsd.BAF6D1F7-CRInys|uM_werdnA
09:24	CQHD	No, I wasn’t told not to
09:25	ARD	yeah. you were.
09:25	Tuomey	If you ask to do something and then you do that thing without getting permission, you're doing something wrong
09:25	ARD	and you're coming here to claim, based on your own fallacious interpretation of the rules, that you weren't
09:25	Tuomey	CQHD: don't fucking lie to me
09:25	CQHD	wow great admins
09:25	ARD	They really are.
09:25	Tuomey	Yeah, we're past acting in a staff capacity here because your appeal was already denied
09:25	ARD	Sincerely and unironically, for patiently dealing with you
09:25		* dentix joined #site17 sesion.eipgam.naisarue.dliw|839423diu#sesion.eipgam.naisarue.dliw|839423diu
09:25	CQHD	I wasn’t asked not to!
09:26	Tuomey	I'm just explaining what the issue is because you keep going back to cheating
09:26	Tuomey	> No. Given that you already know about the required reading guidelines, it sets a bad precedent for other authors who will feel entitled to the same exception to the rules.
09:26	CQHD	Go ahead
09:26	Tuomey	does this sentence look familiar to you?
09:26	Tuomey	It should
09:26	Tuomey	It's what Zyn sent to you when you asked permission to make a third thread
09:27	CQHD	I didn’t ask him and he never said no
09:27	ARD	ok, now you're blatantly lying to our faces
09:27	ARD	this is beyond ridiculous
09:27	Tuomey	I'm done being halfway polite and helping you with shit
09:27	ARD	appeal denied. we're done here
09:27	CQHD	How would you know!
09:27	ARD	Tuomey? give him the boot
09:27	ARD	CQHD: because we log things. online
09:27	Tuomey	staff share information on dipshits
09:28	CQHD	I can’t believe this
09:28	CQHD	Show me
09:28	CQHD	Show me where I asked and he said no
09:28		*** CQHD was kicked by ARD ((http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-13459602/disciplinary-cqhd))
09:28	Tuomey	awh
09:28		—- ARD has banned CQHD!*@*

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

ProcyonLotor 27 Jun 2020 16:40

Honest question- do we really want this guy back?

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 16:54

At this point I would say no. Between my last PM to them and now, they sent me eight more messages:

+ show block

8 hours ago:

Zyn, I would like to report two “admins”. I made a motion to appeal and they said no because they thought I asked you if I could write three articles and you said no, and I did it anyway. On top of that, they kept swearing at me and being insulting from the beginning, and I have screen shots to prove it. This is a joke! I try to join this community and this is what I get! Where can I report them? They made up false claims and when I asked for proof they kicked me from the chat.

They literally framed me for something I didn’t do and when I asked to show where I said their lie they started swearing at me. Who can I report this to? You have never sent anything to me saying I can’t post more than three and the closest thing is me saying I saw I can post two.

Can I share these pictures with you from my phone? I may need an email instead of just wikidot

7 hours ago:

Actually, never mind, I won’t turn into a Karen and I still don’t know what they are talking about, but I like this too much to leave over something like this. I’ll see you in a week

5 hours ago:

I’d like to bring up what happened when I asked for an appeal. So somebody took it up and I explained to him what happened in the same way I tried to explain it to you, and from the beginning he was being mean about it for no reason. When I said why I got a new post he called my idea crappy and said I shouldn’t have left “useless spam comments,” when I didn’t say anything rude. So then he brought up something that didn’t happen and when I denied it he called me a “dipshit” and told me to “stop lying to his fucking face” I don’t like swearing but this is what he said. So then someone else jumped in accusing me of the same thing that didn’t happen, so when I asked to see the messages I apparently sent he also called me a “dipshit” and kicked me before I got an explanation. I’m not mad, I don’t want to get them in trouble, I’m not a Karen that wants to speak to the manager, I already sent an apology letter, but I just have to ask why this happened.

They claimed that in a message, I asked you if I could write three articles in a week, you said no, and then I immediately did it anyway. When did this happen? The closest thing was me asking you if I could write multiple ideas a week ago, but I immediately corrected myself. The reason I did write 3 is because I thought the corrected one and the original counted as 1 and I made that on the 20th (one week ago.) I don’t even care I’m banned for a week anymore it’s not a huge deal, I just don’t want them to try to get me banned longer. Any idea what was up with them? I have the screenshots of you would like to see those.

Upon further investigation, I found they were talking about the post where I said I was going through a tough time and asked if I could upload my idea two days early and you said no. The way they worded it was so different from what I actually said I had no idea what they were talking about. Even then, I sent that message two days ago according to the dates, so according to that message if they took it on it’s own I was allowed to make a new post today anyway. They made it sound like I asked for three posts a week, you said no, and I immediately did it anyway. Like I said, I’m not trying to get them in trouble or anything I’m no Karen, but why did they kick me when I asked to see the message? At that point I probably wasn’t talking super kindly either but I wasn’t nearly as bad as them. They quoted me, got what I said wrong, and said I was lying when I didn’t l ow what they were talking about.

4 hours ago:

Im sorry if I’m blowing you up with messages but I just really don’t want to receive a further ban for this, and I would’ve went to the general help desk like you said but I don’t want this to blow up if I’m not in any more trouble, so I privately messaged you since you’ve been following the situation and o don’t want to get anyone else involved (I tried cybersquid but she said she couldn’t help, and I think I was getting on her nerves a bit). Like I said, I already apologized to one of them and I just want to let you know what was happening in case I get in trouble for this now.

I sent back:

Staff will discuss whether your ban will be lengthened or not. However, given your behavior, it is likely it will be increased or made permanent as the situation has already been explained multiple times to you, and your responses have been increasingly concerning, from vehemence to asking for special exceptions to stating you might need the email address of a staff member. Your interactions in the help chat do not make a good case for you as a productive member of the site. As of now, the most I can do for you is ensure that you receive a monthlong ban and not a permanent ban.

Since I am pretty involved with this case (look at all the PMs I'm getting…) I will recuse myself from the banvote. I would like to state that while I believe that the ban should be lengthened (their behavior in the appeal is not something we want on the mainsite) I feel like it's not yet permanent ban level behavior yet.

ETA: also sent them back another explanation

According to wikidot timestamps, which logs the time between the creation of a post and the current time, your own timing was off by a day. We don't use the date numbers to determine the thread limits, we use the time calculated by wikidot which is consistent across users and localized to any viewers' own timezones. You had three days to wait when you sent the initial "can I have an exception to post early" message, but it looks like you thought you had two days because you were going by date numbers and not the hours.

I notice that they insist that they are not good with computers/tech while they are a. on a phone and b. insistent that they got the timing of their thread limit right even though they don't understand how wikidot timestamps work.

Last edited on 27 Jun 2020 17:01 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Roget 27 Jun 2020 17:26

Let’s not bring this one back, yeah.

---

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Jacob Conwell 27 Jun 2020 17:36

Agreed.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

A Random Day 27 Jun 2020 17:49

Perma sounds good to me.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Dexanote 27 Jun 2020 18:01

Perrrrrrma.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 20:23

I believe they're continuing to message staff. Here we go.

+ show block

Zyn, I just sent a long explanation to Roget but the main thing that got me banned was me “lying”. I wasn’t lying, they got my quote wrong so I rightfully denied saying it. They said I asked for a third article, you said no, and then I immediately did it anyway. What really happened was I asked if I could ignore my last two days, you said no, so I waited two days based off of the dates (which I was going off of since the official time system wasn’t in the rules.) When I asked for the actual post to clear the air, they just kicked me instead. I’m fine with the one week ban, but me getting a lifetime one for denying something I didn’t say, and then when I asked for clarification getting kicked isn’t right. The way the worded it was nothing like I originally said, so of course I denied saying it. I’m not a liar, and if they just copied and pasted what I actually said like they did with your response I’d have no issue admitting it. Since you were the head of the trial, and me “lying” is the reason I got the lifetime ban, you needed to hear this.

Sent back:

---

What really happened was I asked if I could ignore my last two days, you said no, so I waited two days based off of the dates (which I was going off of since the official time system wasn’t in the rules.)

The "official time system" isn't something that should be necessitated to be put into the rules. One week is one week—down to the hour. This is something that authors on the SCP wiki should have no problem understanding, and implying that it is staff's fault for not including something like that in the rules does not put you in a positive light.

When I asked for the actual post to clear the air, they just kicked me instead.

I believe this is because you asked for the "actual post" after the staff involved already told you that it was in your private messages. Demanding to see the message instead of looking through your inbox history made it seem like you were intent on either lying or intentionally ignoring staff direction further.

Since you were the head of the trial, and me “lying” is the reason I got the lifetime ban, you needed to hear this.

For the record, I'm not "the head of the trial", and my recommendation that your ban not be permanent was overruled. Your repeated accusations and pestering of staff are making it increasingly more and more difficult to defend your behavior and argue for leniency.

Your weeklong ban appeal has already been denied and has been increased immediately to a permanent ban. Insisting on continuing the same behavior will not result in that ban being lifted—if anything, it will push the appeal time for the permanent ban back further. The best way to be admitted back to the site would be to take the time to calm down and approach staff without any accusations or further obfuscating of all the misunderstandings that occurred.

---

Followed by:

This isn’t even funny anymore. I guess I’ll wait a few days but let the record show that I got accused of saying something I didn’t say, tried to clear the air by saying I didn’t say it, and then getting in more trouble because I wanted to correct me being falsely accused. I’m not accusing anyone, that is what actually happened. I looked for where I said “can I have 3 ideas.” And couldn’t find it anywhere. This is absurd that I actually got banned for telling the truth.

And 7 minutes later, while I was still typing out a response to the first:

And now I know you are going to say that me being angry isn’t helping my case and what not, but I’m not angry at you, it’s just ridiculous that I got life for a witch hunt for something I was telling the truth about, and then being angry when the “friendly admins” called me a dipshit when I wasn’t lying. I’m just venting at this point because I could have never imagined this signing up, how I asked twice to see my message he was actually talking about instead of incorrectly phrasing it, and then me being kicked for that.

Sent back:

You asked if you could post a thread early. You were told no. You then posted a thread early. As far as I can tell, you were not given a permanent ban for "lying", but rather the combination of repeated misunderstandings of basic forum structure, increasingly argumentative behavior towards staff, insistence on being given preferential treatment, and pestering multiple staff members with excessive messages. The initial weeklong ban was due to unintentional spamming against staff instruction, which even if it is based on a misunderstanding, is still unintentional spamming against staff instruction.

Permanent bans may be appealed after one year. Depending on the banned user's behavior, the appeal date may be moved earlier or later. Staff acting in disciplinary cases are under no obligation to be friendly.

Followed by:

If you admit I wasn’t lying then why isn’t it just a week long anymore? I was fine with that, but then that whole fiasco went down and now you just said I was telling the truth. Also, I didn’t know I posted it early like my trial post said. Someone even said themselves that it was “potentially reasonable” and the reason I got life was because I lied. I read the entire trial you sent me, and if the issue is now me spamming admins, can you blame me for being this upset about a situation that is so unfair? My point is, if lying isn’t the issue anymore, shouldn’t it back to one week? Is asking too many questions to admins about the site really an offense?

3 minutes later:

Oh the guy on site 17 wasn’t friendly from the start. Called my idea crappy, and then when I was telling the truth saying “saying don’t lie to my fucking face” and calling me “dipshit” for not lying and not understanding his incorrect quote when he refused to tell me what he meant. Where’s his disciplinary report?

Sent back:

---

Also, I didn’t know I posted it early like my trial post said.

That doesn't change the fact that you posted the thread early.

My point is, if lying isn’t the issue anymore, shouldn’t it back to one week?

No, because there were many other elements of your behavior (which I stated previously) that led multiple staff members to vote that you be permanently banned.

Is asking too many questions to admins about the site really an offense?

When the questions are repetitive to the point of pestering, continuously ask for exceptions to rules, demonstrate repeated misunderstandings, yes. The more you argue here the less anyone will want to unban you.

if the issue is now me spamming admins, can you blame me for being this upset about a situation that is so unfair?

Being upset does not make it okay to repeatedly accuse and spam the admins. The permanent ban you were given was enacted because of this behavior, and as such staff will not lift the ban if you continue this behavior. This is not something that we should have to explain to site members.

---

This is a pretty severe misrepresentation of what happened (the words "crap" and/or "crappy" don't appear in the logs at all). However, I will speak with the chat moderator in question about being less vehement when an appeal is denied.

And then:

When I go to the message I sent you, it says two days ago. I posted it today. Because I said can I skip the two days and you said no, I assumed you were okay with 2 days based on the previous understanding. Fine. If that’s a week I don’t care. But me being banned for life, because I literally got framed by a rude from the beginning admin who accused me of lying when literally every saved article shows I’m not, messaging other admins to get this situation fixed, and being mad at him isn’t reasonable? Maybe I don’t care about this site if this is how things go. I was super active and super excited but admins (not you)make false accusations and being jerks for no reason ruined it. Maybe this is a waste of time. I’m not disagreeing that I shouldn’t have gotten a week but getting life because a swearing “friendly” admin got my quote wrong and framed me for lying to him when the saved messages show I wasn’t, and then him lying about how I knowingly went against the rules in the trial I wasn’t allowed to speak AFTER he kicked me from the complaints server because I was telling the truth proves this might be a waste of my time.

Maybe they weren’t but dipshit, useless comments and fucking lying we’re all in there, before I said anything. I don’t want this to come off at you, but I’m not waiting a full year to prove I was innocent when you are reading the proof as we speak.

Sent back:

---

I’m not disagreeing that I shouldn’t have gotten a week but getting life because a swearing “friendly” admin got my quote wrong and framed me for lying to him when the saved messages show I wasn’t,

Regardless of your unfounded assumption that you were "framed", your behavior thus far does not convince the admins that you deserve to be unbanned. With every message you send to me or another staff member with new accusations and calling people names, the less likely anyone will want to unban you, let alone move earlier the allowed appeal time for your permanent ban.

If you want staff to believe that you will be a productive member of the site, you need to stop spamming these messages as soon as possible. The discussion thus far has gone in circles multiple times. Staff will not allow you an appeal in a year, or possibly even two years, if you continue as you currently are. If you continue to message me angrily there is nothing I, or any other staff member, can do to please your case for leniency.

---

Last edited on 27 Jun 2020 21:19 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Zyn 27 Jun 2020 21:32

Separate post for the most recent PMs since I will not be responding to them:

Look, I’m not directing any of this at you. You have been the fairest person here and the only reason it’s only you is because you are fair enough to listen. If asking admins too many questions is an offense in my first full week fine lock me up, but there is no way on earth it should be one when I’m trying to get a screwed up situation caused by a different admin fixed. Who else would I go to? The site page they banned me from? I messaged multiple people now because I was under the assumption most won’t listen to me anymore, thankfully you did. The nail in the coffin was me apparently lying, as it went from 1 week to life from the point Tuomey (which I messaged an apology saying I finally figured out what he was talking about, because they only put your answer to my question when I asked for what I said, instead of my quote so I had to go digging through everything for it.) And how he claimed I Lied. That’s completely false as we have been discussing. That’s what I’m really angry at. If me being bad with technology is another banned offense I’ll take up a computer’s class, but I can’t stress this enough: an ADMIM, FALSELY ACCUSED me of lying, as EVERY RECORD SHOWS. and me being angry because he was SWEARING AT ME and NOT LISTENING, and then SPINNING THE TRUTH TO MAKE MY SIMPLE MISTAKE SOUND WORSE, got me a LIFE LONG BAN. That is an accusation because I’m just mad at him, that is actually what happened. What else can I even say at this point? This is a complete sham through an through, and if I have to wait a year when this could be solved in five minutes I’m done with this. I waited years thinking of ideas just to have all of that preparation ruined by the people who are here to help is a shame. I hope if this doesn’t get me back in and this account goes dead that you move on to bigger and better, you actually listen, you don’t deserve to be affiliated with this.

So the people on charge can call me a dipshit but I can’t say literally anything bad about them after they insulted me? You want to see why I would be active, look how hard I’m fighting for this, and sucking up to people who insult me just because they are of higher standing is dead wrong.

Last edited on 27 Jun 2020 21:42 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

Tuomey Tombstone 27 Jun 2020 21:36

Man, I didn't even take his appeal - or vote for perma.

I just showed up at the end to point out the crux of the issue.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD

ProcyonLotor 28 Jun 2020 04:53

Noting that user has deleted their account.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

Zyn 29 Jun 2020 05:28

Noting that they rejoined the site as 99luft, not even a full day after the permaban was initiated.

About 8 minutes ago they sent me this PM with the new account:

I could've never said anything and fly under the radar, but it didn't sit right in my heart. It's me, CQHD, but please hear me out. I didn't want to tell you this as you are still pretty much an online stranger at this point, but the previously mentioned hard time I brought up was one of many of the frequent mood swings I'm susceptible to. I wasn't my normal self during that time frame, and my temper got the better of me because of it. I'm not excusing my actions on my end with this, but I would like to mention that that wasn't who I am. I'm not here to ask to be unbanned (in fact CQHD doesn't even exist anymore, technically meaning I am not breaking the sock puppet multiple accounts rule,) but rather to just give me one more chance. Over the passed week I was dealing with some personal demons, and my unnecessary transparency is hopefully a sign of my honesty. I assure you that my normal self is temperate, but I didn't do a good job of showing that over the passed couple of days. I am sorry for my actions and will own up to my wrong doings, but now that I am composed I would like to show you what I'm really like, and how dedicated I am to this. I completely understand if you don't trust me, and there is nothing else I can say to prove I really have gotten my act together. I know I've been a real pain, but if you can just give me one more shot now that I'm back to my normal self I promise I'll prove to you that I will be a kind and contributing member of this community, but I will completely understand your decision either way, and never return as a writer if you decide not to accept me. I hope me coming out that it is me on a second account when I could've easily remained silent shows my honesty, and I will completely understand if I'm not immediately accepted back. This new account is a clean slate however, and I'm eager to show you how productive I can be now that I've gotten my act together. If you deny and this is the last time we communicate, and like to say thank you for putting up with, and I really am sorry for what I have said.

I responded with:

The site rules are firm and we do not allow exceptions. Your new account has been permanently banned.

Of note, they actually asked what "sockpuppetry" was with the new account: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-13464251/what-is-sock-puppetry The attempt to rules lawyer about "not being a sockpuppet because the original account was deleted" does not indicate that they have changed their previous behavior.

Permaban enacted, posts blanked.

ETA: their response

I understand, please let me know if and when there is a chance for appeal.

Thoughts?

Last edited on 29 Jun 2020 06:08 by Zyn Show more

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

Tuomey Tombstone 29 Jun 2020 14:09

I don't see a problem with hearing an appeal to reduce it from perma (we actually really should since it's a separate offence from the original ban and not an escalation based on doing the same thing) but I don't think it would be a good idea to reduce the ban too much.

Sending all those PMs over the period of a day is indicative of needing to grow a little; this was not a one and done moment of anger or even an hour or even two. This was a whole day's worth of ranting. It's understandable to be angry when one feels unfairly treated but if this behaviour were directed at a user who, say, had a negative opinion about this guy's work that would be very bad indeed.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

Jacob Conwell 29 Jun 2020 15:53

Yeah, no.

I'm of the opinion this should remain a permaban.

They can appeal in a year, as is protocol.

This kid needs to cool their jets.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

Zyn 30 Jun 2020 02:52

Three new PMs from them. I haven't replied to anything sent since yesterday.

I will say though, because you stated previously that the issue wasn't me lying, and in the report lying was the main reason I received a permanent ban, and since I never insulted anyone by name in my messages or in the site 17 chat, (though my anger was understandable as I was unfairly treated because they were under the impression I was lying which was later shown I wasn't, I immediately apologized to Tuomy and I attempted to contact ADR for the same reason as the record shows,) and since I was banned from site 17 for a misunderstanding (for the accusation of lying that was later proven to be not true,) I had no choice but to contact admins which was my last offense. Therefore, shouldn't my ban be shortened to at least one month instead of a lifetime since the other complaints except me writing two days early were justified and misunderstood?

10 minutes later:

I believe the exact words I used were "friendly admins" ironically, which isn't very polite but given the circumstances of me being insulted as I was falsely accused is not over any lines. I also won't deny my unnecessary rants I sent you, but given the circumstances they weren't with out at least some merit. If there are absolutely no exceptions even if the previous decisions for a permanent ban were shown to not be entirely factual, I'll leave right now. But given as we now know that I wasn't lying, and I had no choice but to keep messaging you as I was banned from site 17 for what is now shown to be an invalid reason, then if my only two factual offenses are me writing two days early and me losing my temper a little bit (but still not using the level of language I received,) then shouldn't it be down to one month instead of life long?

About 1 hour later:

Either way, I'll take some time off. I said some things I shouldn't have and now I have to wait for a chance to redeem myself. Please let me know if I'll ever get that opportunity. I'll wait patiently and reapply with a fresh start when I'm able. Thank you for your time.

I am recusing myself from the decision here. How early are staff willing to hear an appeal for the permanent ban? Is there any interest in granted the user's request that the ban be shortened to a month?

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

A Random Day 30 Jun 2020 02:57

The year wait stands. I am emphatically uninterested in hearing an early appeal from a user haranguing our staff. Frankly, every subsequent PM they send from this point should add another six months to the date of when we'll hear their appeal.

Re: Disciplinary - CQHD / 99luft

DrEverettMann 01 Jul 2020 23:37

I received a series of three PMs from this user.

+ show block

Hi, I recently joined the site about two weeks ago under a different account that has now been removed due to a strange circumstance that I will soon explain, and I would like to see if it can be resolved. The second account was titled CQHD, and I started out okay. I made some rookie mistakes and what not, but nothing serious. Then about a week in, I went through a bad mood swing that I am susceptible to, and I told the moderator Zyn about this as he was my main contact throughout my troubles with the site. So I asked him if I could skip the last two days before I can post another idea because writing clears my head, which is a big part on why I joined in the first place, apart from being a big fan. Zyn declined so I waited the last two days. The part that makes it confusing is that my original idea (Titled Bethany's Burns,) was first uploaded to the ideas critique forum on the 20th, but because of the rookie mistakes like improper formatting and inadequate use of comments, Zyn allowed me to make a new cleaner version on the 22nd, meaning that there was only five days between three ideas technically. I received a one week ban because of this, and though I appealed my case, I now completely accept the one week ban, as I will own up to my fault even though it was unintentional. However, the reason I received a permanent ban was a big confusing incident that occurred during my appeal. What happened was while discussing my case, one of the admins referred to a message I sent to Zyn, but the way he worded it was very different from what I originally said. Therefore, I didn't recognize it, and declined saying what he claimed I said. (I no longer have the records as I deleted my old account, but he claimed I said "Can I have three posts a week?" when I actually said "May I skip the last two days?") Because he was then under the impression I was lying, he became very angry and was swearing at me, but because I was being falsely accused, I myself was losing my temper, due in part to the mood swing as well (but still not using the language he was.) The appeal from the beginning wasn't very kind on either end, as a separate admin was using words like "useless comments" and "garbage/trash" to describe my work for no real reason. They provided Zyn's response to the conversation with the comment they were referring to, but since at that point I had various conversations with him, I did not immediately recognize it. When I asked for the actual quote I said to clear any confusion, they kicked me from site 17 before I got an answer. Now admittedly, I wasn't being very professional at that point and I take full responsibility for losing my temper a little bit, but the only thing I said was "wow great admins" ironically when they were using words like "dipshit" and "Fucking face" multiple times. (I am withholding the names of the two admins as my goal isn't to get them in trouble, but if you would like to know what they are I can provide them.) Since I was kicked from site 17 even though I wasn't lying, I had no choice but to contact Zyn again to explain the situation, which alongside them thinking I was lying, was the main point on why my one week ban was lengthened to permanent ban. An important thing of note is that after rereading through every encounter I had with Zyn I finally discovered the conversation the admins were talking about, and explained how I was sorry for rudeness on my end and how it was an honest misunderstanding because he used different words than I did, so I didn't know what he meant. However, even though I sent him my apology and explanation before the disciplinary council made their verdict, he did not respond and claimed that I was lying to his face, which convinced the other members to vote a permanent ban, as well as me messaging Zyn too much, but as I previously mentioned I had no other choice because I was banned from site 17 for an invalid reason. Admittedly, after I received my permanent ban message and the moderator who sent it failed to respond, I sent Zyn some messages in anger that I won't deny, but even then considering the circumstances of how I was unfairly treated were fairly tame as I never swore (in fact I'm pretty sure all I said was "friendly admins" ironically again,) but I won't deny this and will accept any further punishment as a result of this, but given how there was a lot of confusion leading up to my permanent ban I do have issue with that. So now that the dust has settled and my mood swing is over, I made this new account, and out of good faith and as a sign of my honesty, even though I could've remained hidden, I messaged Zyn again not out of anger but instead to explain to him my situation now that I'm in a better state of mind (I'm close to bipolar so I was going through a rough spot previously.) Zyn declined my new account, so now I write you this message as the head of discipline. I am not excusing the actions I am guilty of with my condition, but will say that me being angry like that isn't who I am, and the way I was being misunderstood and a little mistreated didn't help my temper. I'm sorry if I am messaging you and the other admins too much but I don't have much of a choice anymore. I have always wanted to join the SCP Foundation and the reason I fought so hard to stay is because I'm passionate about it. I won't deny anything I said and take responsibility for my actions like I mentioned, but I will not admit to things and offenses I didn't do or had no control over. I will not object if my one week ban is extended to a couple of months, but because of the unfair situations and me not being myself I'm asking you from the bottom of my heart to remove the permanent ban. I've been looking forward to this for so long, and it really helps me out when I'm not in the right state of mind. I'll accept me losing my temper and receiving some sort of disciplinary action, but if you just give me one more chance I promise I'll show to you and everyone else I am a kind, enthusiast, and functioning member of this community, and any mistakes I have made in my first week will never happen again. Please reconsider my ban, and I anxiously await your reply. Thank you for your time and my regards, 99luft.

+ show block

While rereading my previous message, I noticed that the word "with" in the sentence about Zyn's reply should be the word "to", as me not receiving the exact comment caused the confusion.

+ show block

Alright maybe bottom oh heart is too extreme but you know what I mean, I got my act together and I hope you can take another look at my case.

+ show block

Like the subject, I really am sorry if I have been messaging everyone too much, but given as I tried to reexplain my situation to Zyn and he hasn't responded in the normal time frame, I fear that he may be trying to ignore me, and might have mentioned to other admins to do the same. He used the words "no exceptions" to bans however given the circumstances, all I ask is that you or someone else looks at the evidence, as I wasn't lying and had no choice but to message everyone about my situation, ironically like I am now, but it is for a reason. I was ecstatic when I was accepted because it had always been a dream of mine to write for the Foundation, and all I'm asking for is one more opportunity to prove myself because the reasons I received the permanent ban weren't fair as I talked about in my first message. You may have even been involved in the chat, but I can't remember. I sincerely hope that my constant attempts to try to explain myself (eve if they are getting annoying,) me coming out as a new account when I could've remained completely hidden because I wanted to be here honestly, and me even telling what are practically complete strangers online about a condition I have show how dedicated I'm willing to be to this. Like a previously mentioned I have no complaints if my ban still remains at 3 months or even higher than that, but given there is hard evidence in the Site 17 and my PM history of my innocence of the major offenses, I really ask if you are able to take another look at the previous permanent ban reasoning. I have been worrying about and beating myself up over this for the passed week, because what I know what I did wrong, but I also know what I didn't do. Because of that, my dedication, and my actual innocence, can you please relook at the case with the new evidence and understanding what happened, or at the very least, provide some closure? If I am accepted back, I won't cause anymore trouble, and I honest to god will stop messaging everybody like this, but this just means a lot to me, and I'll show I'm capable if I am just given one more shot, even if that is in a couple months.

page 1 of 212next »