Categories
November 22nd, 2020
Forum Avatars and Signatures from others
Anime Relations: Planetes, Kizumonogatari I: Tekketsu-hen, Mahou Shoujo Madoka★Magica, Yagate Kimi ni Naru
FORUM SETS
Todoroki – MAL Secret Santa 2019
FireFractal – MAL Secret Santa 2019
TheZilla– MAL Secret Santa 2020
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Ryuzaki_Shoryu – MAL Secret Santa 2022
PROFILE PICTURES
Nate – MAL Secret Elf 2019
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2020
uwuglo – MAL Secret Santa 2021
AlexPaulLEWZ – MAL Secret Elf 2022
ABOUT ME
Nate – MAL Secret Elf 2019
Welcome to my profile!
AWC helper
in 2017 and 2018
MAL Secret Santa elf
in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
Feel free to comment or PM me if you want.
I don't accept random friend requests from people I've never talked to, though.
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2020
uwuglo – MAL Secret Santa 2021
AlexPaulLEWZ – MAL Secret Elf 2022
Todoroki – MAL Secret Santa 2019
Your text here
Your text here
Your text here
FireFractal – MAL Secret Santa 2019
TheZilla– MAL Secret Santa 2020
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2021
Ryuzaki_Shoryu – MAL Secret Santa 2022
PROFILE PICTURES
Nate – MAL Secret Elf 2019
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2020
uwuglo – MAL Secret Santa 2021
AlexPaulLEWZ – MAL Secret Elf 2022
ABOUT ME
Nate – MAL Secret Elf 2019
Welcome to my profile!
AWC helper
in 2017 and 2018
MAL Secret Santa elf
in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
Feel free to comment or PM me if you want.
I don't accept random friend requests from people I've never talked to, though.
Annarella21 said:
you just should write "i'm a weirdooo yeee" on your home page
you just should write "i'm a weirdooo yeee" on your home page
Chop_in – MAL Secret Elf 2020
uwuglo – MAL Secret Santa 2021
AlexPaulLEWZ – MAL Secret Elf 2022
Posted by Conde_Mohr | Nov 22, 2020 4:36 AM | 0 comments
April 25th, 2016
About my ban from Monia's Café
Anime Relations: Highschool of the Dead: Drifters of the Dead
I'll try to keep this short. As you probably know, I've been banned from Monia Café. When I noticed that I was banned (I wasn't sent a PM), I tried to speak with the admin that banned me, and I was practically ignored. When that happened, I asked Harus to post something for me on a club's thread, so that people knew what happened. Monia deleted it less than 15 minutes after it was posted, all while saying that I had the right to defend myself and try to explain the situation. After some pressure from club members, he more or less agreed to speak with me via PM if I started the conversation and didn't write a lot. I knew it was all a façade, but I was ok with it.
The following day, I asked Monia what was the real reason of my ban. He told me that my post was an extreme case of breaking Rule #3, and that he had received complaints of my behaviour from other members. Those complaints never reached me, so there was no way that he could use that as an excuse, and regarding Rule #3, I will re-post my explanation of everything later (mind you, it's extremely long), but even if we consider it rule breaking, more than one ex-admin told me that it wasn't nearly enough of a reason for a ban. In the end, he basically told me that he can ban whoever he wanted even if they don't break any rules. I don't like revealing PMs, but the way he acted calls for it.
If you believe that I cut & pasted it, I can do a manual photo with my phone and send it to anyone upon request, but it's a little more difficult to read.
After that, I decided that he wouldn't readmit me even if he didn't have a real reason to ban me in the first place, and I warned him of what he just said. I guess that he kind of freaked out, and that's the reason of the funny post at the beginning of the main page of the club, and why the Waitresses Lounge was locked up (to prevent people disagreeing with him).
By the way, what I think is the real reason of my ban is probably that I jokingly compared the club with a dictatorship during a friendly chat with other members. Oh, the irony.
Fun fact: I was notified of Monia's intention to talk to me and iN3krO. After finishing my conversation with Monia, I went to a WhatsApp group to warn him (his name is in red color).
Translation:
I: "Banning someone because I consider him unsuitable" is equivalent to what I said. If I ban you I can just say "I consider you unsuitable" and get away with it. By the way iN3krO, you're next
Friend in common: Uhhh
iN3krO: Me? Why? If he waits for me to break any rule he's fucked xd
* 10 minutes later *
iN3krO: Hey, I'm no longer in the club xdddd
Friend in common: You didn't need to break anything xDDD
Before finishing this, I want to thank everyone who defended me when I was deprived of my right to do. Special mention to Harus, iN3krO, JohnDowson, Nato__Ren and Yoonnie for being the ones that tried to help me more actively (forgive me if I forgot/didn't notice someone).
For all of you who are interested, here's the post I did explaining the situation that got deleted by Monia. Be careful, it's extremely long.
Hi everyone. As most of you probably know I am banned from this club, but since people have asked me why that happened, and I wasn't given the opportunity to defend myself, I want you to at least know what happened from my point of view so that you can make your own judgement once you read this.
Before I start, you should know at least some background. I've been active in the club since June 2015, and I've never received a warning (either "official" or "unofficial"). It was decided that what I did was severe enough to deserve a permanent ban instead of a warning, and they didn't even PM me to tell me that I was banned (let alone to explain the reasons of the ban). My purpose here is not only to show you that the "offence" wasn't severe enough to deserve a direct ban, but also to demonstrate that I didn't break any rule.
I know that this post is extremely long. I made it this way because I'm not sure that I will be able to solve any doubt that you may have, so I didn't want to leave anything behind. It's structured in a way that enables skipping something and still being able to understand the rest, so feel free to do that. Still, I recommend you to at least read points number 2 Reason of the ban + Banning procedures, number 3.1 Why I didn't break Rule #3, and number 6 Demands.
To be honest, it didn't take a long time to find two "bans without previous warnings" cases within the last 5/6 pages of the Waitresses Lounge. Every case of ban/warning was discussed in that forum thread so that every member (especially admins) knew the reasons of the final decision. Every post shown here is from admins/previous admins (not regular members) in the previously mentioned Waitresses Lounge.
This one was the last ban discussion before I got banned, so I thought it to be a good reference.
If you don't really want to read, I'll tell you what's in there. A random member that I've never seen before (he probably entered the club recently) intentionally spoiled a really popular anime that is airing at the moment. The admin decided to delete the post without further punishment, and he reposted it at the same place, so it's extremely clear that he wanted to cause as much trouble as possible. That caused him a temporary ban until everything could be explained privately.
This is, if not the previous ban discussion to Case 1, the one before that. At any rate, I didn't go nitpicking them.
This case is quite revealing about what kind of an offence is needed to get permanently banned from this club.
So we have someone that, in her very first post here in the Introduction Thread, said that she joined here specifically to annoy someone. She didn't receive a warning for that (and probably wasn't even asked about it, but since I'm not certain of that I'll give the staff the benefit of the doubt).
She wasn't active in the club in all that time, she might have posted a couple of times but that doesn't count as being an active member. Last month, this happened:
That person said something in the comment section with the intention of offending other members of the club. I'm not posting the image because it's not important, but you have the post number to look for it on your own if you feel like it. The admin who reported the case wasn't sure if she should get banned of not for that offence, so in the end she wasn't banned and got a warning.
The post reporting this is this one. It's not from an admin, but from a person who has been admin for a long time and is still an active member. The same member who got warned before broke the rules (and said something even harsher after that). In the end, she got banned that day, but not unanimously.
Now that I showed you previous ban cases you may be wondering: what did you do, Cerda, that is a greater offence that repeatedly spoiling an airing anime in an anime social network or picking fights with people with the sole purpose of annoying them? Worry not, for I will unveil that mystery for you in the next point.
Picking up with the cliffhanger of the previous part, I will show you the post that got me banned. It goes with the unedited comment from the admin that reported it. At the time I'm writing this (more than a day has passed) there hasn't been a reply in the Waitress Lounge, neither from an admin nor from Monia. Regular members didn't reply either, but that's more common. Without further ado, here's the screenshot, as I promised.
As you can see, I was banned for being "defiant" and "breaking rule number 3". I'll go in detail about these points later, but I want you to know that the offence itself is an unedited screenshot from a whole line of the rules, and this was posted in the comments section (right below the rules themselves).
The post I just showed you was inmediately after this one in the comments section.
This was the only notification that I could read telling me that I was banned. I didn't even receive a PM telling me that I was banned. Here's a pic of my message story with the admin that banned me, where you can see that the first message was sent by me. I will NOT reveal the contents of the PM's themselves, since I've not asked permission to the other party and it would be rude to do that. If he gives consent (or if he wants to post them himself) I don't mind them to be exposed.
When I noticed that I couldn't post and read the comment I sent a PM to the admin that banned me asking what happened. I was online the whole interval between the post itself and the ban, so I noticed 15-20 minutes after the admin's comment. I supossed that, after asking directly, he would send me a well structured message about the reasons of the ban, but he sent me a text consisting of 4 sentences that didn't tell me anything that wasn't in the posts that appear screenshotted above. In fact, when I tried to discuss it with him, he just sent me a one liner, so I have to assume that he doesn't want to tell me what I did wrong.
Now that you understand exactly what happened, I will proceed to explain why the ban is unreasonable. To do that, I'll list the rules that I understand that I supossedly broke according to the posts screenshotted in the second part and why I didn't break those rules.
All of you who started reading this were probably looking forward to this part, so I'll stop delaying it: why I didn't break Rule #3. First, let's start by screenshotting it to prove that I didn't miss or twist anything.
It's still not obvious, so I'll do it again, let's see if you notice before I tell you.
Still didn't get it? Don't worry, you're probably not the only one. I'll tell you the answer.
I know you're probably saying Cerda, I've read that word, but why do you highlight it? It just means what it means, doesn't it?. Well, if you have thought something similar to that you're right, it just means what it means. But what does the word use mean? Fortunately, I have a paper edition of CALD (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) at home. When I searched the word use I found this:
Still not convinced? I could be lying because I didn't send any pics (sorry, it's a pain to do it), so instead of trying too hard on that I saw more value on checking other dictionary. More specifically, the digital version of the Oxford dictionary.
I think we can all agree on the fact that, if both Oxford and Cambridge give more or less the same definition, it's safe to assume that it's the proper one. If you read carefully, both of them mention one important thing: to use something, it has to be put to a particular purpose. Now, what purpose do the words in the screenshot have? None. They aren't coherent, and even if you put each of them separately instead of the image they would most likely still be incoherent (I may be wrong on that because I didn't even read them). Why is that? It's simple: the words are not being used, even when they're displayed. It doesn't matter at all what words were written there, since what was being used were the rules themselves.
If you want a similar example, imagine that you're bored in class and you decide to type random numbers on the calculator. In that case, you're using the calculator (for the purpose of not being bored), but the numbers are not used at all (they have no purpose) even though they are displayed.
You can argue that the rule didn't intend to let something like this slip by. I want to make something clear regarding this:
I don't recall any rule against "being defiant", so this shouldn't be considered breaking the rules either. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that being defiant goes against Rule #1: Be nice to each other (which is, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch).
I haven't really been told why what I did was defiant, and what was I defying. If they had bothered to speak to me about the matter I would have explained why I posted the image, but since they didn't, I'm not sure of what they thought when they said that. Since it would be pretty weird to leave this blank, I will baselessly suppose that I am thought to have been mocking either the rules or the staff.
As I just said, this is baseless, because there's no reason to think that I would mock or defy them. I guess that there are some people who firmly believe that I entered the club, posted every week (I would say nearly every day, but let's leave it at that), and even created an event as part of a bigger plan. 9 months later, and without any meaningful context or sign of disconformity I would do the most evil thing possible: copying and pasting a single line of the rules without editing it and leave it at that. I'm disappointed at how boring those people think I am at mocking someone/something.
At any rate, at least the people who banned me must have thought that something amongst the lines of what I just conjectured was not only plausible, but true beyond any doubt, because they didn't even need to listen what I had to say regarding that matter when interpreting that. Maybe they have information about some hidden motives I could have and I haven't told you (basically because I don't know them myself).
Now that it's clear that I didn't break Rule #3, and the "being defiant" accusations are baseless on top of most likely not punishable, I will clarify something I deliberately delayed earlier. Although I didn't break Rule #3, did I do something that defied the purpose of the rule itself? Keep in mind that I'm doing this for the sake of argument, it isn't punishable if it doesn't break the rules, whether the purpose of the rule was forbidding it or not. But I will show you that I didn't break what I think is the purpose of the rules anyways.
First of all, sorry if the purpose of the rules is not what I suppose it is, there's no way for me to know it for sure. What I interpret is the purpose of all the rules is creating an environment when everyone can talk without being triggered. You can agree or not agree with that, but the rules are made for the sake of that reason, and by entering the club you agree to follow not only the rules but also their purpose.
If I defied the purpose of the rules, it would mean that I did something to trigger other members. I will demonstrate that my post didn't trigger anyone.
I've already written a lot explaining that I didn't break any rule, and this part is basically useless because it is completely hypothetical, but let's suppose that the rules are made in a way that makes my post invalid. Forbidding posting or linking something if those words appear anywhere in any form is a valid example of a hypothetical Rule #3 that, if appiccable, would punish my post.
Would that hypotetical fault be strong enough of a reason to justify a permanent ban without a warning? This is when the seemingly useless first part of this post (Previous Cases) comes in handy.
Let me remind you what that first part said:
Is it me or there is an inconsistency somewhere on that list? Perhaps it's my biased opinion as a person affected by one of those decisions. I'll let you reach your own conclusions on this matter after you see how much of an offence my post was.
Yes, if you're faster than the 3 admins of this club you can still see the comment. It was so offensive that they didn't even delete it 30 hours after the ban.
I think this is unimportant, but since I will probably not be able to solve any doubts you have (at least via Monia Café) I want to clarify everything in one post, and I haven't really talked about this. Why did I post that image? The reason is simple: I didn't want to break Rule #3 in a situation when it's almost unavoidable (in this case, describing our beloved president of Spain). I always use an euphemism, and I decided to do that this time. Therefore, I looked for the best euphemism I could, since it would be really rare that I find a time when swearing is more appropiate. The biggest euphemism I could find without breaking the rules was a list of forbidden words, signifying that I would use a lot of words that shouldn't be said in the club if it were possible.
Of course, it was conveniently misinterpreted, and the admins that took the case didn't do anything to clarify it. In fact, they did everything with the utmost secretism, without publicly discussing it or asking for my own view of what I said even though they knew that I was online at that time (if you click on someone's profile, you can see whether they're online or not).
Before I get to the final point, let me give a piece of advice to anyone that wants to take it. I understand that, if someone wants to act as if they just reached puberty and throw a tantrum every time they feel they've been offended without even contrasting their opinions, they're in their right to do it. I'm no one to tell anybody not to do so, even more if I've never talked to them directly. But let me tell you that there are better ways to deal with things that annoy you, discovering them is part of reaching adulthood. Things don't always go your way no matter how hard you plan them, and you can't make a fuss every time it happens.
The last point here will be the demands I make to the admins. I think they're not unreasonable at all, and they all can greatly contribute to clarity.
The first demand is a response. It would be great if it were public (in this thread) and I were mentioned so that I notice that you did it. I expect that response to be at least as serious as this text (it doesn't necessarily have to be as long as this one, but you can extend as much as you want), and it should include:
The second demand is acting in consequence of what you write in the response, taking everything into account. It's a pretty obvious thing to do even if I didn't specifically ask for it, but I want to make sure that you don't forget it.
Last, but not least, I want to give my thanks to Harus, who posted this in my regard, for making this possible, as well as to everyone who was interested in what happened. If, for any reason, you want to keep contact with me, feel free to add me as a friend (since it's not certain that I'm coming back to the club)
UPDATE: He deleted the funny post (maybe after reading this) and the Waitresses Lounge (the thread where rules are discussed) is not sticky anymore. After that, he created 2 more rules (+1 to "make it softer") saying basically that he can ban whoever he wants even if that person doesn't break any rules and you can't argue with his decisions. The friendliest place in MAL.
The following day, I asked Monia what was the real reason of my ban. He told me that my post was an extreme case of breaking Rule #3, and that he had received complaints of my behaviour from other members. Those complaints never reached me, so there was no way that he could use that as an excuse, and regarding Rule #3, I will re-post my explanation of everything later (mind you, it's extremely long), but even if we consider it rule breaking, more than one ex-admin told me that it wasn't nearly enough of a reason for a ban. In the end, he basically told me that he can ban whoever he wanted even if they don't break any rules. I don't like revealing PMs, but the way he acted calls for it.
If you believe that I cut & pasted it, I can do a manual photo with my phone and send it to anyone upon request, but it's a little more difficult to read.
After that, I decided that he wouldn't readmit me even if he didn't have a real reason to ban me in the first place, and I warned him of what he just said. I guess that he kind of freaked out, and that's the reason of the funny post at the beginning of the main page of the club, and why the Waitresses Lounge was locked up (to prevent people disagreeing with him).
By the way, what I think is the real reason of my ban is probably that I jokingly compared the club with a dictatorship during a friendly chat with other members. Oh, the irony.
Fun fact: I was notified of Monia's intention to talk to me and iN3krO. After finishing my conversation with Monia, I went to a WhatsApp group to warn him (his name is in red color).
Translation:
I: "Banning someone because I consider him unsuitable" is equivalent to what I said. If I ban you I can just say "I consider you unsuitable" and get away with it. By the way iN3krO, you're next
Friend in common: Uhhh
iN3krO: Me? Why? If he waits for me to break any rule he's fucked xd
* 10 minutes later *
iN3krO: Hey, I'm no longer in the club xdddd
Friend in common: You didn't need to break anything xDDD
Before finishing this, I want to thank everyone who defended me when I was deprived of my right to do. Special mention to Harus, iN3krO, JohnDowson, Nato__Ren and Yoonnie for being the ones that tried to help me more actively (forgive me if I forgot/didn't notice someone).
For all of you who are interested, here's the post I did explaining the situation that got deleted by Monia. Be careful, it's extremely long.
Hi everyone. As most of you probably know I am banned from this club, but since people have asked me why that happened, and I wasn't given the opportunity to defend myself, I want you to at least know what happened from my point of view so that you can make your own judgement once you read this.
Before I start, you should know at least some background. I've been active in the club since June 2015, and I've never received a warning (either "official" or "unofficial"). It was decided that what I did was severe enough to deserve a permanent ban instead of a warning, and they didn't even PM me to tell me that I was banned (let alone to explain the reasons of the ban). My purpose here is not only to show you that the "offence" wasn't severe enough to deserve a direct ban, but also to demonstrate that I didn't break any rule.
I know that this post is extremely long. I made it this way because I'm not sure that I will be able to solve any doubt that you may have, so I didn't want to leave anything behind. It's structured in a way that enables skipping something and still being able to understand the rest, so feel free to do that. Still, I recommend you to at least read points number 2 Reason of the ban + Banning procedures, number 3.1 Why I didn't break Rule #3, and number 6 Demands.
To be honest, it didn't take a long time to find two "bans without previous warnings" cases within the last 5/6 pages of the Waitresses Lounge. Every case of ban/warning was discussed in that forum thread so that every member (especially admins) knew the reasons of the final decision. Every post shown here is from admins/previous admins (not regular members) in the previously mentioned Waitresses Lounge.
This one was the last ban discussion before I got banned, so I thought it to be a good reference.
If you don't really want to read, I'll tell you what's in there. A random member that I've never seen before (he probably entered the club recently) intentionally spoiled a really popular anime that is airing at the moment. The admin decided to delete the post without further punishment, and he reposted it at the same place, so it's extremely clear that he wanted to cause as much trouble as possible. That caused him a temporary ban until everything could be explained privately.
This is, if not the previous ban discussion to Case 1, the one before that. At any rate, I didn't go nitpicking them.
This case is quite revealing about what kind of an offence is needed to get permanently banned from this club.
So we have someone that, in her very first post here in the Introduction Thread, said that she joined here specifically to annoy someone. She didn't receive a warning for that (and probably wasn't even asked about it, but since I'm not certain of that I'll give the staff the benefit of the doubt).
She wasn't active in the club in all that time, she might have posted a couple of times but that doesn't count as being an active member. Last month, this happened:
That person said something in the comment section with the intention of offending other members of the club. I'm not posting the image because it's not important, but you have the post number to look for it on your own if you feel like it. The admin who reported the case wasn't sure if she should get banned of not for that offence, so in the end she wasn't banned and got a warning.
The post reporting this is this one. It's not from an admin, but from a person who has been admin for a long time and is still an active member. The same member who got warned before broke the rules (and said something even harsher after that). In the end, she got banned that day, but not unanimously.
Now that I showed you previous ban cases you may be wondering: what did you do, Cerda, that is a greater offence that repeatedly spoiling an airing anime in an anime social network or picking fights with people with the sole purpose of annoying them? Worry not, for I will unveil that mystery for you in the next point.
Picking up with the cliffhanger of the previous part, I will show you the post that got me banned. It goes with the unedited comment from the admin that reported it. At the time I'm writing this (more than a day has passed) there hasn't been a reply in the Waitress Lounge, neither from an admin nor from Monia. Regular members didn't reply either, but that's more common. Without further ado, here's the screenshot, as I promised.
As you can see, I was banned for being "defiant" and "breaking rule number 3". I'll go in detail about these points later, but I want you to know that the offence itself is an unedited screenshot from a whole line of the rules, and this was posted in the comments section (right below the rules themselves).
The post I just showed you was inmediately after this one in the comments section.
This was the only notification that I could read telling me that I was banned. I didn't even receive a PM telling me that I was banned. Here's a pic of my message story with the admin that banned me, where you can see that the first message was sent by me. I will NOT reveal the contents of the PM's themselves, since I've not asked permission to the other party and it would be rude to do that. If he gives consent (or if he wants to post them himself) I don't mind them to be exposed.
When I noticed that I couldn't post and read the comment I sent a PM to the admin that banned me asking what happened. I was online the whole interval between the post itself and the ban, so I noticed 15-20 minutes after the admin's comment. I supossed that, after asking directly, he would send me a well structured message about the reasons of the ban, but he sent me a text consisting of 4 sentences that didn't tell me anything that wasn't in the posts that appear screenshotted above. In fact, when I tried to discuss it with him, he just sent me a one liner, so I have to assume that he doesn't want to tell me what I did wrong.
Now that you understand exactly what happened, I will proceed to explain why the ban is unreasonable. To do that, I'll list the rules that I understand that I supossedly broke according to the posts screenshotted in the second part and why I didn't break those rules.
All of you who started reading this were probably looking forward to this part, so I'll stop delaying it: why I didn't break Rule #3. First, let's start by screenshotting it to prove that I didn't miss or twist anything.
Rule said:
Sexual language is not allowed here. Also, never use the following words ever:
Bla, bla, bla...
Sexual language is not allowed here. Also, never use the following words ever:
Bla, bla, bla...
It's still not obvious, so I'll do it again, let's see if you notice before I tell you.
Rule said:
Also, never use the following words ever:
Also, never use the following words ever:
Still didn't get it? Don't worry, you're probably not the only one. I'll tell you the answer.
Rule said:
Also, never use the following words ever:
Also, never use the following words ever:
I know you're probably saying Cerda, I've read that word, but why do you highlight it? It just means what it means, doesn't it?. Well, if you have thought something similar to that you're right, it just means what it means. But what does the word use mean? Fortunately, I have a paper edition of CALD (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) at home. When I searched the word use I found this:
CALD said:
To put something such as a tool, skill or building to a particular purpose.
To put something such as a tool, skill or building to a particular purpose.
Still not convinced? I could be lying because I didn't send any pics (sorry, it's a pain to do it), so instead of trying too hard on that I saw more value on checking other dictionary. More specifically, the digital version of the Oxford dictionary.
I think we can all agree on the fact that, if both Oxford and Cambridge give more or less the same definition, it's safe to assume that it's the proper one. If you read carefully, both of them mention one important thing: to use something, it has to be put to a particular purpose. Now, what purpose do the words in the screenshot have? None. They aren't coherent, and even if you put each of them separately instead of the image they would most likely still be incoherent (I may be wrong on that because I didn't even read them). Why is that? It's simple: the words are not being used, even when they're displayed. It doesn't matter at all what words were written there, since what was being used were the rules themselves.
If you want a similar example, imagine that you're bored in class and you decide to type random numbers on the calculator. In that case, you're using the calculator (for the purpose of not being bored), but the numbers are not used at all (they have no purpose) even though they are displayed.
You can argue that the rule didn't intend to let something like this slip by. I want to make something clear regarding this:
- My only obligation as a member of the club is to follow the rules, and the rules are written clearly when you enter the club, no more and no less. If there were a longer version of the rules with some special cases anywhere, and something like this were prohibited, I would understand that I broke that rule, but that's not the case.
- If they intended not to permit something like this, they should have written the rules more carefully. I have no obligation (and no way) to go back to the time when they were making Rule #3 and read the minds of the people redacting it to know what they intended to prohibit. And I'm not saying this sarcastically. If something is not written in the rules, it is because it's permitted. And I would dare say that if the rule is ambiguous it is permitted too.
- Of course, you can change the rules now, but it's a human right that, in case that a rule changes after doing something, it can't be applied retroactively unless it benefits me (so what I mean is that, strictly speaking, I didn't break Rule #3 no matter what).
- You can argue that what I did was against the intention of the rules. As I said earlier, there's no way that I can possibly know for sure the intention of the rule if I didn't make it myself and it's not stated anywhere, but don't worry, I have that covered, I will extend on that later.
I don't recall any rule against "being defiant", so this shouldn't be considered breaking the rules either. For the sake of argument, let's imagine that being defiant goes against Rule #1: Be nice to each other (which is, in my opinion, a bit of a stretch).
I haven't really been told why what I did was defiant, and what was I defying. If they had bothered to speak to me about the matter I would have explained why I posted the image, but since they didn't, I'm not sure of what they thought when they said that. Since it would be pretty weird to leave this blank, I will baselessly suppose that I am thought to have been mocking either the rules or the staff.
As I just said, this is baseless, because there's no reason to think that I would mock or defy them. I guess that there are some people who firmly believe that I entered the club, posted every week (I would say nearly every day, but let's leave it at that), and even created an event as part of a bigger plan. 9 months later, and without any meaningful context or sign of disconformity I would do the most evil thing possible: copying and pasting a single line of the rules without editing it and leave it at that. I'm disappointed at how boring those people think I am at mocking someone/something.
At any rate, at least the people who banned me must have thought that something amongst the lines of what I just conjectured was not only plausible, but true beyond any doubt, because they didn't even need to listen what I had to say regarding that matter when interpreting that. Maybe they have information about some hidden motives I could have and I haven't told you (basically because I don't know them myself).
Now that it's clear that I didn't break Rule #3, and the "being defiant" accusations are baseless on top of most likely not punishable, I will clarify something I deliberately delayed earlier. Although I didn't break Rule #3, did I do something that defied the purpose of the rule itself? Keep in mind that I'm doing this for the sake of argument, it isn't punishable if it doesn't break the rules, whether the purpose of the rule was forbidding it or not. But I will show you that I didn't break what I think is the purpose of the rules anyways.
First of all, sorry if the purpose of the rules is not what I suppose it is, there's no way for me to know it for sure. What I interpret is the purpose of all the rules is creating an environment when everyone can talk without being triggered. You can agree or not agree with that, but the rules are made for the sake of that reason, and by entering the club you agree to follow not only the rules but also their purpose.
If I defied the purpose of the rules, it would mean that I did something to trigger other members. I will demonstrate that my post didn't trigger anyone.
- Nobody complained about the comment bothering them. If someone did complain, they would have sent a message to either me, the comments section or the Waitress Lounge. It just didn't happen.
- The words themselves couldn't possibly have triggered anyone. They are the same as the ones shown on the same page, the first thing anyone entering the club for the first time looks at. Not only that, but they also have the same context: none. Anyone bothered by the words themselves would have been equally bothered by the words when shown in the rules.
- You can argue that what bothered someone who didn't complain was that I probably wanted to speak badly about the president of Spain. First of all, the percentage of people strongly supporting Rajoy in MAL is ridiculously low, even within the Spanish community. Chances are, not even a member here is within that group, but let's suppose that some Rajoy supporter is unlucky enough to read that. Even more, they were living on a cave without ever going out, and their only source of information is TeleMadrid (Public TV of a Spanish "state"). Imagine that such a person decided to enter the club for whatever reason, and it's the first time they saw a critic of him. Even if we go to such an extreme, speaking badly of some politician, or a whole country if you feel inspired, doesn't seem to be against the rules. (Yes, the pic is from some months ago. I somehow remembered speaking about it somewhere else, and if it's on the internet it's traceable. It didn't take me 10 minutes to find it manually, what a scary world we live in. By the way, there's no link because the comment's links change when there are more comments, it's around #35600 by the time I'm writing this, if you're interested).
I've already written a lot explaining that I didn't break any rule, and this part is basically useless because it is completely hypothetical, but let's suppose that the rules are made in a way that makes my post invalid. Forbidding posting or linking something if those words appear anywhere in any form is a valid example of a hypothetical Rule #3 that, if appiccable, would punish my post.
Would that hypotetical fault be strong enough of a reason to justify a permanent ban without a warning? This is when the seemingly useless first part of this post (Previous Cases) comes in handy.
Let me remind you what that first part said:
- Intentionally and repeatedly spoiling an airing anime (as a new member). --> Temporary ban and PM to let the banned explain the situation.
- Saying that you entered the club with the sole purpose of annoying someone. --> Nothing happens.
Saying something and recognizing that it intended to hurt someone. --> Warning.
Repeatedly breaking Rule #3 and basically insulting the whole club. --> Not unanimous perma-ban after the previous warning (and a long lasting discussion in the Waitresses Lounge).
- Screenshotting a line of Rule #3 without meaningful context or coherence. Nobody complained. --> Permaban without a discussion in the Waitresses Lounge or notifying the banned.
Is it me or there is an inconsistency somewhere on that list? Perhaps it's my biased opinion as a person affected by one of those decisions. I'll let you reach your own conclusions on this matter after you see how much of an offence my post was.
Yes, if you're faster than the 3 admins of this club you can still see the comment. It was so offensive that they didn't even delete it 30 hours after the ban.
I think this is unimportant, but since I will probably not be able to solve any doubts you have (at least via Monia Café) I want to clarify everything in one post, and I haven't really talked about this. Why did I post that image? The reason is simple: I didn't want to break Rule #3 in a situation when it's almost unavoidable (in this case, describing our beloved president of Spain). I always use an euphemism, and I decided to do that this time. Therefore, I looked for the best euphemism I could, since it would be really rare that I find a time when swearing is more appropiate. The biggest euphemism I could find without breaking the rules was a list of forbidden words, signifying that I would use a lot of words that shouldn't be said in the club if it were possible.
Of course, it was conveniently misinterpreted, and the admins that took the case didn't do anything to clarify it. In fact, they did everything with the utmost secretism, without publicly discussing it or asking for my own view of what I said even though they knew that I was online at that time (if you click on someone's profile, you can see whether they're online or not).
Before I get to the final point, let me give a piece of advice to anyone that wants to take it. I understand that, if someone wants to act as if they just reached puberty and throw a tantrum every time they feel they've been offended without even contrasting their opinions, they're in their right to do it. I'm no one to tell anybody not to do so, even more if I've never talked to them directly. But let me tell you that there are better ways to deal with things that annoy you, discovering them is part of reaching adulthood. Things don't always go your way no matter how hard you plan them, and you can't make a fuss every time it happens.
The last point here will be the demands I make to the admins. I think they're not unreasonable at all, and they all can greatly contribute to clarity.
The first demand is a response. It would be great if it were public (in this thread) and I were mentioned so that I notice that you did it. I expect that response to be at least as serious as this text (it doesn't necessarily have to be as long as this one, but you can extend as much as you want), and it should include:
- A serious response telling me in what way I broke the rules. If you state that I broke rule number 3, I expect you to explain what purpose did each word that appear in the screenshot have. If you think that I broke the rules by being "defiant", I expect you to tell me what rule does it break, and why are you so sure that I was defiant even though I claim that I wasn't.
- Explain the attitude of the staff concerning my ban. Why didn't you speak to me to clarify the matter? Why wasn't I notified of the ban when it happened? Why didn't an admin bother to make a serious post to answer my doubts when I contacted them?
- Why, even taking into account that you misunderstood your own rules and thought that I broke them, considered that my "fault" was greater than the ones I mentioned in Previous cases? You can include here why did you decided not to ask for my point of view on my own post before making a decision.
The second demand is acting in consequence of what you write in the response, taking everything into account. It's a pretty obvious thing to do even if I didn't specifically ask for it, but I want to make sure that you don't forget it.
Last, but not least, I want to give my thanks to Harus, who posted this in my regard, for making this possible, as well as to everyone who was interested in what happened. If, for any reason, you want to keep contact with me, feel free to add me as a friend (since it's not certain that I'm coming back to the club)
UPDATE: He deleted the funny post (maybe after reading this) and the Waitresses Lounge (the thread where rules are discussed) is not sticky anymore. After that, he created 2 more rules (+1 to "make it softer") saying basically that he can ban whoever he wants even if that person doesn't break any rules and you can't argue with his decisions. The friendliest place in MAL.
Posted by Conde_Mohr | Apr 25, 2016 12:05 PM | 2 comments