Contesting Yet Another Warning

[Lster]

LaRoza is the latest moderator to give me a warning, unmerited, for "excessive bumping". This is ridiculous because excessive bumping is not against the CoC. I need no justify whether it was excessive, simply that it is unmentioned and thus I did not break any rule.

I know LaRoza dislikes me so there is bias here. But even she sometimes posts "jokey" posts that serve no purpose in otherwise on-topic threads. This is far more annoying than bumping a thread twice within 4 hours.

Further, I would like you to look into how this moderator conducts himself. Below is the full argument between us:

Dear Lster,

You have received a warning at Ubuntu Forums.

Reason:
-------
Excessive Bumping

Bumping is discouraged on this forum, and only allowed once every 24 hours. You bumpbed twice without 3 hours, one less than an hour (34 minutes) after the other.

Please don't do this on the forum.
-------

Original Post:
https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5668904

*Bump*

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Ubuntu Forums

Well it's not really how frequently one bumps a thread as to how far down the list it got.

I never heard that before. We've always used time, 24 hours specifically.

Both bumps were when the thread was just going onto the second page and I don't consider that too frequent as it had very few views and it seems few people even look past the top 10. There's also the issue that bumping is not mentioned, at all, in the CoC as far I can see.

Second page! OMG. You have to keep all your threads on the first page!

C'mon.

Please can you refer me to the rule I broke before I argue me case. What you quoted is not a rule so you cannot justify warning me for breaking it. As far as I am aware from a thread that aysiu posted it is only a guideline on the matter and since that is of questionable it can't be used as a bases for the warning.

Instead of giving you a link, post in the Resolution Centre if you want to contest this warning. Last time somone tried to work with you about a warning, you showed it is better to not work with you...

Don't PM me about this.

And finally I replied:

I never heard that before. We've always used time, 24 hours specifically.

Well I've heard various opinions about it. But it is not stated in the CoC, thus the warning is not warranted. I will take this further.

Second page! OMG. You have to keep all your threads on the first page!

C'mon.

Well it hasn't gotten any replies or even many view even now. I think this indicates my point. I never look past the first page and I don't think that is uncommonly. Your tone is out of order here; don't patronize me - it is against the CoC.

Don't PM me about this.

As you argued your points to me, I will give you my replies. If you don't want any further replies do not make further arguments.

I will be complaining now.

The response:

Second page! OMG. You have to keep all your threads on the first page!

C'mon.

Is patronizing which is a breach of the first rule in the CoC. LaRoza is also part of the group 'The Cabal':

http://ubuntuforums.org/group.php?groupid=246

Which is basically a mockery of my long-time opinion that arguments should not be accepted based on authority.

If I say something right now. This all adds up to a big mess:

• Biased moderating (not just in relation to me... I have started seeing it for others too)
• Members which in my opinion should be banned for their constant, but subtle, insults. These include the likes of CptPicard who has been nothing but negative. In fact, after I reported one of his posts and matthew gave him a "warning infraction" he changed his signature to "Arguing on the internet is like participating in the special Olympics, even if you win you're retarded." Which is quite obviously an insult to me but disguised as a jokey, non-personal signature... Even taken that way it is inappropriate.
• Many posts in Programming Talk need closing far quicker than they are because of the fires of insults but LaRoza mostly leaves them like this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=890695. That has been extremely heated.
• Even when I do report things, often nothing is done by administrators which leads me to lose faith in the whole forum... Which I was previously in love with.

Can you please do something to save this forum, instead of just ignoring all this. I would request that my incorrect warning is removed, LaRoza is given a warning, and CptPicard is banned. Of course, like always, nothing will happen.

Why is it that I have received two warnings in about a week and previously had nothing? My posting style hasn't changed... Why does there appear to be such a double standard?

These forums aren't what they were,
Lster

[Lster]

Oh yeah, because it is also very relevant:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=16

[KiwiNZ]

I will look at this and come back

[Lster]

Thanks.

[KiwiNZ]

With regards to the warning for excessive "bumping" of threads. After looking at your activity I have to support the issuing of the warning.
I had previously pointed out similar in this thread here http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=895571

This is a large and very busy Forum and the excessive bumping of this is bad manners and needlessly adds to server loads. Be patient and your posts will be answered if and when people are able to.

If you continue to "bump" threads needlessly further action will taken.

Secondly , with regards to the actions of the staff member. The moderator in question is doing the job assigned to them , and doing very well. They are volunteers , please respect this and the decisions they make.

Thirdly, with regards to CptPicard, I see no need to ban this user. If you have issues with the posts made by other members please use the report system and staff can consider it on a case by case basis.

Please do not make demands that members be banned in this manner.

[Lster]

That's sadly exactly what I expected.

Whether you dislike me bumping or not, it is not in the CoC. Your argument for the validity of the warning does not even take into account my argument that it is not against the CoC. Why don't you quote the rule it breaks and then I can at least know what I'm arguing against!

Will there be warnings for excessive thanking next? This is also not against the CoC but I have seen moderators warn uses about it. If I were to go and thank ever post I could find now, would I get a warning?

Seriously, though, posts won't be answered on the second or third page of this forum often - I know from experience. Even after both bumps it had but 60 views and no replies! In fact I have since replied with a solution but no one else has... Saying to "be patient and your posts will be answered if and when people are able to" is perhaps the official view on it; but not the practicality of it.

Secondly, LaRoza's reply was arguably rude and patronizing which is against the first rule in the CoC. So why doesn't it count?

And please look into CptPicard's old signature. I'm not sure whether you store old signatures, but if you do, why don't you have a look? If you can definitely see that he said that comment then surely you can take appropriate action.

[KiwiNZ]

The COC is not a definative set of rules , they form the basis of how we would like to see the Forum run.

The Staff , Moderators and Administrators reserve the right to edit for content as pointed out in the COC.

Bumping un-necessarily is not welcome or enhancing of the Forum and its image and content.You will receive replies when members have an answer or the time to answer. There is no compulsion to answer any post.

You have recieved a warning not to do it(note a warning not an infraction) we expect you to comply with that request. You will recall that when you registered for this forum you agreed to follow the requests of the Forum Staff.

Cptpicard's signature does not breach forum rules. we do not record previous signatures. That matter is now closed.

[Lster]

You have recieved a warning not to do it(note a warning not an infraction) we expect you to comply with that request. You will recall that when you registered for this forum you agreed to follow the requests of the Forum Staff.

I will happily comply in the future but I did not agree, when I joined this forum, to be bound by additional rules. That is what you have done now.

I'm not stupid, you can word things however you wish but you are still enforcing non-disclosed rules. This is not a private forum now, it is the official Ubuntu forum supported by Canonical. You have a duty to be fair and this doesn't fit in my mind.

If you answer but one question fully please let it me: How can I be given a warning when it is not specifically mentioned or covered in anyway in the CoC? How was I to know? Up until now I had always viewed it as a guideline not a full rule simply, it seems, because your CoC is void of some rules. How are people supposed to comply with rules they don't even know exist?

And also, you didn't answer my question:

Will there be warnings for excessive thanking next? This is also not against the CoC but I have seen moderators warn uses about it. If I were to go and thank ever post I could find now, would I get a warning?

It wasn't rhetorical.

You also failed to respond to my accusation that LaRoza broke the first rule of the CoC...

Cptpicard's signature does not breach forum rules. we do not record previous signatures. That matter is now closed.

I didn't say that his current signature breached the rules. His old one certainly did but I can't prove it. So, yes, it is closed in all senses.

[KiwiNZ]

You were given a warning ,NOT an infraction ,you are are ignoring the point that the Forum management reserves the right to make decisions even if a situaion is not specifically stated in the COC.

We were fair ,that is why a warning was issued and not an infraction.

LaRoza has not breached any COC rules and has acted in accordence with the duties of a moderator.

[Lster]

Please answer my questions. This argument is being lengthened by your constant ducking. It is quite infuriating because my points stand very well against yours but as long as you drift the argument constantly to something else we will not get anywhere.

You agree that the web-master, administrators and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any post, topic or thread at any time they see fit following the guidelines outlined below. You agree that the web-master, administrators and moderators of this forum have the right to send a private message with a warning and/or censor [to] any forum user who is in violation of forum policy.

I am not. I did not agree to anything else. I simply didn't realize it was against the "extended rules".

You can well enough say that CoC is not inclusive of all rules but essentially you are then making it impossible do anything without the chance of it being against the rules. Clearly this is ridiculous. Your other possibility is a catch-all clause but one is not present (the closest thing I could see is quoted above).

LaRoza's tone was impolite. This is explicitly mentioned in the CoC. Yes, it is so minor I don't even care but considering you are allowing this warning why not allow something else this minor? To be honest the whole first rule is inclusive of so many posts that it becomes a matter of interpretation. But then again, his/ her comment was mocking without a doubt. A question this raises and I ask out of interest is: can moderators get infractions or warnings?

Please see my last post and answer my questions. Failing that, what's the point of this argument? Please engage with me properly.