My give a damn is broken. MacRumors and the mods are a joke. Just ban me permanently like last time. I'm surprised no one figured it out.First, apologies for the delay. As Weaselboy stated, the administrators are all volunteers with lives outside MacRumors. This would normally have been addressed sooner, but you simply got unlucky in terms of our availability in the last couple of weeks.
I'll address just the three posts that resulted in your access to the PRSI forum being removed, since the rest of your moderation history isn't relevant.
The first was on Jul 22, when, referring to another member, you wrote "He was so unstable".
The second was on Jul 25, when you told another member "Quit being obtuse. If your going to quote me, at least write something intelligent."
The third was on Aug 20, when you replied to another member and told them that they "sound just like [a] crazy conspiracy theorist".
These three statements are all classed as personal attacks under our forum rules. Two of these violations have already been further explained to you in response to contact messages.
As you had three violations of the Rules for Appropriate Debate for posts in the PRSI forum within a six month period (and in fact, within one month), your access to the PRSI forum was appropriately removed under our policies.
I agree completely.What’s instructive is seeing how someone can act so irrationally under the guise of anonymity of the internet. That is not a joke.
In the case of this thread, from what I could gather reading it, he - the OP - specifically requested - and gave permission to - the mods to make it public.He has a point, moderation shouldn't be public because it is in effect, double punishment and unappealable (see the document that states "moderation is always correct").
There is no document that says this. Perhaps you are thinking of the What if I disagree with moderation of my posts? FAQ, which includes "Moderation is almost always correct, appropriate, and done fairly". "almost always" is very different from "always", and we have a robust appeal process in place for the exceptions to that (described in that same link).see the document that states "moderation is always correct"
I suspect that he may have meant the OP of this thread, for whom - as he had clearly given permission for his moderation history (that he complained about - and had no grounds fro complaint, from what I could see, once the moderation history was published) to be made public - this point is moot.Who has a point?