[MacheteGeek]

Just a curiosity, I have seen a few accounts and was wondering if there are black zones to avoid or if just being a jerk is frowned upon. Any examples would also be appreciated.

[Beezlebub]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say:

1) Don't post porn

2)Don't flame or troll

Makes sense doesn't it?

[stealthfighter]

Maybe sending obnoxious PMs to the administrator will. It'll be personal though.

[Nemesis]

Sockpuppetry. Instant ban.

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 09:54 PM ----------

No more soup for you, and you, and you, and you

[psykhe]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis
	Sockpuppetry. Instant ban.

Pffft.

	Originally Posted by Nemesis
	No more soup for you, and you, and you, and you

No cookies for you, and you, and you, and you.

To OP, mention the word troll in every post you make. Ciao ban.

[nowt]

Tell the truth. Spread the word.

[thod]

Personal insults. Making lots of pointless threads. Making lots of pointless comments in threads etc. Any technique designed to disrupt the working of the forum.

New users are more likely to be banned than established users. Since those wishing to disrupt the forum are unlikely to wait years before they begin.

[mieu]

Pretend you're under 18 and talk about it in a thread. Let me know where you post it and I'll report it for you.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Beezlebub
	I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say: 1) Don't post porn 2)Don't flame or troll Makes sense doesn't it?

Trolling has been reassessed.

[Zodd]

	Originally Posted by Beezlebub
	I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say: 1) Don't post porn 2)Don't flame or troll Makes sense doesn't it?

They've only restricted me for posting "porn" and "attacking", though in those cases I think I didn't agree with it and it wasn't really bad and they knew I wasn't trying to cross the line on purpose. But yeah, if you post a big picture of full penetration or call someone a cancer retard I don't think they'll leave it at a restriction.

[Sinequanon]

This has been asked multiple times in the past, as I'm sure you can imagine. The policy hasn't really changed in all the time I've been here, which is why this post from 2008 still has relevance:

Originally Posted by Jezebel

It depends on what the violation is, the overall content posted from the account and how established the member is. We are reluctant to ban anyone who has invested a significant amount of time participating on this forum, which is part of why we're hard on new accounts that register and either make major rule violations or violate multiple guidelines within the few posts they have made. It depends on what the violations are though. If a new account violates a guideline but otherwise makes quality posts, it's unlikely that we would ban that person without warning. New members on this forum are defined as members with under 80 posts (as indicated by by the tag under the username), although I would consider that more of an approximation than an exact number we go by. We don't ban established members without warning and have only needed to ban rarely after threats were made against the forum or after disregarding repeated warnings. Our first warning carries no penalty, the second is a restricted account and the third is a suspension for a week.

As noted earlier in the thread, there are some instantly bannable offenses from an account standpoint. For legal reasons, the Terms of Use specify that a user must be over the age of 18 (which may have been a change since the quoted post), and a user creating a second account for any reason is cause for banning.

[JTG]

One of the fastest ways people get banned is by willfully filling the forum with garbage. As Sinequanon points out with the quoted post, users who provide content yet break some rules will meet with rehabilitation attempts via the infraction system. Users are banned quickly who have a high volume of bad posts, who ignore the forum rules, or who attempt to use the forum for ad/propaganda campaigns.

Per Rule #4: "Advertising bots, propaganda accounts (including the evangelizing variety), and persons who register with the intention of using this forum for SEO or link-dropping will be banned without warning."

Also, a more recent post which may apply here:

	Originally Posted by stasis
	egregiously violating [rule] 7 is one of the faults that I have instabanned accounts for

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar
	Trolling has been reassessed.

Not as such. Trolling as traditionally defined on the internet has never been against the forum rules. Since so many people got confused by what was essentially the forum having a different definition of the term, it was renamed "disrupting debate" for clarity. The actual content of the rules (i.e. which behaviours they prohibited) remained identical.

I've seen instabans for:

• Sockpuppetry.
• Underage users.
• Advertising campaigns, when the account was made solely for that purpose.
• A constant pattern of low-quality posts.
• Trying to bully moderators or administrators into reversing infractions.
• I think I've seen a couple of racism bans aswell.

I can only recall the first one ever affecting users with more than around 500 posts.

[Zodd]

"that girl that looked like a boy" she was a tranny or transsexual or something, she was banned for using chatspeak, also other things, but mostly chatspeak if I remember correctly. Which reminds me, Nowt, that she puts the quote under her answer, that's basically as annoying as chatspeak, even more annoying for people probably since most people can read chatspeak, so why is that allowed?

---------- Post added 05-12-2012 at 11:06 PM ----------

Oh and could people be banned if they would use too much difficult words and such? Things are easy too difficult for me while I don't know much words and I don't have much problems with difficult words on this forum so this is hypothetical.

[thebrainpolice]

^ I think I know who you're talking about.

[Zodd]

Yeah, Artist Tyrant.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Zodd
	"Oh and could people be banned if they would use too much difficult words and such?

Assuming by 'difficult' you mean obscure vocabulary words, no. If by 'difficult' you mean unreadable grammar, it's possible.

	Originally Posted by Zodd
	Yeah, Artist Tyrant.

Mostly racism, flooding the chatroom while on a suspension, spamming the entire forum with nonsense/racist propaganda, and sock-puppetry in order to avoid an infraction.

[Zodd]

My personal opinion is that it is handy if you use WTF and GTFO and SO and BF and OP. Those we all know, and if you don't know them, then it is learned in 5 seconds and in the future you will always know what GTFO means, which is handy.

And we need too use the abbrevation/chatspeak word TS more, you have an original post which is OP and you have the thread starter TS.

But yeah, every sentence Artist Tyrant wrote I had too google abbrevations. And I'm 23 and spend a lot of time on forums and such, not so much online gaming, though, which is even better for learning it.

So if used correctly it's nice IMO.

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Storm
	Mostly racism, flooding the chatroom while on a suspension, spamming the entire forum with nonsense/racist propaganda, and sock-puppetry in order to avoid an infraction.

I see that user had over 4,000 posts when she got banned. If she was flooding the forum with racist nonsense why did it take so long? I know moderators don't like to talk about "banned porn", but this seems relevant given that we just had a lengthy thread on racism.

[Storm]

The user became interested and/or revealed their interest in Nazism after being a member for a significant period of time.

[Jezebel]

Originally Posted by Zodd

My personal opinion is that it is handy if you use WTF and GTFO and SO and BF and OP. Those we all know, and if you don't know them, then it is learned in 5 seconds and in the future you will always know what GTFO means, which is handy. And we need too use the abbrevation/chatspeak word TS more, you have an original post which is OP and you have the thread starter TS. But yeah, every sentence Artist Tyrant wrote I had too google abbrevations. And I'm 23 and spend a lot of time on forums and such, not so much online gaming, though, which is even better for learning it. So if used correctly it's nice IMO.

I'm sure most people can figure out what most chatspeak terms mean from context quickly even if they only have basic English skills, but that isn't really why it isn't allowed. When I see discussions full of chatspeak, I get a "stupid/teenager/illiterate/lazy thinker" kind of vibe. When I see communities with discussions full of chatspeak I leave. It isn't allowed because I don't want to read it here and I don't want to attract that kind of crowd.

Acronyms aren't outright prohibited as long as they aren't littering posts excessively.

	Originally Posted by thebrainpolice
	I see that user had over 4,000 posts when she got banned. If she was flooding the forum with racist nonsense why did it take so long? I know moderators don't like to talk about "banned porn", but this seems relevant given that we just had a lengthy thread on racism.

If that member had started flooding the forum with racist propaganda upon registering she would have been banned immediately, but she was on the forum for just short of a year before receiving her first infraction. Unless it's a Terms of Use violation or a security issue, we aren't quick to ban established members as soon as they start breaking rules.

The account was pretty low quality overall though. If I had noticed all the posts full of chatspeak crap while it was a new account I probably would have banned before we found out she was a racist.

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Storm
	The user became interested and/or revealed their interest in Nazism after being a member for a significant period of time.

Originally Posted by Jezebel

If that member had started flooding the forum with racist propaganda upon registering she would have been banned immediately, but she was on the forum for just short of a year before receiving her first infraction. Unless it's a Terms of Use violation or a security issue, we aren't quick to ban established members as soon as they start breaking rules. The account was pretty low quality overall though. If I had noticed all the posts full of chatspeak crap while it was a new account I probably would have banned before we found out she was a racist.

Fair enough.