[Phantom Hoover]

Actually, why was I monkeyed in the first place? It's not like I'm even on any internal boards, you may as well have kept me on a ban. At least then the ban would actually have expired two days ago rather than 'when an admin remembers' (or is it 'when I complain'?).

[Zacam]

If you were banned though, you wouldn't have been able to make this post.

So to answer the question, I have one of my own: Do you fundamentally realize why it was that Administrative action took place and what do you have to say about it?

[Phantom Hoover]

Of course I realise why administrative action took place. You were already angry at me for being rude to Sandwich, then decided to ban me when I pointed out that he was acting out of line by threatening to ban me himself. What do I have to say about that? The same as before: it was entirely inappropriate to ban me for holding admins accountable to the guidelines the site supposedly agreed on.

[Zacam]

And no thought what so ever of your own actions of "being rude"?

Yes, he did get out of line, in an entirely understandable and not unreasonable fashion. That it lead to him getting out of line was acknowledged and addressed by him.

And it wasn't about you "holding admins accountable" that got you banned, but I'm still waiting to see if you've figured that out yet.

[Phantom Hoover]

Well you see the thing is, there already was a clear administrative response to what I said to Sandwich: two warnings, one in the thread and one in PM, both with the same message: do this again, and you'll be banned. I made one post after that warning, and then I was banned. Here's what the admin responsible had to say:

And you know what? Forget what I said in the beginning here. You are now GETTING some time off to think things over and for this conversation to resume being civilized especially following that lovely and precisely crafted "Oh, but that'd be abuse" line you decided to take.

I don't know how else I'm meant to interpret this?

[NGTM-1R]

Yes, he did get out of line, in an entirely understandable and not unreasonable fashion.

If it's possible to get out of line in an fashion that's not unreasonable, you may need to consider your definition of "getting out of line" more closely, because this sentence is not one that make sense. Being out of line is doing something that is unreasonable.

I've typically admired you as an admin, Zagdul, but some kind of error has been committed here if you can say that sentence with a straight face.

[Zacam]

NGTM-1R: Not to refute the idea that an error has or hasn't taken place. But yes, it is possible for somebody to be out of line in a reasonable fashion when you actually take into account cause and effect. Also bear in mind that I'm phrasing my response directly to the verbiage already used by somebody else, to make sure that the context of relevance is maintained. Wouldn't do to cause for confusion.

[Phantom Hoover]

You know, the reason I stopped pestering you about this on IRC at the time was that I knew that I had in fact been pushing it with Sandwich and a week off didn't seem that unreasonable, especially since you said you'd maybe review the situation. Had I known that you were going to review a week's ban into what appears to be an indefinite monkeying until I say you were in the right, I would not have done so.

I don't have any outstanding issue with Sandwich; he acted out of line and has acknowledged that. I don't have any problem with receiving administrative action for being uncivil to him. What I do take issue with is the fact that you decided to retroactively turn a warning into a ban because you were pissed off at me for calling Sandwich out -- and before you again accuse me of misrepresenting events again that is what you yourself said at the time. And now you've decided to draw the whole sordid business out even further.

[Mongoose]

PH, what you seem to be missing here is that this isn't just about that one incident with Sandwich.  You've received several warnings and discussions about a specific type of behavior, which you then proceeded to continue unabated.  Is that something you recognize, or do we need to be more specific?

[Phantom Hoover]

You know, the reason I stopped pestering you about this on IRC at the time was that I knew that I had in fact been pushing it with Sandwich and a week off didn't seem that unreasonable

So yes, I do recognise that. Do you recognise that Zacam clearly stated that my objection to Sandwich's threatened action was a major factor in him banning me?

[Zacam]

For the record "indefinite" is a pretty strong term, try not jumping to conclusions.

Also for the record, and maybe we need to spell this out (and I'm more than happy to do so), but in a circumstance where you think Moderation/Administration is not properly recusing themselves, that's what the "Report to moderator" function is for, rather than being directly confrontational about it and risking topical derailment or managing to create a perception of creating a situation deliberately or making an already existing situation even worse.

Which is the same guideline that should be used for any reportable situation. Report it and move on.