Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

bans for pinging people:

He claims to have warned , and cited the ToS section on "tampering with site resources".

So making use of site resources, in a natural and justifiable way, is now grounds for permanent site wide ban on the grounds of exceeding some arbitrary, unstated limit on the reasonable usage of site resources.

There are plenty of people of this website who ping other users all the time. It's about forming a community and knowing when other users might be interested in a subject. Will such users be suddenly banned in future on account of this? What's the limit, ?

The only reason was banned was because he was occasionally including in his comment pings, thus drawing 's attention to it. How do we users interested in transparency know that banned because some tenuous connection to "tampering with site resources", and not because he was annoyed at getting a couple of pings from the same user every day.

This needs to be made more objective, clear for all users.

Is the only reason Poal ran smoothly and without controversy for so long because there weren't enough users to elevate admin stress to the point of making such bad decisions as this? Do users on this site really want bans to be dished our for such dubious reasons?

Poal is growing; the admins need to acknowledge that. If resources are so stretched, limit the number of pings users can use - don't ban them for exceeding arbitrarily drawn limits.

It's not that complicated.

is going to ban me for using too many pings in this post?

@AOU bans @ARM for pinging people: [Source](https://poal.co/s/LogosRising/258264/a9f40d06-6efb-4382-9892-516537a55611) He claims to have warned @ARM, and cited the ToS section on "tampering with site resources". So making use of site resources, in a natural and justifiable way, is now grounds for permanent site wide ban on the grounds of exceeding some arbitrary, unstated limit on the reasonable usage of site resources. There are plenty of people of this website who ping other users all the time. It's about forming a community and knowing when other users might be interested in a subject. Will such users be suddenly banned in future on account of this? What's the limit, @AOU? The only reason @ARM was banned was because he was occasionally including @AOU in his comment pings, thus drawing @AOU's attention to it. How do we users interested in transparency know that @AOU banned @ARM because some tenuous connection to "tampering with site resources", and not because he was annoyed at getting a couple of pings from the same user every day. This needs to be made more objective, clear for all users. Is the only reason Poal ran smoothly and without controversy for so long because there weren't enough users to elevate admin stress to the point of making such bad decisions as this? Do users on this site really want bans to be dished our for such dubious reasons? Poal is growing; the admins need to acknowledge that. If resources are so stretched, limit the number of pings users can use - don't ban them for exceeding arbitrarily drawn limits. It's not that complicated. @PMYB2 is @AOU going to ban me for using too many pings in this post?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (35).
[–] • 0 pt

I mean, PS has a two year old account that just got threatened with a ban for sticking up for someone who was banned for making a comment mention.

This is a site that prides itself on free speech, so why pretend like that isn't a thing?

Have we actually slid in the span of two weeks from the algo doing the banning to admin banning people they find annoying? Is that really where we are?

[–] • 0 pt

Is notification spam not spam now? oyy vey you forgot to shift the overton window first

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Where does that phrase occur in the ToS?

I'm just saying, if there is no definition as far as the frequency that would equate to notification spamming, then it really does reduce to being able to ban someone you find annoying. Is there a clear answer as to how many times you get to mention admin before you get banned?

EDIT: Also, why did you delete your previous comment about looking away?

[–] • 0 pt

but it's not in the ToS, goy!

This reminds me of NorthSeaPagan's pedopost that maybe wasn't technically child porn but it sure had the intention of being a pedopost on an SFW sub.

Is there a clear answer as to how many times you get to mention admin before you get banned?

There is a rule against spam, if I was spammed in any way I would expect the person to get banned, in what world do you live in where the admins have to tolerate spam in their inbox?

EDIT: Also, why did you delete your previous comment about looking away?

it was meant for another comment

[–] • 0 pt

Do you think any of the users downvoting this thread will get "Suspicious Behaviour" tags?

[–] • 0 pt

No, because my comment is spam, silly! Apparently they get to dictate it as they go. What cracks me up is they used the ToS to make their case, and then just below I brought up the ToS, only for them to go, "But muh ToS!!!". It's hilarious.