WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©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)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Is that a joke? Do you want another helping of dramatic rhetoric with your main course, sir? Comparing this to a post about child porn? Come on. Get real.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Being legitimately spammed would be a massive pain in the ass. I get it. But I've been familiar with the user ARM for a long, long time. I've been following these threads. The fact is ARM is a pain in the ass, about that there can be no doubt. But the amount of pings that went to AOU from him weren't what I'd reasonably call spam, nor would I imagine that anyone else would.

The problem is there aren't any clear rules in the ToS about using this built-in site feature in a way that would constitute spam. In fact, there aren't any clear rules about just what constitutes spam whatsoever. Someone could downvote for spam and have their account nuked because there's disagreement about what spam is.

We can be told that ARM got a warning, but what did that consist in? He never got a suspicious user tag. He was simply nuked over the use of a built-in site feature, about which the ToS makes no explicit comment regarding 'spam'.

You can trivialize your own ToS if that's what you want to do. Just realize that the ToS was exactly what you were using to make your case from the get go. So I'm not sure how logical of a play it is to base your argument on it, and then turn around and mock someone from bringing the ToS up.

I don't want to argue about it. It's not my site. I don't make the rules. But I think it is high time that some clarity was issued about exactly what spam is. In ARM's case, I think he was someone who got on AOU's nerves, and so he was nuked. I think these definitions that currently exist in the ToS are getting stretched beyond reasonable limits to justify some highly particular and fickle moderation. Like I said, ARM is a fucking prick, on his best days. That doesn't mean he should get banned for pinging admin a couple times.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Don't get caught up in the child porn angle, I'm not necessarily talking about the content of the post, but the boundary pushing kike tactics.

He never got a suspicious user tag.

That tag is added automatically until proven otherwise.

The ToS mentions spam and that could come in different forms, the same way the pedopost was still a bannable offense because it passes the : it was on an SFW sub, the title was suggestive, the woman looked underage regardless of "facts" on the contrary which can't be verified (date of the picture).

I personally think the wording of the ToS should expanded and be less specific to cover anything from PM's to @ notifications, at the same time these rules are obvious to anyone with half a brain, this shouldn't even be a point of contention, hence my mockery.

[–] 0 pt

be less specific to cover anything

That's great. That's how you get a tyrant. If thinking like this is the product of a 'whole brain', I'll keep my half-a-brain.

I personally think the wording of the U.S. Constitution should be expanded to be less specific and cover everything. How about just 1 big right? Everyone gets one Super Right. That way, all of your rights can be infringed because the wording is so vague! Excellent, idea Mr. Goldstein!

[–] 0 pt

Great way to cut off the quote, moshe.