Well, yeah.

For all we know Bungalow has had just as many warnings as Boo Boo, if not more. But we're not allowed to assume things apparently. So who knows?

Would you prefer we go ahead and find every insult everyone's made on this site, including yourself, and ban everyone for a week? Because I'm not doing anything today and I have plenty of time.

Unfortunately, not every mod is at every crime-scene so to speak. I personally don't know of a single bungalow incident besides reading about him in passing. But I'm sure there are other mods that have more of a background and have more qualified reasons than I do for making a judgment.

If you expect us to be perfect, you're on the wrong planet. We do the best we can and we do have the best interests of this site in mind. Sometimes the best interests can conflict with your own opinion, and although that sucks, it's something you have to deal with like an adult. If you really can't enjoy this site and contribute because you think someone's been unfairly banned, then you're taking this way too personally and you might need a break.

Okay, so how many chances do you feel should be given to someone who explicitly states that they are unwilling to change their ways?

That's exactly the opposite if what my point has stated, so no. Stick to banning people who break the rules. Not banning based past and/or presumed future actions.

So there's no accountability and/or need for justification of actions within the mod community? That's how I'm reading that. I know it's hard supporting a **** decision, all I'm asking for is that people are treated fairly. I'm not trying to burn this mother down or anything; I just don't want the integrity of this forum, or it's leaders being put in jeopardy.

A lot of people. Thread's 7 pages long.

EDIT: 9.......

lol thread had a purpose at one point

I've never really seen him with a line through his name though. Which is the difference I guess.

The thread has more than doubled since the banning of Boo Boo.

It was mentioned on page 4 that he was banned, now we're on page 9.

Not everything is a written rule. We are in charge of looking out for the good of the community, not just for enforcing written rules on the spot. Our integrity is not undermined when we do that.

Our actions don't need a board approval... but for bans of established members and other things, the mods do ask the other mods how they feel about it. Are we required to? No. We do it as a courtesy and out of respect for eachother's opinions. If one or more of us do not have an opinion on a certain matter, it doesn't invalidate the decision.
If one or more moderators have a problem with another mod's actions, we take it up with each other as we feel necessary.

I think you can pretty much put 2 and 2 together to figure out if there were any objections in this case.

Weren't you permabanned though? And they only let you back on your original account because they got **** bored of banning all your proxy accounts on account of your alternating ISP address? I mean that's gotta count for something too.

The site I used to moderate had the policy that a permaban was a permaban (and it also went straight to permaban none of this 3 day ban ****) the only way you came back was if you didn't flagrantly admit you were the same member and bandy it about, and actually changed your habits into being a better poster.

You've come back and made a POINT of being the same person and absolutely refused to stop being the provocative stream of verbal diarrhoea you always were. So frankly the assumptions don't really go far enough. Don't get me wrong I have no love lost for Boob, but he's not malignant and malicious in the same way that you are.