I saw Porcia83 get a 40 point ban then changed to a 10 point ban then rebanned again at 40 points, with the following comments by the mod:

porcia83
Feb 13, 2013 12:24 AM
40 / Troll or Spam Account
Excessive Site Trolling - This ban has been escalated to a permanent ban.

The word "escalated" to me is the key term which to me means it was an intentional conscious action by the mod involved to go from a 10 point back to a 40 point. Now I see today that he is back to a regular registered user and is posting on RCG. So in light of the ability to have banned users reinstated, I would officially like to request RCG user "sgtdirt" to be reinstated. If Porcia83 gets a second chance from a permaban then sgtdirt deserves the same equal chance (since we all want to treated equally correct?). If I can not make the appeal on behalf of sgtdirt then please explain the procedural requirements for reinstatement so I may forward them onto sgtdirt so I can have my balsa building buddy back on RCG.

Don


EDIT: Adding the following info from this recent post: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...&postcount=168

Originally Posted by porcia83

The best thanks I can give is to the Jim's of course. Clearly I got a second chance, and for that I thank them.

Also wanted to link this reply in this post showing an appeal on another's behalf will be taken into consideration by RCG:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...60&postcount=2

Thanks for the post. We will take it into consideration.

And within 48 hours this appeal was granted. However in the past it was clearly stated that:

Users cannot make an appeal for other users.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...26&postcount=2

So I hope you can understand why I am quite confused by what has happened the past several days. Also please understand I am not trying to be a pain in the rear and posting simply for arguments sake. I am truly confused as to what is happening here. All I know is an intentionally banned user was reinstated and given a second chance and I want that same opportunity given to sgtdirt.

The reversal of Porcia's ban was not related to the post in SSC.
After his ban was escalated to a permanent ban it was internally decided to give him another chance. There is a condition to the reinstatement. Any warning he receives in the future will be worth 3 points and he will not have the ability to edit the warned posts.
I hope this answers your question.

Originally Posted by Jim T. Graham

There is a condition to the reinstatement. Any warning he receives in the future will be worth 3 points and he will not have the ability to edit the warned posts.

Ok, then how does "sgtdirt" go about getting the same internal consideration and be allowed the same conditional reinstatement opportunity that was given to "Porcia83"?

Am I to assume that the sgtdirt account is not eligible for reconsideration for reinstatement?

This account is not eligible for reinstatement.

Originally Posted by awagar

This account is not eligible for reinstatement.

That is unfortunate.

I do hope you all can understand how all the rest of us who are not involved in moderation can see what happened with Porcia as highly unusual and confusing. On one hand it is posted:

Originally Posted by Jim T. Graham

The request in SSC to bring back Porcia was not a contributing factor in his ban being lifted.

Yes on the other hand this is posted:

Originally Posted by jbourke

Several other users asked for us to give him another chance. .

That is why it is confusing for those of us on the outside watching the events from the sidelines. It seems contradictory. The end result is it appears he is being given special treatment and or considerations that others who have been banned have not been given.

Originally Posted by jbourke

The moderators can make judgment calls, but they are subject to administrative review as well as the appeals process.

We often give second, third, and fourth chances, so this is nothing new. Sometimes the admins give more chances because they see a potential in a user, sometimes it is because of the other contributions a user has made, sometimes because the community really wants to see the user get another chance, sometimes because we review the infractions and find a mistake.

In this case it was a combination. We heard from the user that he wanted another chance. Several other users asked for us to give him another chance. Also, during a review we found that we made a minor procedural error. That was enough by itself. We reinstated him with two provisions: one, that he no longer be allowed to edit his posts, two that any further warning points given to him will be at least 3 points in value. Most likely those restrictions will lead to another ban and from that there will be no return. Them's the breaks.

It is exactly because we believe in transparent and fair moderation that we took these steps. We routinely work with people who are at or beyond the ban limit to keep them on the site. In every case we strive to work with people so they can avoid being banned, even when it seems clear that the user's only interest is in stirring up the community.

I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what your objection is. It sounds like nit picking from here.

Jim

Based on this post and the goals within, I am sad to hear that sgtdirt account is not even eligible for reconsideration especially after the period of time he has been gone. Time has the ability to allow people to cool off and reassess. I do not know the exact detail of his banning but I just wanted to make sure he was indeed given a "second, third, and fourth chance" and the mods did "strive to work with [him]people so [he]they can avoid being banned".

Thanks for your time.
Don