The problem with completely transparent definitions as to what will or wont get you banned, is that people are then able to play the system. If it was a temporary ban, then I can guarantee it was 100% deserved, as there are limited moderators who are able to do temporary bans, and the ones that can are the forums most experienced.
As far as remedying the situation, Theymos is the only one who can handle Ban Appeals, and frankly speaking, it does not happen often. There is a fair bit of oversight that goes into the banning process, with accounts that aren't newbies especially, mistakes are very rare, and your own misinterpretation of the rules tends not to be a great defence. While there are very few hard rules written, most go without saying. A 30 day ban leads me to believe that it was either not your first mistake regarding the same subject matter, or it was way outside the realm of what a reasonable person would expect of you to post. The fact that you were banned twice for "spamming" whatever that encompases, means that you were given consideration or that double standard, as you weren't permanently banned after the first warning ban.
Obviously I don't know what your post was, and it was deleted I'm sure, so without that I can't try to point out specifics to what I believe to be your offense, but perhaps consider what I said, if it makes sense to you now more than before, in 30 days perhaps you will have understood what happened, and can avoid it in the future. You are very lucky to have got a 30 day ban actually, those are rather uncommon. Short temporary bans are the standard (3-7 day) and after that, you are gone.
I don't know how you can suggest the rules aren't completely transparent so people can't play the system. I say this because I've been on many forrums I've always been under the impression the rules are supposed to be straight forward so people no what they should and shouldn't do so that they can avoid getting into trouble. How can you 100% guarantee that I was banned for a good reason without knowing a single fact of my case it really makes me wonder.
You say my misinterpretation of the rules tends to not be a great defense in regards to appeals. My question is how can I not be expected to to misinterpret the rules if they aren't transparent. It seems to me I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. It's beyond walking on eggshells at this point.
"A 30 day ban leads me to believe that it was either not your first mistake regarding the
same subject matter, or it was way outside the realm of what a reasonable person would expect of you to post. The fact that you were banned twice for "spamming" whatever that encompases, means that you were given consideration or that double standard, as you weren't permanently banned after the first warning ban."
How can a ban without the person know what they did wrong be even remotely considered a warning. If someone slaps someone in the face for no reason it that a warning?
How can you consider me not having a clue what I'm doing wrong because their is no information given other then "unsubstantial posts" a sufficient reason to get banned. Would you not want to have the same information if you were in a similar situation? Wouldn't any reasonable person expect to be given the details up front or at any time for that matter.
If the post was deleted I have no record of it happening. This is my main issue there is no information for what I did wrong therefore no proof I've done anything wrong at all....
The fact that you consider this to me getting lucky is very saddening to be honest. I don't know how this type of action can be accepted by reasonable people. I have no clue what I've done wrong no way to have the issue overturned and I'm some how considered lucky in your eyes?
