Banned From RP? Talk About It Here

I've noticed a few victims of the unfortunate Ringplus ban (myself included) have joined this forum (thanks hungryghost). I've also noticed comments related to those bans have been popping up in various unrelated threads. I started this thread so people can tell their stories and voice their opinions in a centralized place. It is my hope that anything related to bans will find its way here.

Feel free to tell your story. In time, I will be telling mine.:wink:

I want to extend an apology to JTSR71. As his/her banning stemmed from my post, I feel it was my fault s/he was banned. I guess I see it as a cause-effect type of thing.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.


Thank you for the apology. But seriously, non needed.

I was more than happy to take up jamielih on his offer to open up a new thread to discuss moderator overreach and conflict of interest arising from moderating the replies to their posts they made as members.

Our good friend, the_uncomfortable_truth, was certainly right about his phrase "circle the wagons". We had KentE take the new thread off topic and throw unfounded accusations and right on cue, there was a dutiful cheerleader there to help him.

Then we had Hoan's wonderful intervention where he admitted that "We" would censor posts that "we" don't like.

Totally worth losing the dubious privilege of posting at Social to expose that sort of hypocrisy.

Were you ever told why you ban was imposed? It appeared to be "permanent." Why? What exactly did you do that was wrong?

Also, I feel like I didn't get the memo declaring certain phrases to be offensive or off limits. I still don't get it.

I think it's a good idea to keep it in a separate place to avoid cluttering up other topics. But as for me, I already told my story here (in the thread called "Tello") and don't feel the need to repeat it. Anyway, I had no desire to be "unbanned" in the RingPlus forum (which is why I didn't try to make an appeal to the putative "Ethical Committee") and would rather just move on now that I'm here (aside from the occasional snide remark, of course). :wink:

You make a lot more sense than the few others who kept creating new accts to get back in and getting banned. :smiley:

I've just been the victim of the losing an argument with a mod by them having the last say and closing the thread trick.

I tried to get banned once but I couldn't - the mod just deleted all my posts instead.

Why weere you trying to get banned? Were you conducting an experiment of some sort?

I wasn't told why I was permanently banned. Did not receive any explanation. It was also my first ban.

In the thread where I asked why "You're entitled to your opinion" was against the TOS, KentE attempted to look for a way to not address the important questions that I raised. Namely, how was that phrase against the TOS and also the very important issue that moderators were participating in threads, were receiving replies, and then deciding to moderate.

His strategy was that he focused on the least important point in a post of mine, claimed to be confused by that part while ignoring the other much more serious points I had made, and accused me of being intentionally unclear in order to cause problems in the thread. I responded to him politely clarifying his "misunderstandings" and suggested that he should not accuse me of doing something underhand solely because something I said wasn't clear.

Bear in mind, he was the person actually being underhand with his responses to the very clear and important questions raised in that thread, which jamielih said anybody was entitled to ask.

In any case, shortly after that, the thread was nuked and I was banned. Hoan admitted he did it, supposedly without consulting any other mod, and pretty much admitted that he and by implication other mods, would censor comments that they did not like. He sounded like a grade A snowflake. A little while later, Hoan's comments themselves were removed.

Now, since there is a chance that a R+ mod will chime in here and weave a story about the warnings I received, I will take the opportunity to speak about them first. I think the first warning I got was after objecting that Chelle had outright called a fellow R+ member a thief for signing up for a plan and then upgrading to another plan. I received another warning when I mentioned the mintSIM deal apparently too many times in different threads. Each time I was warned about unspecified consequences. There were another one or two interactions with the mods but I can't remember the details except the time when KentE thanked me for my "thoughtful comments" when I first started participating. But apart from that, after a while, it did feel like I was being stalked by the mods, KentE in particular with long, boring, private messages. There were numerous comments deleted without explanation and the most amazing incident was when Hoan actually changed what I wrote to read the exact opposite of what I originally said. His response "What you wrote was wrong so I changed it".

The other incident that I remember is when I was in a seemingly normal back and forth and hhffphone sent me a message that if I didn't shut up, he'd have a mod ban me. Another snowflake if ever there was one.

I feel the same way. I didn't even think about appealing. In fact, I was delighted to be banned for asking "Why is the phrase "You're entitled to your opinion" against the TOS?".

It was almost like poetry. The R+ mods couldn't have said or done anything better to have cemented the low esteem in which they are widely held. Hoan even had a tantrum that they had to delete.

Is this about being banned from the social forum or from the cellular service?

Were the two related?

Social forum, although it has been both before as well:

Just trying to get across some useful anti-ting info and a mod was deleting messages so I fought back.

I'm inclined to believe the members version of events over the R+ or mods story.

R+ are known for making mistakes and poor communication. Mods are known for blindly defending R+.

There's actually a very good reason that subhobroto is banned, but I'd rather see the speculation, first. :wink:


  1. He broke the forum rules
  2. He didn't break forum rules

I'm confident that it's one of these two.

Both of them are "good reasons" to be banned from Social.

One of those is definitely correct.

Actually, he needed help troubleshooting a device and shared his credentials with a knowledgeable forum member who is helping him figure out what's wrong.

Subho asked us to ban him until the problem is resolved.

Sounds like someone is going to try swapping devices on his account to see if they can get LTE working.

When it comes to Ringplus forum moderation, time has not brought about change. This quote, posted more than two years ago, is just as applicable today as it was then:

"The problem seems to rest with this sentence from the FAQ - "In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time." "Any reason" seems to have become anything that is critical of R+ whether true or not, whether meant in a helpful vein or not, whether civilized or not." - Bruce_J (circa 2/2015) (bold added for emphasis)

This clause is the unspoken go to justification for the many actions Mods take against members . They''ll declare the forum guidelines have been violated and attach a link to them, but as a general practice, they won't specify which rule was broken. It's caused some VMs and EC members to be drunk with unchecked authority. Unbeknownst to most members, VMs have established their own set of "internal" rules and guidelines. These too, are discretionary and inconsistently applied.

After being subjected to a publicly issued "official warning" and subsequent "ban" in conjunction with witnessing the crazed manner in which JTSR71 was treated, convinced me the whole site was being run by . . . . (I'll let you fill in the blank).

To illustrate this point, I'll recount events BEFORE, DURING and AFTER my own banning.

The thread titled "The new RingPlus Smart Dialer" was moving along smoothly when a member commented:

"It puzzles me why anyone cares about the progress of the dialers. They are going to make our use of R+ harder by having to connect to the Internet every day to download content."

In response, a Mod posted (accompanied by two Mod upvotes):

"From the comments I've been reading of many in the last 10 months or so on this forum, I believe the solution to your puzzle is that there exist some regular forum commenters who appear to me to wish that R+ would fail. I've observed such commenters pick on countless issues to highlight, apparently, for the sake of bringing every little issue to the forefront. The delivery of the dialer is just one such issue. The strategy of such commenters appear to be centered around barraging the forum with any issue with R+ about which they can rattle on, regardless of relative significance."

The subsequent comments made by myself and the Mod on this topic were as follows:

Me - "The solution to this is simple. No issue(s) = no rattle."
Mod - "I believe this is unrealistic."
Me - "You're entitled to your belief. Sure would be nice to test it out though, right?"
Mod - [b]"Legally_Speaking: You're entitled to your belief.
All, please refrain from these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief."

@Legally_Speaking : This comment constitutes an official warning, & further violations of forum guidelines may
result in further consequences.

All: Further comments in this discussion about this very comment will be violations of the forum guidelines, & will result in further consequences.

Comments and / or disagreements with any mod action can be expressed in a discussion focused on such action. Additionally, such mod action can be appealed to the ethical committee."
This "official warning" was publicly issued on 1/13/17. As stated previously, having never been apprised (via PM or otherwise) of this admonishment, I was totally unaware of its existence until the next day after stumbling across JTSR71's thread ( unexplainably scrubbed by Hoan). I want to know what is an "official warning." Whenever I revisit the Mod's stated justification for the warning - "It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying 'You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief'," - I still find myself scratching my head. This prompted me to PM KentE in search of a coherent explanation. This is his response. Take from it what you will.:

[b]"You should have received a PM of the official warning, and I'll ask the issuing mod to send that to you. Please note that the reasons for the action of the mod may differ than my thoughts below.

From reviewing the changelog record of all deleted posts, it seems that there was a large "sweep-up" in that thread of off-topic and 'relatively minor' infractions of the forum guidelines. (but see comment below). To be specific, many comments deleted (not just yours) were viewed as being intentionally off-topic, disruptive to the thread, argumentative for the sole sake of arguing, non-constructive, disrespectful to other members, etc. As was noted by other members via the community flag system, almost every comment in that thread fora couple of days could have been judged as violating the forum guidelines, or a reply to a comment that was in violation of the forum guidelines..

re: "relatively minor". A first, or rare, occurrence of a 'relatively minor' guideline infraction is usually just deleted or edited, and it's over with. A pattern of such behavior, however, is judged differently than a "first, or rare, occurrence". It would seem that the mod considered a 'pattern' of posting behavior in that thread in making the call.

(I'll note at this point that it's likely that most, if not all, moderators might feel they perceive an "intentionally disruptive" pattern when viewing a record of your comments.)

The warning was noted in the thread as a matter of expediency, and so that multiple members with similar posts would also see the warning. The decision to post such a warning in-thread is left to the discretion of an
individual mod. Although viewing the deleted comments 'in situ' (in the exact order they originally appeared in the thread, chronologically with comments that were not deleted) is complicated and labor intensive, it seems that the mod issuing the warning viewed your contributions in that thread as being the primary cause of the thread being derailed.

As to the impact of an "official warning". The moderators have developed a system for possible repercussions of multiple violations of the forum posting guidelines. There is no immediate impact from an "official warning", but it is permanently logged in the moderator records. (It's also reviewed by other mods when it's logged, and if any mod disagrees with the "official warning", the log recording would change from "official warning" to "friendly reminder", which has no permanent impact, other than increasing the likelihood a a similar infraction receiving an "official warning" rather than another "friendly reminder".

The "official warning" may be used eventually when considering whether a forum ban is appropriate..
There are now 4 possible bans:
A "timeout" ban is temporary, lasting 24-48 hours: typically used when a member loses control for understandable reasons. (usually, a stressful situation.)
Any ban done without confirmation from a second mod is automatically considered a "timeout" ban until/unless determined otherwise by confirming votes of other moderators.
A First-Stage ban is temporary, and lasts 5 days, and requires a consensus of the mod team..
A Second-stage ban is temporary, and lasts 10-14 days, and requires a consensus of the mod team
A 3rd-stage ban is permanent: requires consensus of the mod team (by convention, a unanimous vote), and triggers an automatic review by the Ethical Committee.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, ban "stages" may be skipped, or may be combined into a single ban. (For example, a first- and second-stage ban may be issued concurrently, and severe infractions may
result in an immediate permanent ban.)

Longer-term, an "official warning" may have an impact. Official warnings are logged so that a pattern of behavior can be viewed. Mods use a "3-strike" rule as a default method. 3 "official warnings" = 1 bannable offense.
Some of the logic here: repeating needs for "official warnings" indicates that a member has no intention of modifying their posting behavior to remain within the forum guidelines.
Some members repeatedly "push the envelope" in forum behavior, never quite crossing the line in a single post that would justify a ban if considered in isolation-- considered as part of a pattern of behavior, that view changes.

Although I hope that this is never something you need to worry about, I should perhaps also mention that moderators are interested in preserving the privilege of posting in the forum as widely as possible-- but moderators are perhaps more interested in preserving the needs of the community for a productive and pleasant forum experience. It's possible, though rare, that moderators could do an extensive review of posting history of a member, and come to the conclusion that the community is clearly "better off" without
the disruptive presence of a particular individual.
It's far less rare that this 'test' might be used as a contributing factor in determining whether an official warning, or a ban, is appropriate.."[/b] (emphasis added)

This response is the basis for my assertion that VMs have their own set of rules that only they are privy to. None of this is included in the guidelines for members to see. Nevertheless, after the above PM, I await communication from the issuing Mod. Instead, I get another PM from KentE stating the following:

[b]"I've spoken to moderator jamielih, who feels that the official warning in-thread is sufficient to constitute notice of an official warning.
There's nothing in our internal rules the makes this view 'incorrect'.
However, since it's counter to my personal position, I have reviewed the thread including deleted comments, and concur with the decision. :
In thread
you have received an official warning for violations of the forum guidelines.

"_________________________________________ Legally_Speaking:
You're entitled to your belief.
All, please refrain from these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief."

@Legally_Speaking: This comment constitutes an official warning, & further violations of forum guidelines may result in further consequences.

.......such mod action can be appealed to the ethical committee."

The reasons for the official warning are spelled out in my previous reply to you, and encompass intentionally derailing a topic, including a pattern of argumentative behavior deemed to be primarily for the purpose of being argumentative, disruptive and unconstructive.

Follow the link below to check it out:

Have a great day!"[/b](emphasis added)

Intentionally derailing? The derailment began with a Mod's post. Pattern of behavior??? Where is this mentioned as a rule? The originally stated justification for the warning was, ". . . these type of comments that violate forum guidelines. It's akin to me responding to such comment by saying "You're entitled to believe & state that I'm entitled to my belief." That justification was later changed to overall "pattern of posting behavior." I find it quite questionable how one person can post "u are entilled to ur opinion...even though it is wrong," (RP__R0CKS) and receive no admonishment. Yet, I post "You're entitled to your belief. Sure would be nice to test it out though, right?" and the first sentence alone is extracted and used to justify an "official warning." Interesting.

Regarding Mods notifying members of the nature and existence of adverse actions taken against them, there is clearly a disconnect among the Mods. KentE indicates notice should've been issued. Chelle has stated:
[b]"Members almost never get permanently banned, the first time. They're typically warned, there are some PMs that get exchanged between the offender and a mod and, only if the member continues to violate forum guidelines-- despite being warned-- are they temporarily banned for a short cooling off period. Usually the cooling off period is sufficient for someone to collect their thoughts and gain some additional perspective, since they're out of the "heat of battle." They're automatically reinstated within 1-5 days (depending on the circumstances) and, in most cases, they pay closer attention to forum posting rules and everyone moves on with their lives.

Permanent bans are usually a result of someone purposely behaving badly and, literally, trying to get banned. It's never done lightly and always involves senior management. While a permanently banned person can certainly appeal to the ethical committee they should know that all documentation and screenshots are saved and, by the time a permanent ban has been instituted, the evidence is pretty compelling and the chances of reversal are small.

Since permanent bans almost always come after warnings and cooling off bans it's rare for a person to be surprised, when it finally happens."[/b] Then we have Jamielih who flat out refuses to PM notification because there's no rule compelling him/her to do so and s/he doesn't want to. Which brings us back to ". . . moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time." Unfettered, Unquestionable Authority.

I'll leave you to digest that and follow-up later with the circumstances leading to the BAN.

Why was The_Uncomfortable_Truth banned? Why was my friend mylesCam banned? Neither received any notice or explanation via PM. The general MO is a ban becomes permanent. Automatic lifting rarely occurs.