Vulptex has decided not to enforce bans on the spam accounts, but he will still ban me for rule violations. This is unacceptable selective enforcement of the rules

submitted by DrRaccoon from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What if I create 100 accounts and post just 1 porn each, like the bone conduction guy? Then youll stop banning me?

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I probably would ban the account if it was porn. That's much more serious than plain old spam. But it's not because of you.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure why it is. Neither is illegal, both are against the rules. The fact those bone conduction posts are coming in a wall of 100 is a much bigger problem than the posts themselves from a user experience standpoint

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's because porn carries potential legal complications in certain situations. The owner doesn't want to deal with that, while a corporate giant like Reddit Inc. can handle it (even still only in most cases, and they're trying to get rid of it too, like several other sites).

Spam, while annoying, typically can't get saidit in any legal trouble.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But it's not because of you.

I understand this, but still, you have essentially said that a harsher set of rules applies to me (or any real user) than the spammers abusing this site. I understand why you have made this decision for practical purposes, but on principle this will never sit right with me, and yes I take it personally if this will continue to be your stance that I am subject to punishments that spammers are not

[–]Vulptex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you ran a spam ring it would get the same treatment. If the spammers posted porn it would get the same treatment. It's a difference of offenses, not persons.

[–]DrRaccoon[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Understood, still not thrilled with this, but I can live with that justification. What really set me off was the perception of being subject to unequal selective enforcement