@ArtOfCode hey dude I hope you don't mind me asking but can you please explain this message and it's relevance? because as far as I can see it was pretty dishonest and hyperbolic. what did he say before this to warrant that response?

I have a feeling that this was the message that led to the whole downwards spiral of mods rushing in and everyone freaking out for no reason, and 0celo7 getting a year for (in my opinion) no real reason.

[disclaimer: though I could be wrong about this because I did miss some of the transcript so I don't know if anything was deleted by a mod before that message]

@Eulb I'd like to make something clear: unless you've seen the moderator message sent to 0celo7, you do not know why he was suspended, and you're not qualified to decide that his suspension was for no real reason. So please refrain from mentioning it unless you start substantiating your statements.

When we tell people to avoid unfounded speculation, this is the kind of thing we're talking about.

And actually, on second thought: if you did want to start making substantiated statements (or complaints, or so on) about 0celo7's suspension, the place to do that is in an email to [email protected], where it will reach the people who are actually empowered to do something about it. It won't do any good here in the chat room, so I'd suggest avoiding that topic.

Asking about the general rules surrounding suspensions, rules of the site, and how you or others can avoid suspensions in the future are all perfectly fine topics of conversation here, but when you start picking apart the details of someone else's suspension, it gets more questionable.

(This is not an "order" to avoid talking about 0celo7's suspension entirely, just a strong suggestion. The part about avoiding unfounded speculation, however, is an "order" - I mean, in that case, I am directly telling you not to do that.)

@Eulb What David said. Also, did I not ask a week ago for people to stop pinging me about this?

0celo7's suspension was for a perfectly good reason; what that reason is I'm not at liberty to say.

I have seen the mod message. My general interpretation of the whole situation, along with the suspension of 0celo7, is that - like I mentioned before - authenticity of a user's actions are being judged according to the size of the persons raw suspension history. From my conversation with the moderators here, the response to that interpretation seems conflicting (eg, ACM is confirming it, DavidZ is denying it), which just strengthens the interpretation

Just weighing in on the general business without getting too specific.

@ArtOfCode I'd reparse that: There was a reason behind his suspension, but whether or not it was good is open to argument :P

If you mean "good reason" is the sense of a "coherent reason", then yes.