Carl2291 said:

Its not unfair why you got banned at all. Read Rule 1, Rule 8 and more importantly in this case Rule 10. Ill post some bits from the page.
______________________

"VGChartz uses a progressive moderation system. This means that repeats of the same offense will often result in harsher penalties, starting with a warning and working up."

"Keep posts on topic as much as possible."

"Similarly, do not create threads, posts or signatures just to bait people of a specific fan group. Bait threads will be locked and you will be moderated for them. If you spend a lot of time making hit-and-run negative threads or posts about a specific platform you will also be moderated at the discretion of the moderators."
______________________

The last quote, from Rule 10, is the most important one here. You have a history of making baiting, negative, hit and run posts against things that arent PlayStation. When you post something like you did, with the sad face on top of it, it looks like sarcasm. It looks like concern trolling. This is why you were banned, because you have a reputation of doing things like that.

The sheer fact that you admit to trolling "direct to the point" isnt going to help you in future situations where you will no doubt be banned again for trolling within the next couple of Months.

And the rules have to be fair for everybody... ethomaz's comments = ban because his reputation vs other's comments = fine becuase their reputations seems unfair and biased for me.

VitroBahllee said:

Allowing users to accrue a reputation IS fair.

I don't think so.

User1 "Hello fellas" = Ban
User2 "Hello fellas" = Cool

This is the most unfair thing ever... the reputation was to be used to decide how log the ban is not a subjective way to decide if a comment is a troll or not.

What I mean is... in case of doubt if a use is trolling or not what do you will do? Ban if you dislike him or do nothing if you like him.

No law in the world condenates a mulder because the reputation... they chance the decision (how much time it will be condened) due the reputation.

You're looking at it black and white. You were banned because the mods thought your post was insincere and thus provocative. If it had come from a Nintendo fan there would be no doubt they were sincere and actually sad about it not coming to WiiU.

We only have your word for you saying you're sad about it, but of course you're going to defend yourself.

Your example is poor as well, if any user started posting racial abused ect they would received punishment no matter who they are. But for things like this it isn't cut and dry.

Seece said:

You're looking at it black and white. You were banned because the mods thought your post was insincere and thus provocative. If it had come from a Nintendo fan there would be no doubt they were sincere and actually sad about it not coming to WiiU.

We only have your word for you saying you're sad about it, but of course you're going to defend yourself.

Your example is poor as well, if any user started posting racial abused ect they would received punishment no matter who they are. But for things like this it isn't cut and dry.

Wait... I never uses the sad emoticons to express Sarcarms... you can look my posts... I use it when I was really sad because something... in the old days I even asked guys how to use sarcarms... I try sometimes but never got the right to make this works in English.

I'm being sincere... I don't deny that I troll sometimes but I make direct comments and not this overthinking comments.

And the rules have to be fair for everybody... ethomaz's comments = ban because his reputation vs other's comments = fine becuase their reputations seems unfair and biased for me.

VitroBahllee said:

Seece is right. You are hearing the word 'reputation' and not realizing it doesn't mean "They treated you differently on the one thing you said because of your reputation." What it means is 'This last thing isn't the major reason we're banning you, it's because you ALWAYS say rude stuff.'

Arguing over how bannable this last thing is doesn't matter. It was the 'straw that broke the camels back.' The sum of all the inciting stuff you've said from your last ban is what got you banned.

It's like saying there's a 1,000 word limit on something. You type five hundred words, then another five hundred words, then add one more word. "It's just a word!" Yes, but it adds up to the other ones to make 1,001.

Carl2291 said:

The rules are fair to everybody because its based on reputation. Its a progression based system.

You have a relatively large mod history (especially in recent memory) so your comments will be scrutinised more than someone who doesnt have a relatively large mod history. I used to be in the same boat as you when Maxwell banned me for the least little thing. I cleaned my act up and stopped acting like a dick on the forums and currently, I aint been banned in over 2 and a half Years.

You need to look at substance.

My mod history is like...

2007-2012: No ban (one fair ban to be accurate)
2013-2014: 15 or more bans?

Something change... my comments are more light today then 2009 for example.

And I disagree with the reputation... it is used to how long the ban is... not to unfair ban people... you can't be banned for something you didn't even if you have the demon reputation.