They banned you for spam?  Seriously?  I would think directly quoting the post in question would be enough to support the evidence rule of this thread.   I don't agree with that at all mods, you should go back and overturn this in his mod history.  That moderation was over the line!

yes, his opinion was nonsense because it was proved to be false, yet he still argued it. it would be like me saying a 5 dollar bill feels has more value than 5 one dollar bills. it could be my opinion, but it would still be nonsense. 

and if he didnt want to argue with it anymore, he could have not replied, instead he went on and made his comment. 

when tameron and tachi replied to him, they replied with facts and information behind the materials, and thats what forums are about, discussion opinions and sharing information, which tachi and tameron did, they can not be faulted or considered to be ganging up on him when they brought useful information into the discussion while kowen certainly did not. 

Neither should have been modded.  Seemed like a very mild reason to be banned.  At most warnings and then move on. Or at least imo

He didnt argue it

I actually think the kowen moderation is probably fine. He went a bit over the line defending himself. Kind of the equivalent of getting baited. I am not too sure about the jaywood ban though. Has he been giving warnings previously for "spam" in the mod thread?

yes he did

and whether he did or not was irrelevant to his ban, which has to do with his comment. not if his original point of view had any merrit to it or not. 

there is no justification to his comment, it was baiting like i said in my first post. 

its right and mods were correct to ban him. his comment was a cheap shot at the site, its as simple as that. 

No

@Rol - Fair enough.  Rol your comment makes the most sense.  Continued behavior

Pretty much. The ban lengths could have been more severe, as the users in question do have previous with this kind of comment (we don't moderate every comment, but we do keep track of "borderline" posts), but due to the (relative) mildness of the offence on both accounts the ban lengths were dropped down to make it fair for both users.

In addition Shinobi, who dealt out the bans in question, responded earlier in the thread. Re-posting for convienience:

"The discussion between Kowen, Tachikoma and Tamron was perfectly fine and on topic up until Kowen's last line in the post that was moderated. All previous posts were discussing the content of the thread. This line by Kowen "You both dont seem to have a problem with me liking the ps3 and ps2 but how dare I not prefer the Ps4.  This site.... " doesnt address the content of Tamron's post in any way, it's only purpose is to question both Tamron's and Tachikoma impartiality and the validity of their posts. Its completely unnecessary, and changes the focus of the discussion to be about someones character and agenda instead of the topic at hand. Furthermore it entices a response from both users to defend their character and more than likely to respond with similar sentiments towards the user baiting. This is against the rules and i applied the rules accordingly.

Tamron clearly feels offended by the post, and responds in kind to say that Kowen is talking smack "Seems he just doesn't like being called out on talking smack.". Which is a clear example of flaming. Doesn't seem like anyone has a problem with this moderation, so I wont go into further detail.

If you could give me an alterior purpose to the last line of Kowen's post other than to bring into question Tamron and Tachikoma character and bias then i would like to hear it."

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Moderation note from Torillian (overseen from other mods in ModChat): You had to know that just quoting the post and saying "dumb ban" was going to qualify as spam and a general attack on a moderator. If you want to see a post that would actually be ok and is against a moderation you only have to look to the post directly above your own. Please feel free to argue Kowen's or your own ban in a similar manner to Fatslob's post when you return.

The rules broken are from the OP:

• The Big One: We are open to all kinds of critiques, feedback, and concerns, but doing so must be done in a manner that is professional, respectful, and above all else, backed up with evidence and facts. Any baseless or unsupported accusation or criticism has no potential to serve anyone and therefore can be treated as spam and/or an unfounded attack on a moderator.
• Breaking any of these rules can and will result in a moderation against you. So please be respectful of the parameters we have set in place.

It just so happened that Tor classified it as spam. Could have been flaming.

And yes, I have personally notified Jay that he has stepped over the line when it's come to the rules found in the OP, once via a PM and another via a post in here.