LJ abuse go ape?

[ciphergoth]

Updated: meta has updated his web page.

meta, who I've known for over a decade but never met, has had his account suspended by the LJ abuse team. Here's his side of the story. Now, in context, the "innocent" act of copying a publically available address from one place to another isn't innocent at all - it reads as an incitement to violence - but nonetheless, it's pretty clear that if things are as he describes them, the Abuse team's response is pretty inappropriate.

I'd like to link to the support request, but we don't have the privs to see it.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"muddies the waters unnecessarily"? Did you miss the part where I give an itemized list of the separate and independent issues involved?

- meta

[djm4]

No. I also did not miss the part where you said: 'The LJ abuse team should enforce all terms of service when they review a complaint; they shouldn't be selective.' Your point would be?

[(Anonymous)]

That if some terms of service are enforced and others not, it makes it hard to know what the *actual* terms of service are, and which are merely there for decoration. It also makes the actions of the abuse team seem unfair, which makes their job harder. I don't see those as illegitimate concerns.

- meta

[djm4]

I believe that it is legitimate to look at the abuse team's responses to different complaints in general, and to see whether the policy's being applied fairly in principle. I also believe that looking at two individual cases in separate areas of the TOS does not in itself make for a good assesment of the overall actions of the abuse team. I also believe that doing it while you yourself are the subject of one of the alleged violations makes it harder to judge your case on its own merits.

I'm genuinely sorry you got banned from LJ, though, and I don't think the actions of the abuse team look at all fair.