For the sake of convience, I will just quote your post and work here. It's much easier for me to work with all of this piece by piece. And I presume it's okay if we put this is the spam section. If it belongs to another section you can feel free to move it. I'm saying you are interpreting the law entirely wrong from my point of the view. You are interpreting the law to such a point that I am arguing you are changing the law, not interpreting it. You used the analogy that you are a cop. So I'll go along with it. You are supposed to enforce the law. You are not the judge, or the jury. You are a moderator, which I am lead to believe moderators only enforces the law, and do not change it or interpret the law in any way they see fit. I did not mean any offense when I said you are "only a moderator: earlier. I meant that this matter isn't within your job description, not that you are inadequate for it. This decision reflects on the law as a whole. The judge's decision on a case is often referenced in future cases because this is how the government now interprets the law. Your decision effects all future cases, as such only someone of the highest authority should make the decision. Because the decision is basically rewriting the law, right here, right now. In short, plenty of other people could be banned by moderators because you decided this or that is not allowed now. If you are arguing because you have Raini's trust that means you can't be wrong and you have the authority to change the rules then I believe you are wrong. Rainidear wrote the rules. They have changed over time to fit certain situations, and Rainidear may not have necessarily always made the decisions herself of changing this or that rule. But no where did I see that these rules are subject to change at the discretion of any one moderator. I guess this one was my fault here. I wasn't clear enough. Something as trivial as spraying over someone else's spray is just too hard to moderate effectively. A moderator may not be able to watch two people simultaneously at every living second. It takes only a moment to spray under someone else's spray and then blame it on them. A moderator is only able to see that one spray is sprayed over the other. Not WHICH spray was actually sprayed there first. He has no way of knowing if someone is telling the truth when they say someone else sprayed over their spray. In fact, a moderator has to be WATCHING both parties just to be absolutely sure. That is how impossible of a task it is for someone to moderate spraying over someone else's spray. Take for example when you were online earlier today. Did you personally observe Biomatrix spray over Zari's spray? Did you see the supposed 1 second crime happen right before your eyes? Then see Zari ask her to stop, and then she did it again? Or did you just see the result? You only saw the result and heard Zari's word. You never saw the crime being committed in the act as it is impossible to watch the two parties all by yourself. I'm not saying Zari framed Bio. I'm sure that wasn't the case as I was there for the whole ordeal. But I was not capable of watching both parties at the same time, I was only capable of watching a single wall at a time which I didn't see you watching these walls with me. And these walls only provided me with circumstantial proof. I would only have circumstantial proof to act on. Like you did earlier this day. So yes, if you are capable of acting without absolute proof, I would say other moderators would also be capable of doing what you did if they are forced to moderate against a nearly impossible to fully moderate situation. Unless you are suggesting a team of two moderators. Which is the only way this could be done. I see the problem here. It is your interpretation of the word harassment itself. Let me ask you something. If someone talks about Cream Gravy in the Funbox server, and I ask them to stop, and they refuse to stop. Is that harassment? If someone does the sniper thrust and I ask them to stop, is that harassment if they don't comply? What if asking someone asks you to stop spraying over their spray and you ask them to stop asking that. Is THAT harassment? Are both people harassing each other at that point? Harass paradox? No. Anyone could be offended by literally anything. You can't just dictate any action you like as harassment just because it offends someone and the person doesn't want to stop at the request of someone else. People ask the hale not to kill them all the time. As such, the only real way something can pass as harassment is if the action itself is deemed offensive by a general authority. Is spraying over someone else's spray deems as an offensive action now because you've said so? Members have been banned in the past for interfering with other members' ability to play. Examples are getting in their way of placing down buildings or even trying to block that person's view purposely or block their shots purposely. People have also been banned for verbal harassment. Assaulting the person verbally in the chat, or even with sprays personally attacking them. But spraying over someone else's spray is not a hostile action. Spraying over someone else's spray is not a hostile action. It does not interfere with that person's ability to play the game or talk to others. It's an action that is literally done mountains of times every hour on every server. Intentionally and not so intentionally. It's done so much to the point where people have sprays that only have one purpose, and that purpose is covering someone else's spray. That was the point I was trying to make with Krazy's spray. I should have chosen my words more carefully here. You aren't harassing an individual. As I've already explained this can't possibly be counted as harassing an individual. As then your definition of harassment is open to anything is harassing. You are apparently harassing a spray? Should we hand out restraining orders to keep sprays away from each other? What are we gonna moderate next? If weapon's name is harassing people? If I name my weapon "Mr.Kenyon Bane" will I need to change it? This would just be ridiculous. You are really suggesting acting against someone for an action as frivolous as this? It's against the rules to have sprayed over someone else's spray if they don't like it? Can you say that with a straight face? It's just unheard on any TF2 server to act against something something this trivial. Are you seriously suggesting that sprays are their own people now with their own personal space? And other's aren't "allowed" to violate that personal space? So you've defined that spraying over someone else's spray is rude and that's why it's harassment? At least that's what I think you are saying. I've already explained above that spraying over someone else's spray is a neutral action. I'll say this again. Spraying over someone else's spray could only be interpreted as an offensive thing by the individual as there is not necessarily any hostility in the action itself. What you seem to be suggesting nominates not just spraying over someone else's spray as a potential capital offense, but everything as a potentially capital offense. Because anyone can be offended by anything. That is why I am against it. That is why I'm making this post. I could cite endless examples of why just because someone tells you to stop doing anything they don't want you to do and you not complying can apply to everything you can possibly do on the server, but I feel as though that would start to get redundant. These were the points I was trying to make. The way you have currently "interpreted the law" is far too loose and vague, which means everything and anything could pass as harassment. So if you are correct, every moderator will be forced to moderate by your definition of harassment just to back your decision, or else your decision here would be invalid. Which is why Raini should handle this decision, since it carries so much potential weight. Because by saying this against the rules, it is also making a huge commitment for the entire network of these pony servers and it will effect everyone, vastly. I just don't believe anyone but Raini should be in that position. No matter how much she trusts all of her moderators and admins. I'm not trying to be disrespectful when I say you shouldn't make the decision. I'm not saying you aren't fit to make such a decision, I'm saying no one except that Raini should make the decision. Maybe Simple too, because I'm not sure of his exact position. Maybe he counts as a co-owner or something. I am unsure of the entire affair. TL;DR: You're syllogism that this is harassment just because someone requests you to stop doing anything they dislike and you don't comply is a flawed on in my opinion. Anything could be justified as harassment then. I disagree with it in fine detail above. But perhaps if you are willing to come to a new syllogism which broadens your view of harassment, I would be happy to hear it and continue debating with you.