PETITION TO UNBAN NANCYKITTEN ON LAST.FM
User 'nancykitten' was banned on Thursday, August 5, 2010, after using the interactive music website Last.fm, since April of 2006. In the four+ years of using the site, never once had the user been given a warning over his behaviour; nor had he encoutered any hostility or conflict with any modertaor over his conduct on the website. In those years on the site, the user befriended many people, from all over the world, and gave music advice to countless more. The user had over 500 friends on their list (most of whom added the user). A group 'Best Kind ov Love' was created to allow a group of friends to converse on the site, and had been used for many months, without incident. The user 'nancykitten' had only been a member for weeks. It was suddenly, for no apparent reason, deleted. This caused upset, and one of the members of the original group (NOT USER NANCYKITTEN) created a imposter profile of a moderator, and posted in the new replacement group. Nancykitten was a member of this new group. He did not create the profile; nor did have any hand in the creation of the profile. Ironically, before that moment, he had no idea that the moderator even existed -- so any sort of personal vendetta is impossible. He, along with most members of that group -- all of whom were innocent, besides the one person who created the profile, were banned. The user was given this reply, when he contacted last.fm: 'You have been taking an active part in impersonating and mocking a staff member, as well as insulting other members and trolling. We do not always issues warnings before banning, and in your case we considered the offence serious enough to ban your account. Also you have shared illegal download links with other users and/or benefited from them. We will not review our decision.' 1. 'You have been taking an active part in impersonating and mocking a staff member' -- As stated above, the user was a member of the group where the impersonation occurred. At no point did he insult, mock or impersonate the moderator. He did not know anything of the moderator, to do so. He had never saw the moderator's profile, or conversed with him. The user was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He contributed nothing to the moderator's parody. It's telling that the user encountered no conflict with moderators until he befriended people whom the mods take special interest in. 2. 'insulting other members' -- No examples were given. As states in the Terms and Conditions, users are not expected to behave in a strict, suppressed way. They are entitled to express their opinion, and show passion. If the user was so offensive and insulting, why did so many people add him as a friend, and why is so much shock being expressed at his ban? 3. 'trolling' -- An ambiguous term which has no clear definition. No examples were given. Having a sense of humour does not equate 'trolling'. The user provided attempts at insight, opinion, and debate, as well as harmless displays of humour. The user 'noncykitten' was created in a direct effort to mock and troll, yet his profile has not been suspended. (T&C: '[You will not] Impersonate any person or entity or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity.') This is a display of worrying hypocrisy. 4. 'We do not always issues warnings before banning' -- A very interesting insight into the unfair mindset of the moderators. They only offer warnings over behaviour when it suits them? Is this fair conduct? That they would ban someone for behaviour on shoutboxes, yet not warm the user is an indication that they wished to ban him, regardless. 5. 'Also you have shared illegal download links with other users and/or benefited from them.' -- The user has only shared two download links. The first was on the Sonic Youth shoutbox -- a link to an mp3 which is not available to buy from any online or physical retailer (the demo 'Burning Shame'). It was used as a giveaway on iTunes, in 2009, and is no longer sold. The second was a link to a song by Swans, which had already been given free to the music media as a sampler of the new album. It was available on Soundcloud. Users post entire links to albums and many groups exist on last.fm, specfically to share links. These go unnoticted. More hypocrisy. Moderators are expected to ENFORCE RULES, not use power to ban people they dislike, and who are friends with people they are having petty, immature feuds with. If this website is free to ban users who have contributed to the website since 2006, it is free to unfairly ban any user, and becomes a dictatorship, rather than a community. It makes a mockery of every paid subscriber to the site. Without the users, the website would be nothing. The moderators do not exist to dictate to the users, but merely to protect when people are legitimately causing harm.