I think the sticking point for me is that there is no clear list of guidelines (at least that I'm aware), and they are cited as intuitive or common sense, when I believe they really are not all that intuitive or common sense, for some people.
For instance, I know that we have, forever, posted logs and chats with people in world for critique or as examples of dissatisfaction to give a more concrete view of a situation and let the jury decide (sort of). So, while on one hand, I was told that examples, or even anything hinting at an example, of past issues should not be cited, they are cited all over the boards constantly with no consequence unless another person flags them and makes it a personal thing. Do you see how this kind of thing is really not an objective way to moderate?
In cases that an example may be seen to be alluding to a prior issue on the forums and may be seen as an effort to be inflammatory, I really think a simple PM to the poster to clarify would be most appopriate instead of the flat out assumption that it's meant to inflame, particularly when the example is completely relevant to the topic at hand. I feel that this would prevent a lot of miscommunication and also deter people from flagging everytime they assume something is personal.
Alright since you couldn't wait until after I was out of the hospital I will give you an answer(again) to the question I can just see you dieing to ask... just not directly.
"Why were you warned and banned for a post that alluded to another post, but in your opinion had nothing to do with the other post while other people on the boards can give examples and post logs without getting a look there way. "
Here is the answer, listen close cause I am on morphine typing on a really small keyboard and I am not entirely sure how this is going to come out.
People post logs and examples on the boards all the time. Those examples are sometimes flagged and the people who flagged it (usually complaining that the example was about them, and thinking that they are "sure" everyone knows it and that the person giving the example is in the wrong and telling the story from their eyes and that it is all a lie) are....wait for it....told to LET IT GO. That they may think everyone knows it is about them, but more then likely until they out themselves, no one really knows...and more so..no one Cares. We also tell them that there is nothing we can do because the other person did not mention names.
This all Changes when the person outs themself in a post and THEN the other person who gave the example (seeing the person they gave it about out themselves) goes on to defend their side and a fight ensues between the two people over what is no longer a fake story, but a very real one, that is usually stated in vast details both sides telling their stories and fighting about who was right and who is wrong.
Now, this is where your issue comes in. You had a problem with some of the posters. They outed themselves, fight ensues, both sides told, Admin steps in and says "since this has been hashed out here I don't want to see or hear of it in another thread again". Perhaps this is where my mistake came in...I Assumed both parties would understand that and not mentioning it would mean not alluding to it, not giving an example using what happened in the story no matter how common it was. One side got this point, but I guess you missed that memo and needed it spelled out in a bit more detail. So there you have it. When an admin/mod says they do not want to see a situation rehashed again, that includes alluding to that situation, giving a summarized version of that TYPE of situation, or just saying "that happened to me". In other words...Don't Mention It Here Again. Pick another example there are certainly plenty out there to do it from.
Now, that should clear up the question for you.
I expect this issue is finished yes?
Have a nice day!