SamyGO

I wanted to detailed information about who are responsible here? and
Which rule is that I break for your think?

Definitely there is no rule that I infringed. If you banning a person,
You have to indicate that or have a good lawyer to defend your racist
movement...

Your recent posts on the AV Forums have been classified as spam and deleted. Your account at the AV Forums has also been banned.
If this was an accidental breach of our rules then the administrator may consider lifting your ban upon receipt of an email explaining why you broke the rules and an assurance that you will not break them again.
Do not reply to this email as we will not receive it. Our contact details are available on the AV Forums.
If your spam attack was deliberate then we have great satisfaction in telling you that the entire process of removing your spam from the forums, banning you and sending you this email took two clicks and about 10 seconds.
Your details are kept on file and should you attempt to re-register and spam us again, we will remove your posts with a similar degree of ease. Possibly before you have chance to post. And repeated spam attacks will result in your IP address being banned, too.

For future reference, here are our rules:

1. Post libellous, insulting, antagonistic, racist, aggressive or otherwise abusive remarks about any individual or company either within forum posts or the PM (Private Message) system. (More details on this issue are found below). We reserve the right to read the relevant PM or PMs where we receive a complaint that a forum user has received a PM or PMs breaking this rule.
2. Post swear words in such a way as to circumvent the forums' built-in swear word removal system (including in signatures)
3. Post any images or text which are pornographic or violent or otherwise inappropriate for the viewing by younger and older people alike
4. Promote websites which contain inappropriate material (such as pornography) or which are in competition with the AVForums. (More details on our policy towards piracy are found below). Using the AVForums via posts or PMs or in your profile to invite people to competing forums or websites is a bannable offense and we reserve the right to check PMs should we believe this is happening.
5. Post promotional information about any illegal activities (including bulk piracy of VCDs & DVDs). We will not permit people to use the forums to distribute files which are pirated or aid in the production of pirated material.
6. Post any spam. People posting spam will be instantly and permanently banned and their posts will be deleted.
7. Solicit business from within posts. An example of this is saying 'We sell...'. Soliciting business undermines paid advertising which keeps these forums running. Retailers, manufacturers and distributors are invited (even encouraged) to post information about products on the forums provided it is factual, is generally for the benefit of forum members and doesn't break this rule. However, rule 7 is easily broken and for this reason, more details about this rule are given below.
8. Create their new threads in more than one forum. (Doing so is called cross-posting). You should pick the single most appropriate forum for your message. Duplicate posts will be deleted.
9. Use images from 3rd parties' websites without their permission. Linking to an image on someone else's website without their permission is considered to be bandwidth theft. This is not a copyright issue but a bandwidth issue. We have had big problems with people linking to our images without permission and we don't allow members to do the same to other people.
10. Use smilies other than AVForums smilies. Using smilies from other websites is forbidden. This is because spammers have been attempting to increase their search engine rankings by posting links to smilies on their websites. We consider this to be spamming and will result in an instant ban.
11. Include commercial information or links in their signature. We encourage representatives of AV retailers, manufacturers and distributors to declare who they work for in their user profile. This enables readers of their posts to judge the contents accordingly. However, we do not allow people to include their employer's information in their signature as this constitutes advertising. (The only exception to this rule is if the member's business is an 'assured advertiser' with AVForums.com in which case they can include their name and business contact details (with hyperlink) in their signature.) Similarly linking to a member's own commercial website in their signature is prohibited. The definition of a commercial website is one which invites people to buy or hire products or services and therefore would break rule 7 above.
12. Have an inappropriate login name. We do not permit a login name which breaks any of the rules above or includes a business name. The only exception to this rule is if the member's business advertises with the AVForums in which case they can include their business name in their login name.
13. Register more than once. Doing so will get one or both registrations and all the posts deleted.
14. Question the judgments or actions of forum moderators. They are far too busy to enter into discussions or arguments.
15. Use advert blocking software or plugins to block the advertising at AVForums. Click here to read more about our policy regarding the use of advertising.

More about rule 7

Rule 7 states that organisations may not ?Solicit business from within posts?. Despite its briefness, this is actually a complex rule to understand and enforce, but which is essential to the continued existence of AVForums.
If we were to allow organisations to solicit business in the forums, we would have many posts from manufacturers promoting their products and retailers selling their wares. This would hinder the job of selling advertising, and it is advertising revenue which sustains AVForums. Readers of the forums would also not appreciate being bombarded with lots of spam, which is what would happen if rule 7 did not exist.

So how do we define what soliciting business is? We have drawn the line at any reference to a company?s products or services. Some examples are clear:
Visit our website for the best deals
is an obvious breach of rule 7. Other examples are less clear:
Question: When does such and such product go on sale?
Answer: We have them coming into stock in July.
The reply by the retailer does answer a direct question with useful information. However the ?we? in the reply is referring to a their commercial organisation and we consider that to be soliciting business. A better reply would be
Answer: They are available in July.

It?s clear that rule 7 can be very easily broken and posters representing commercial organisations must take great care not to accidentally cross the line. Many posts are borderline and it is ultimately up to the moderators to make a decision about each on an individual basis.

Someone not representing a company could, in the above example reply to the original question with
Answer: Such and such retailer has them in stock in July
And this is not a breach of rule 7 because the poster is not soliciting business. This makes it tempting for some individuals representing companies to covertly solicit business by pretending to be, for example, a ?satisfied customer?. This is very unwise, since if such dishonesty is discovered (either by members or moderators), it could seriously damage the reputation of the company in question.

There is a situation when rule 7 can work against the ethos of the forums. Let?s look at a reasonably common example. Someone asks for a retailer in their local area. One of our advertisers is not allowed to reply to their question yet another member is allowed to recommend a non-advertiser. That seems very unfair because advertisers with AVForums are putting in the effort to contribute to the forums, yet are gagged by our rules and are unable to help a poster.
Our Assured Advertiser scheme allows advertisers to reply to direct questions with answers which would otherwise break rule 7. These replies must answer the original question(s) and may include a link to their website provided the link is relevant to the answer. More information abour Assured Advertising here.

There is one case when we will allow slightly more latitude in rule 7 and that is when an organization has the ?right of reply? to criticism. When some member posts details of a grievance with the products/services of a particular company, we will allow a representative of that company to reply in defense. It is likely impossible to do this properly without referring to the company and/or its products but we will not moderate in this situation because we think that it is right and proper that an organization should have the ability to defend itself. They must do this, however, without slipping in the occasional comment such as how they ?are trying to deliver the best service? as this would be considered breaking rule 7.
Rules for trading