In Regards to Wild West

[Tanis]

It's the end of an era...and I'm kind of okay with it, but also kind of feel the need to hate it because - reasons.

 

[runic knight]

I have two words for you and your friends who do nothing but ***** and moan like petulant children who were told "no" for the first time in their lives:

Quit Whining

There is a problem that is poisoning the site and killing it. You were in charge and were expected to actually address such problems.

Your attitude is like a burger-flipper being expected to actually flip the burgers and getting upset at the customers who just want their food.

On the contrary, my attitude is like the guy behind the person screaming at the burger-flipper for doing their job, but not at the expectation of the customer causing a scene and telling them to stop being an ass to the employee.

No, you were the flipper. You were the only one with the power to do changes, so in the analogy you were the only one able to make the burgers. And right now, you are in the middle of the restaurant right now, screaming at customers, calling them petulant, and generally acting like they should be grateful for you having done nothing to fix the problems and refusing to hear the complaints for what they are actually saying.

There are clear problems that need to be fixed. They were ignored and they continue. It serves no benefit to attack and blame the people trying to come the only person with authority and power to do anything, as though them complaining to the proper authority is the wrong thing for them to do.

What else do you expect them to do? Shut up and be silent as the site burns? Or leave, as many, many did and still do? Neither is a solution to those who want things to improve. And since others have no power to actually fix things, that leaves those in charge the only ones who can. Thus the targets of people's complaints by the design of the system itself.

Saying "no" is not fixing a problem, and it not being respected as an answer when it solves nothing is entirely predictable.

That ties us back to the thread itself, the closing the WW, and the community response. It was a unilaterial management decision unpopular with the community itself outside of a small collective of people who were part of the cause for it being shut down in the first place. It was giving into the antics of those who abuse the rules to make the problems worse to get what they wanted (the WW closed), while not addressing the problem itself being the people making things worse. It is feeding the problem and ignoring the source.

I get you don't like people telling you how to do your business, but when you fail or are failing, why would you think people will be quiet as their community is dying? They, unlike those actively hastening the destruction of the site by being the toxic passive-aggressive problem that has been ignored for years, don't want to see it die in such a state and thus voice concerns and criticism because of the failures to fix it.

Yup, instead of stopping with your petty little argument for arguments sake, I'm at fault.

Who's the one projecting here? It sure isn't me. It's that person staring back at you in the mirror.

You are the one with the power to affect the site. I am just a user that has to adhere to the rules of the site. People learning from, and evolving with, the way the rules are flawed is the fault of the people who can actually change them.

You are complaining about the people that adapted to the system you allowed and perpetuated, for adapting to it in order to stick around and remain part of the community and not get banned.

I've described this phenomenon before. When the rules reward one style of posting while punishing another, the userbase evolves. Those that adapt to the rewarded style stick around, those that do not die off, til there is only the rewarded style left.

If you reward the passive-aggressiveness, the sniping, the political clique, the biases in who gets hit for what, then you foster that as the type of user the site favors. And that is ENTIRELY on the people in charge to pay attention to and address, not the users who have to deal with that and either adapt, leave, or get banned trying to fight it.

The site has a problem that the userbase can not fix themselves. When it doesn't get fixed, the userbase has to try to work around the issues that problem causes. Not doing your job properly when in management of anything directly causes the problems that arise out of the atmosphere created by your lack of doing said job. This is true for any job, be it managing kids flipping burgers, or managing people on a forum. You can't blame the entirety of the people trying to deal with a bad situation for the bad situation, when you and not them hold the power to change it.

 

[vallorn]

But, there's a difference between complaining and what some are doing here. Do you honestly feel that berating the moderators will have any positive impact on any issue you may have? Do you think that it's acceptable to break the site code by spamming the living hell out of a forum as a way of demonstrating that it can, instead of merely sending a message saying "hey, I discovered this flaw, perhaps you should fix it."

Nobody liked Wynn even the shitposters, don't act like he represents everyone.

You're complaining to the employee about policies created by the corporate administration. To be fair, the rules were originally going to be updated annually to reflect the constant change in how the community functions and converses, but that fell through when my contract expired.

Well that's actually good to know, thanks for sharing that.

Also, while you may view some of what is included in the CoC as garbage, you may want to understand that there are specific reasons why each of them was there to begin with. Those policies weren't added just "because" but instead they were added from previous experience (some very recently to the update) when dealing with individual members who enjoyed skirting the rules to post their bullshit. I won't name names, but I'm sure anyone who ever spoke to me knows who I refer to.

We all know, the whole GG mess on these forums was essentially two camps of people doing that at one another, (myself included to some degree though I didn't see it that way at the time). However, it's obvious that, the problems are deeper, it's a community wide canker at this point, and when everyone is a rules lawyer, no matter now many new rules go into the CoC, people will find loopholes, minutiae, and ways of going "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you.... ad infinitum" so they can keep up the chlorine and sulphur filled atmosphere of the forums without getting a bonk on the head.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

You are responsible for what you post.

If you break the rules for "reasons", you still broke the rules and have no right to complain if you get whacked for it.

Avnger gets it, be more like Avnger.

 

[runic knight]

You are responsible for what you post.

If you break the rules for "reasons", you still broke the rules and have no right to complain if you get whacked for it.

Avnger gets it, be more like Avnger.

And this mentality is what helps foster the rules lawyering, the passive-aggressiveness, the banjumpers blight the site had to deal with, and other such issues. "The rules are the rules" is a lovely sentiment when they are clear, fairly enforced, and stop negative behavior itself. If even one of those aspects are flawed, problems occur. Lack of clarity leads to confusion and complaints of "I did the same as this guy because he wasn't punished and I thought it was ok". Any perceived bias, true or not, makes people bitter and resentful of the favoratism. And if they allow some negative behavior, such as trolling people with nothing but dismissive snark or passive-aggressive sniping, then those unhappy with being punished for reacting to it will simply learn from the way the management wants them to behave and adopt the "condoned" behaviors to respond to it with.

People aren't stupid. They learn from the culture they are part of, they see what is acceptable and what is not, they learn who is valued and why, they pick up on what behavior is being encouraged and condoned.

Simply saying people have to follow the rules, but ignoring the concerns and criticisms of them, be it lack of clarity, concerns about enforcement, or just holes within them, well, it wont work well. And it clearly hasn't around here.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Really? Projecting from what? You _do_ know what that term means, right?

Like you, I choose to post when and where I wish to. My reason for posting should never be based on your demand of seeing me do so, like my demand for your response simply isn't there either. You either choose to or choose not to respond. Either way, your choice. So, why can't it be the same for me? Why must I comply with the demands of others when and where I talk to them about something? How dare I respond and defend the very people who volunteer their time and effort from a bunch of people who spend more time complaining about those who do their best to keep the place as drama free as possible than actually stopping themselves from creating it? If you'll notice, I'm responding to those who are trashing on the moderators for doing their job simply because they didn't agree with how it was done, despite the fact that they have no say in how it's managed.

It's a fascinating web of falsehoods you folks are creating and laughable if you think it's based in any form on reality.

Yes. I do know what the term means, but I will refrain from extrapolating to be less of an asshole than I might want to be.

I don't care whether you post or not. Not in the slightest. I do, however, care ever so slightly about the behavior and actions of my de facto "rulers" around here.

For the record though, I do respect the sheer time investment it takes for someone to hold a moderator position, let alone on a site that isn't the equivalent of a rudderless ghost ship playing host to nothing but the most stubborn of rats. I don't personally have the time, nor the clout around here to get into that position for myself either, so I've got nothing but criticism, constructive or otherwise, to level their way.

But they are, I assume, adults who can defend or explain themselves if need be.

If you'll notice, I'm responding to those who are trashing on the moderators for doing their job simply because they didn't agree with how it was done, despite the fact that they have no say in how it's managed.

Care to explain that one?

Are you referring to the mods as not having a say in how its managed or the people complaining?

If the former: What? Then who made that decision? As it was explained, this outcome was a group effort on their part, was it not?

If the latter: That's literally all they can do. They don't have the power to actually alter the decision, so complaining is kind of the last and only option available to them. You're literally whinging at people for being impotent.

Or, is this more of a vague sentiment about moderation in general and not pertaining to the WW closure?

Also, this post was going to be a little more acidic before I saw this bit -

[edit] It's been just over 1 year since I stopped working at Defy and managed community operations. I speak to you now as a normal member, as anyone else is here. My main issue and the reason why I seem to be focused on certain topics over others is that I know the volunteers here bust their butts to keep the place civil and as spam free as they are capable of doing with the resources they have. I defend them because I know what it's like and feel I'm in a position that I can speak my mind against those who always give them crap about doing their job in the face of dealing with people who expect respect while not giving any in return. It annoys me that certain members of the community seem to relish in this drama perpetuate it with topics such as this one.

I get that.

You being aggressive and belittling about it doesn't really help matters though, especially when your status as a former CM effectively gives you carte blanche to say whatever you want, whereas the "petulant children" are still subject to mod wrath for similar behavior.

But I get it.

 

[Randomosity]

"Wild West had some good fun, but a certain group of users used it to be dicks.... Burn and salt! The purge must be thorough."

"R&P has some good points and discussion, but a certain group of users use it to be dicks.... We must maintain this bastion of purity"

I'm just saying...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

And this mentality is what helps foster the rules lawyering, the passive-aggressiveness, the banjumpers blight the site had to deal with, and other such issues. "The rules are the rules" is a lovely sentiment when they are clear, fairly enforced, and stop negative behavior itself. If even one of those aspects are flawed, problems occur. Lack of clarity leads to confusion and complaints of "I did the same as this guy because he wasn't punished and I thought it was ok". Any perceived bias, true or not, makes people bitter and resentful of the favoratism. And if they allow some negative behavior, such as trolling people with nothing but dismissive snark or passive-aggressive sniping, then those unhappy with being punished for reacting to it will simply learn from the way the management wants them to behave and adopt the "condoned" behaviors to respond to it with.

People aren't stupid. They learn from the culture they are part of, they see what is acceptable and what is not, they learn who is valued and why, they pick up on what behavior is being encouraged and condoned.

Simply saying people have to follow the rules, but ignoring the concerns and criticisms of them, be it lack of clarity, concerns about enforcement, or just holes within them, well, it wont work well. And it clearly hasn't around here.

Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The rules are quite clear and can be summed up as: Be respectful and polite and don't post stuff that's not PG-13. If a poster decides to not be respectful and polite or to start posting content that's not allowed, that's on them. It is not on other posters for doing it first. It is not on the moderators for being inconsistent. It is on the poster who decided they could be rude and disrespectful.

That said, the CoC can be discussed, as can the moderation process. However, if that's what you (not you as in Runic Knight, but as in the general sense you) want to discuss you are better of doing that in a vacuum, and not using the CoC or "mod bias" or "inconsistent moderation" as arguments in your on-going effort to explain why you deserve to be exempt from the current rules.

Stick to the CoC and you are safe. That's the gist of it, and if you get a warning that's because you didn't stick to that simple guideline.

 

[runic knight]

And this mentality is what helps foster the rules lawyering, the passive-aggressiveness, the banjumpers blight the site had to deal with, and other such issues. "The rules are the rules" is a lovely sentiment when they are clear, fairly enforced, and stop negative behavior itself. If even one of those aspects are flawed, problems occur. Lack of clarity leads to confusion and complaints of "I did the same as this guy because he wasn't punished and I thought it was ok". Any perceived bias, true or not, makes people bitter and resentful of the favoratism. And if they allow some negative behavior, such as trolling people with nothing but dismissive snark or passive-aggressive sniping, then those unhappy with being punished for reacting to it will simply learn from the way the management wants them to behave and adopt the "condoned" behaviors to respond to it with.

People aren't stupid. They learn from the culture they are part of, they see what is acceptable and what is not, they learn who is valued and why, they pick up on what behavior is being encouraged and condoned.

Simply saying people have to follow the rules, but ignoring the concerns and criticisms of them, be it lack of clarity, concerns about enforcement, or just holes within them, well, it wont work well. And it clearly hasn't around here.

Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The rules are quite clear and can be summed up as: Be respectful and polite and don't post stuff that's not PG-13. If a poster decides to not be respectful and polite or to start posting content that's not allowed, that's on them. It is not on other posters for doing it first. It is not on the moderators for being inconsistent. It is on the poster who decided they could be rude and disrespectful.

That said, the CoC can be discussed, as can the moderation process. However, if that's what you (not you as in Runic Knight, but as in the general sense you) want to discuss you are better of doing that in a vacuum, and not using the CoC or "mod bias" or "inconsistent moderation" as arguments in your on-going effort to explain why you deserve to be exempt from the current rules.

Stick to the CoC and you are safe. That's the gist of it, and if you get a warning that's because you didn't stick to that simple guideline.

The rules are not clear, they are vague generalities about acceptable behavior that are open to individual interpretation. Look at the wording of the core ideals of the rules past and current.

"Don't be a jerk"
"Don't be Rude and disrespectful"

Trying to touch on the core idea reveals just how abstract the idea you are trying to harness is in the first place. And that isn't bad in its own right, just requires careful handling. But the enforcement of vaguely defined rules justified as being by the letter of the law is defeating the purpose of either strictly defined rules, or entirely subjectively enforced rules. It tries to have the flexibility of interpretive rules with the stability of defined rules, and fails at both. Instead enforcement, especially controversy, feels arbitrary, and justification hand-waved away as ruled as "written", or feels ignored, with justification for not enforcing being dismissive of the rules as written to favor the subjectiveness. Regardless of intent to do that, the consequences of such a system is discord in the community.

The closing of the WW is a good example. The rules as written defining the subforum are ignored by the mods to enforce their will to solve problems there, and justified because the rules as written included a "get out of jail free" card to allow subjectiveness to overrule them as written. This makes an already unhappy with the decision community as "what is the point of written rules when they do what they want in the end anyways?"

But lets look at the core concept even. The very spirit of the rules.

What is "being rude, disrespectful, or a jerk"? Well, here is what I have learned about the rules by how they are written in the CoC and how they are actually enforced.

Insults seem to count as rude, but not so if they are only implied rather than directed at another user. So if you put forth the same meaning with the same intention in a weasel-worded reply that only implies the person you talk to is a nazi sympathizer, a progressive cultist, or a defender of pedophilia rather than outright stating that they actually are, that is acceptable, you can still insult people all you want. Accusations of horribleness are disrespectful, but if you can feign ignorance about your intent to make them, they are passable. Snarking back and forth with friends to solely to talk shit publicly about groups of people who as members in the discussion itself is fine, but directing that at people themselves is not. Dismissive, add-nothing snipping remarks that serve only to antagonize are fine, but calling that behavior itself no better than trolling is not.

This is what is "taught" to people when they read the rules and then see how they are enforced and used by some users against others. This is the type of user the current rules and the enforcement of the rules currently is fostering and rewarding.

Can you at least admit that when your rules are vague like that (and that is vague and open to mod interpretation from the start), and if you regularly see people posting nothing but snide, mean-girls-esc commentary, antagonistic accusations, or dismissive, disruptive snark, that maybe it makes it looks like the rule are just not very well done in allowing that sort of toxic behavior to slide in the first place? Maybe the rules aren't stopping the problem, but merely serving as a tool to be used by those behind the problem to hurt others. Because, that is all I have seen for over the past 5 years, this "breed" of poster being created and groomed that is cancerous to any sort of forum growth, community longevity, or civil discourse, and the rest of the posters reacting to them by either jumping ship, being swallowed by the ban-hammer, or mimicking their style to survive the hostility.

Because saying "Stick to the CoC" doesn't stop any of that now any more than it did half a decade ago when people were still complaining about those same problems. The CoC being followed but excusing if not openly encouraging those sorts of behaviors is the problem I and others are pointing at. For all the time that has passed and the changes to the site, that underlying issue has never properly been even acknowledges, let alone addressed.

Now vague rules like those, they can work if done right, with the right crew managing things, and the right community that respects and trusts them to be honest, fair, and just. But how they are applied here? Where there is a game-able system of strikes in place? Where people actively dodged bans solely to harass people and piss other users off to get themselves in trouble? Where posters can use disruptive tactics to get threads they dislike closed down? Where they can be passive-aggressive antagonistic instigators, poisoning any debate or discussion with childish behavior, dishonest derailments, and outright trollish behavior that is protected only by the letter of the rules? It simply can't right now. It is no wonder that the community is in the state it is now with that core problem never addressed itself.

You can dismiss complaints of inconsistent rulings as simply wanting to be immune to the rules, but that is not true and never was. When those who complain about it, and I mean this on ALL sides of the usual forum bickering, they have only ever used it to demand why someone else wasn't punished for what someone else was, or why someone was for what someone else was not. Both sides of that coin are about fairness in ruling being complained about because of the very system itself relying on interpretative rulings resulted in often demonstrable unfair and inconsistent rulings. The ease to see bias motivating that inconsistency is not hard to see why, nor when compounded with the result of the constant ignoring of the core problem in the first place that breeds the sort of behaviors that spit in the face of the spirit of the rules.

Sticking to the CoC does not make one safe from the toxicity of the forum's passive-aggression, worthless snark, or disruptive sniping. It does not prevent the behavior that people hate on this site. All it does is let you stick around long enough to learn how to do it yourself to reply to the blatant hostility and "acceptable" kind of disrespectfulness with your own.

That is not fixing the problem, that just perpetuates it and telling people to stick with a solution that never worked in the first place.

People are complaining about service, and you tell them to stay in line while ignoring one of their complaints is that others keep cutting in line in front of them. When complaining to the people in charge doesn't work, they leave, or do the same to not be cheated further.

What is your solution to disruptive, antagonistic, hostile posters who follow the rules? What do you do when people weaponize the rules against people they dislike? What are users suppose to do when they are picked-on, harassed, and antagonized but get punished if they call it out for what it is? How are people suppose to have debate and discussion and even civil argument when a small band of people will actively sabotage things, derail threads, and seek to get them locked because they dislike the topic, or the direction the topic went? What are they to do when a user creates a million sock puppets solely to antagonize and troll, and gets supported and even praised by other users who are just happy he is targeting their "opponents"?

What is a user suppose to do when "following the rules" doesn't stop the crap the spirit of the rules is suppose to stop in the first place?

 

[Ugicywapih]

And this mentality is what helps foster the rules lawyering, the passive-aggressiveness, the banjumpers blight the site had to deal with, and other such issues. "The rules are the rules" is a lovely sentiment when they are clear, fairly enforced, and stop negative behavior itself. If even one of those aspects are flawed, problems occur. Lack of clarity leads to confusion and complaints of "I did the same as this guy because he wasn't punished and I thought it was ok". Any perceived bias, true or not, makes people bitter and resentful of the favoratism. And if they allow some negative behavior, such as trolling people with nothing but dismissive snark or passive-aggressive sniping, then those unhappy with being punished for reacting to it will simply learn from the way the management wants them to behave and adopt the "condoned" behaviors to respond to it with.

People aren't stupid. They learn from the culture they are part of, they see what is acceptable and what is not, they learn who is valued and why, they pick up on what behavior is being encouraged and condoned.

Simply saying people have to follow the rules, but ignoring the concerns and criticisms of them, be it lack of clarity, concerns about enforcement, or just holes within them, well, it wont work well. And it clearly hasn't around here.

Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The rules are quite clear and can be summed up as: Be respectful and polite and don't post stuff that's not PG-13. If a poster decides to not be respectful and polite or to start posting content that's not allowed, that's on them. It is not on other posters for doing it first. It is not on the moderators for being inconsistent. It is on the poster who decided they could be rude and disrespectful.

That said, the CoC can be discussed, as can the moderation process. However, if that's what you (not you as in Runic Knight, but as in the general sense you) want to discuss you are better of doing that in a vacuum, and not using the CoC or "mod bias" or "inconsistent moderation" as arguments in your on-going effort to explain why you deserve to be exempt from the current rules.

Stick to the CoC and you are safe. That's the gist of it, and if you get a warning that's because you didn't stick to that simple guideline.

At the risk of being branded a nitpicker, I believe WW was specifically exempt [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/706.1023033-CoC-Does-Not-Apply-in-the-WW-please-read-these-special-rules-before-posting] from the CoC, so the aggressive posts there didn't violate forum rules. There is of course room for discussion as to how the existence of WW affected the civility of the remaining forums and I absolutely agree that the callout threads were unacceptable in principle, but WW rules were amended before (IE by forbidding doxing) and, as I understand it, it worked, not to mention I really don't see how you're expecting there not to be blowback from the community after the single most active forum on the site got shuttered all of a sudden without a warning, much less any public discussion on the merits of doing so (except for that poll a while back, the results of which are widely known).

You're complaining to the employee about policies created by the corporate administration. To be fair, the rules were originally going to be updated annually to reflect the constant change in how the community functions and converses, but that fell through when my contract expired.

Also this. For better or for worse, the mod team makes the rules now (as I understand it), ideally for the betterment of the site. If mod team feels like WW should be scrapped, that's their call, although obviously people are going to complain about it. That being said, if mod team decrees one day that every post needs to contain at least one rule 34 MLP picture or video, that also becomes a rule, for better or for worse and with all the complaining that brings (unless complaining gets banned too).
My point? If you feel like you've done the right thing, own it, don't hide behind the rules. You, as the mods, make them for the site in absence of a "higher power". I believe however, it would not go unappreciated if you were to provide the rationale behind your choices and ideally discuss major changes with the community beforehand, both to gauge public opinion, allay accusations of a "power trip" and fish for viable alternate solutions to the issue at hand.

 

[Elijin]

The problem with Escapist moderation has always been that it's in excess. Not even workplaces or senates have such stringent rules on interactions. Conflict is a part of human interaction. Obviously excess hostility and profanity isnt helpful, but when you take away people's ability to say 'Hey, your behaviour sucks. You're being an asshole/jerk and totally arguing in bad faith while being super passive aggressive'.....well, the passive aggressive users hone their art to a fine edge, creating a massively unpleasant place.

A forum should not have more stringent rules than a goddamn workplace. We are not children. You want to fix huge swathes of problems in the user behaviour? Stop acting like you're fucking pre-school teachers carefully guiding your class through life.

 

[Ugicywapih]

The problem with Escapist moderation has always been that it's in excess. Not even workplaces or senates have such stringent rules on interactions. Conflict is a part of human interaction. Obviously excess hostility and profanity isnt helpful, but when you take away people's ability to say 'Hey, your behaviour sucks. You're being an asshole/jerk and totally arguing in bad faith while being super passive aggressive'.....well, the passive aggressive users hone their art to a fine edge, creating a massively unpleasant place.

A forum should not have more stringent rules than a goddamn workplace. We are not children. You want to fix huge swathes of problems in the user behaviour? Stop acting like you're fucking pre-school teachers carefully guiding your class through life.

Yeah, some of the warnings I've seen (like the one Ewok got for the "short bus" comment in this very thread, and the one that went to LostGryphon over a joke) were obviously excessive IMO[footnote]This is not an attempt at backseat moderation - I am not stating that the mods should all share my values and sensibilities and act according to my opinion. This is simply a valuating statement of my perception with no intention of challenging the status quo, please don't ban me for breach of CoC.[/footnote]. Not 100% sure how bad this infamous passive aggression is, but I weren't really visiting the regular forums often anyway - I think there's more value to civility that's freely given (which contrary to popular opinion could be easily found in WW), than to the sort that's merely enforced.

 

[Saelune]

And this mentality is what helps foster the rules lawyering, the passive-aggressiveness, the banjumpers blight the site had to deal with, and other such issues. "The rules are the rules" is a lovely sentiment when they are clear, fairly enforced, and stop negative behavior itself. If even one of those aspects are flawed, problems occur. Lack of clarity leads to confusion and complaints of "I did the same as this guy because he wasn't punished and I thought it was ok". Any perceived bias, true or not, makes people bitter and resentful of the favoratism. And if they allow some negative behavior, such as trolling people with nothing but dismissive snark or passive-aggressive sniping, then those unhappy with being punished for reacting to it will simply learn from the way the management wants them to behave and adopt the "condoned" behaviors to respond to it with.

People aren't stupid. They learn from the culture they are part of, they see what is acceptable and what is not, they learn who is valued and why, they pick up on what behavior is being encouraged and condoned.

Simply saying people have to follow the rules, but ignoring the concerns and criticisms of them, be it lack of clarity, concerns about enforcement, or just holes within them, well, it wont work well. And it clearly hasn't around here.

Don't try to mix apples and oranges. The rules are quite clear and can be summed up as: Be respectful and polite and don't post stuff that's not PG-13. If a poster decides to not be respectful and polite or to start posting content that's not allowed, that's on them. It is not on other posters for doing it first. It is not on the moderators for being inconsistent. It is on the poster who decided they could be rude and disrespectful.

That said, the CoC can be discussed, as can the moderation process. However, if that's what you (not you as in Runic Knight, but as in the general sense you) want to discuss you are better of doing that in a vacuum, and not using the CoC or "mod bias" or "inconsistent moderation" as arguments in your on-going effort to explain why you deserve to be exempt from the current rules.

Stick to the CoC and you are safe. That's the gist of it, and if you get a warning that's because you didn't stick to that simple guideline.

These are part of the CoC too

Inflammatory Comments / Trolling
You may not post anything that is reasonably considered discriminatory towards other members. (i.e. homophobic, prejudiced or any other comments that would be deemed as hate speech)

Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks
As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep sexist, racist, or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts.

 

[Saelune]

"Wild West had some good fun, but a certain group of users used it to be dicks.... Burn and salt! The purge must be thorough."

"R&P has some good points and discussion, but a certain group of users use it to be dicks.... We must maintain this bastion of purity"

I'm just saying...

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

 

[Armadox]

"Wild West had some good fun, but a certain group of users used it to be dicks.... Burn and salt! The purge must be thorough."

"R&P has some good points and discussion, but a certain group of users use it to be dicks.... We must maintain this bastion of purity"

I'm just saying...

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

Not really, dude just got to have THREE discussions on why we should kill all Americans.

 

[Saelune]

"Wild West had some good fun, but a certain group of users used it to be dicks.... Burn and salt! The purge must be thorough."

"R&P has some good points and discussion, but a certain group of users use it to be dicks.... We must maintain this bastion of purity"

I'm just saying...

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

Not really, dude just got to have THREE discussions on why we should kill all Americans.

I am not saying the risk is evenly applied. In fact that is my big issue with mods right now. It is apparently more ok to call for the extermination of large populations than it is to call those people Nazis. (The people calling for the exterminations) But do the second part in R&P, and you can get modded

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

Not really, dude just got to have THREE discussions on why we should kill all Americans.

You mean the topics by dontwastemytime? The ones that are all locked by moderators? I feel you may be proving Saelune's point there. Come on, you have such a wealth of topics to chose from in R&P and you go for the ones where someone has actually brought the rules to bear?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

"Wild West had some good fun, but a certain group of users used it to be dicks.... Burn and salt! The purge must be thorough."

"R&P has some good points and discussion, but a certain group of users use it to be dicks.... We must maintain this bastion of purity"

I'm just saying...

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

Not really, dude just got to have THREE discussions on why we should kill all Americans.

I am not saying the risk is evenly applied. In fact that is my big issue with mods right now. It is apparently more ok to call for the extermination of large populations than it is to call those people Nazis. (The people calling for the exterminations) But do the second part in R&P, and you can get modded

That is..odd. Not quite what see myself.
Could you show me some examples of posts that 'call for extermination', that went unmodded?
I completely agree that posts advocating mass-murder should feel the full force of the mod-hammer!

I don't know if the second thing is entirely correct either. I don't think I've seen a single post where calling people sexist,racist,homophobic,transphobic,alt-right,nazi,etc gets you modded.
Could you again be so kind as to provide examples?

Thank you.

 

[lacktheknack]

"Why would I need Jesus? I'm doing just fine," he said, turning back to his browser. It was open to an Escapist thread about a terrible subforum.

 

[Armadox]

R&P risks moderation, WW doest.

Not really, dude just got to have THREE discussions on why we should kill all Americans.

You mean the topics by dontwastemytime? The ones that are all locked by moderators? I feel you may be proving Saelune's point there. Come on, you have such a wealth of topics to chose from in R&P and you go for the ones where someone has actually brought the rules to bear?

You're right, others would have to field better examples as I don't read R&P much. But, bare in mind, the mods allowed those threads to run for a bit before stopping them. You'd think they'd get faster as closing them after the first one where he calls for mass murder. At what point did they go "Well, he wants all Americans to die, but I think we should hear him out some first."