I'm saying I have the ability to ban you right now with no repercussions whatsoever, and I don't. If you think people are going to stand up for you...well you think very highly of people then.Internet Kraken said:Because this thread was created for the purpose of giving feedback and listening to complaints? I don't see the point of your question. Of course you could ban anyone you wanted at any time, but people would point out how it was completley unjustified. Which is what banning me for complaining in a threat meant for complaints would be. However, you can now ban people just for being negative about escapist content and, under the new rules, it would be perfectly justified.Sevre90210 said:If Moderators have always had that ability...why would we start now? If I wanted to I could delete every post you've made in this thread, and so could any other member of staff. But we haven't. I could say 'Don't be a Jerk' and ban you. But I don't.Internet Kraken said:If this was honestly your objective with these new rules, I'd say you have failed. Because this site looks far less friendly now that I know mods can delete posts and ban people just because they express dislike for certain content on this site. Draconian rules do not create a friendly and happy community.
Now I'd like you to explain to me why I don't if I have this omnipotence. Go on using all you've said in this thread, all the fearmongering about the free reign I have to do whatever I want, explain to me why you're still here.
I really don't get the point you're trying to make.
I've read through your posts in this thread and you seem to think the worst of us, that these rules are here to give us more power over what we do and who we do it to and we will use the full extent of our power at every occasion in an unjustifiable manner. Wrong.
This rule isn't saying "Yeah we're going to ban you for not liking something", you've misinterpreted this. This rule is the last resort, like the 'Rotten Apple' clause. It's predecessor was something which was barely ever used (I can only think of one example in the last 6 months). If we didn't use that clause extensively, why would we use this?Don't Be a Jerk
This rule trumps any other. Any loophole you think you've found in any other rule is covered by this one. If you make our forums a less pleasant place to be, we don't want you here.
You're reading to much into these rules, they're not vague, they're simple. You're seeing them as broad generalizations when in reality, they're just simple rules which people abide by in real life and we expect them to do so here too.
The point is, you don't like the notion of the moderators having so much power over you, well in reality we've always had this much power over you. You're just seeing it with more clarity because we've simplified everything. We have no new tricks, no new tools, we've just updated somethings, removed some loopholes and made it a lot more precise.
Now if we didn't use our power to abuse you before, why would we do it now? No moderator sits down and sets out to ban people they don't like. We sit at a queue, watch the community report people they don't like and reports they don't approve of, then we follow the rules to pass judgement. And no not everything gets mod wrathed because not everything deserves mod wrath.
If you live in fear of us then that means we're doing our job right I suppose, but we're not going to censor your thoughts on our moderation, or ban you for thinking we're jerks.