Poll: Forum moderators: Unfair?
- Thread starter ROBOcity123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am NOT being a dick about it. Not ever. Except when it comes to Warhammer 40k, then it's a no-holds-barred warfare. My point still stands: calling the doubt of moderators' 100% fairness "trolling" is stretching the definition of "trolling" a bit too far - even if it is against the rules.Caiti Voltaire said:
The only reason I am registered here and use this forum as my only forum is because mods really read these writings and try to keep the forum quality high. And I prefer being polite and on the topic as much as possible, so I have nothing to fear I guess. So no is my answer.
They are mostly reasonable, although a higher level of consistency is something I'd like to see. i.e. if it's ban offence for one user it should be a ban offence for all users. Even if that means the mods ended up slightly harsher than now. Consistency can rule out accusations of bias. (whether or not they are leveled unfairly)
There is a difference between looking to cause discussion and looking to cause conflict. It can be a fine line sometimes and discerning it is what moderators do. I could say more than that but it'd be borderline flaming, so I'll leave it at that, except to say that if calling moderator's fairness into question is trolling then I guess Im a troll, were one to read my first post in the topic.Kollega said:
I quite often find myself following the links to see why people were put on probation / suspended / banned, and most of the time feel let down it was only for something like "This!" or "/thread" etc
WTB something juicier to get moderated for
WTB something juicier to get moderated for
because when there is total free speech the assholes take over and spoil all the fun. The case for my point? 4chan. If you look at 4chan you will see it is the home of free speech where only law governs moderation. The only time that mods get involved is when underage pictures are displayed. It just shows what would happen to any community if there were no strict mods.sirkai007 said:
I'm sure you've heard the Jessi Slaughter story? I fear that site because that could happen to just about anyone on the internet. That's why you've gotta love mods.
They can make mistakes, but they give plenty of chances and it takes the approval of a member of staff for a ban to be given out, so they are not wild men/women/ninjas or anything.
Are they fair?
Yes, and I don't see why you would think otherwise. Anyway this thread seems geared to cause trouble so it sits on the wrong side of the gray area from the get-go. Normally these threads are started with an example, that none have yet taken focus has gotta say something.
Are they fair?
Yes, and I don't see why you would think otherwise. Anyway this thread seems geared to cause trouble so it sits on the wrong side of the gray area from the get-go. Normally these threads are started with an example, that none have yet taken focus has gotta say something.
I dont think I've ever seen an unfair ban/suspension etc. I've spoke my mind multiple times, even in discussions with Admins/Mods and they know and I know that I neither break the rules or get offensive AT people.
the bungie.net moderators are hilariously bad at catching trolls but ban something that's even vaguely offtopicUber Evil said:
If we made it any stricter, we'd slowly get to the point where we feel that it's not in fact Alexander Macris running the show, but Kim Jon Ill instead.AverageJoe said:
EDIT: I meant to add that into my other post but hit "Post" on accident. >.<
these guys are reasonable. I've been banned a couple of times so far and they were for understandable reasons although I clearly didn't offend anyone.
The only issue I have is the "low-content" posting.
There are plenty of times when a situation warrants a "low-content" post and I think to issue a blanket-ban on things the mods consider empty is the wrong approach.
Personally, I'm a "take each situation as it comes" when it comes to rule enforcing. Context for every post is crucial in discerning the motives of the poster and I think those are often more important than some harmless short post.
I'm still working towards the "no moderation" badge, but that may be difficult with probations being the warning of this forum.
On the other hand, it is awfully considerate of them to even reveal the post that got a user moderated. I've never been to another forum that open. Perhaps that's why it's so easy to pick on individual circumstances.
There are plenty of times when a situation warrants a "low-content" post and I think to issue a blanket-ban on things the mods consider empty is the wrong approach.
Personally, I'm a "take each situation as it comes" when it comes to rule enforcing. Context for every post is crucial in discerning the motives of the poster and I think those are often more important than some harmless short post.
I'm still working towards the "no moderation" badge, but that may be difficult with probations being the warning of this forum.
On the other hand, it is awfully considerate of them to even reveal the post that got a user moderated. I've never been to another forum that open. Perhaps that's why it's so easy to pick on individual circumstances.
Well actually I didn't word that quite right. I think the mods are strict with some people and not with others. I see a lot of incredibly asshole-ish posts go unmoderated even when reported, and I know things are missed sometimes but still, it seems to happen too often to me. On the other hand people get suspended or put on probation for some very insignificant things.Ziadaine said: