Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[Aerosteam]

To that end I'm genuinely curious if the Escapist mods are a result of people volunteering for the position, those who where asked to take the position or a mix of both avenues.

When the forums need more mods certain users get messaged asking if they want the position or not.

 

[kitsunefather]

For my two cents, I personally loathe rules that are open to interpretation, because it needles the paranoid little monkey gnawing at the base of my skull; it means being subject not just to judgment based on information, but also based on style of writing and general impression. Both of which, in my online manner, come off as terse at best, no matter my intent.

That said, I agree with the posts by the moderators here that for the Escapist's purposes, the rule set works fine, for what it is. There are problems, but there are appeals (which, if ineffective, speaks again to the necessity for clarity of rule or streamlining of process).

My general feeling on rules is that they should be as explicit as practicable, and only exist where needed. I think "rude" is a bit implicit, suggesting that rudeness is either universal, or one must be aware of, and adhere to, another person's standards of etiquette. Rather than change the rule, however, I would propose a general etiquette guide be presented; but that's just me.

As I said, I loathe interpretive rules, but I also understand their usefulness and ease of application. Each moderator, then, is permitted to apply pressure as they see fit, and the users are given means to appeal strikes against them (though several posts in this thread suggest that process is flawed at best). At the end of the day, however, the forums are neither a cesspool of flamewars and shitposting, nor a place where speech is gagged and controlled. A fair balance, that needs only a little nudge this way or that to keep on the wire.

TL;DR:
I hate interpretive rules, and would like a general explanation of what interpretations the Escapist (not individual moderators) feels applies to terms like "rude". That said, I'd like it if whiskey was free, and burgers burned calories. As such, I've learned to adapt to things I don't like, or avoid them entirely.

 

[Akjosch]

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.

Sure, in the same way that holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us is discriminatory. Someone being unable to control their impulses shouldn't necessitate that a private entity make special exceptions for them, or discard a rule entirely, if they're trying to maintain a certain decorum. You say yourself at the end of the post that people can learn what behaviors are frowned upon.

The important distinction here is that "holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us" is making them responsible for how they act, while "don't be a jerk" is making them responsible for who they are. I don't have a problem with the former, while I think the latter can be a dangerous, and potentially discriminatory, practice.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I voted "Support". No matter how specific a rule is, if someone's determined they will find a way to get around it.

Though your main issue seems to be with the rules not being clearly defined enough, which makes it easy to accidentally break. I've found the moderation to be lax enough that even when I've looked back and thought "Oh wow, I was being a dick there" I still haven't gotten warnings. There's obviously some misses, I've seen posts where I could not guess why they got warnings, but I haven't seen those as common occurrences.

Rules as interpreted are only as good as the moderators enforcing them, and I've found the mods to be quite fair. It always surprises me when I see people talking about the moderation as a plague of this site, the mods here are a lot better than other places

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

In all the time I've been here, going on 5 years now, I've had one strike for low content and that was before they loosened up on that particular rule. Beyond that I've had so many somewhat heated discussions with other people, but I've always kept my head about me and carefully chose my words.

Some people who've chosen to argue with me have table-flipped and ended up getting the hammer brought upon themselves (some even bragged about reporting me but ended up being flagged and tagged instead) and I don't report posts.

Mods have a tough job, and its not something anyone should take personally. Chances are more likely that if one receives a strike its because one has done something to warrant it.
Suffice to say if one is ever concerned about one's post-language possibly coming off as rude or otherwise non-compliant with the very loose CoC here, then maybe one should refrain from posting it.

One of the reasons I've stuck with Escapist is because of how fair the mods have been here compared to a LOT of other forums I've been a part of. And if someone feels like they've been unfairly punished, they've the option to appeal their strike or ban. Depending on the severity of the offense, and the severity of self-delusion of what is and is not civil language, the mods are fair and may give users a second chance.

I've seen people get their second chance here before and some figure out their mistakes and move forward, others shit the bed as soon as they get unbanned, whether its foolish arrogance and/or pride or just plain ignorance I've no clue, nor do I really care because either way those are people who don't need to be here in the first place.

All I've ever tried to do is foster a decent, non-toxic environment here myself. I'm only one person so there's little effect I can have on other folks. But at least I can say I'm not part of the problem, and I do my best to be a point of light. I do my best not to argue but to discuss, to talk not shout, to speak to an individual or group of people I may not agree with, not insult and demean, demonize, or dehumanize them.

Being a decent person, not mistaking sarcasm and snark for wit and refraining from knee-jerk reacting to posts, thats how you avoid mod-wrath. *shrug*

 

[Jux]

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.

Sure, in the same way that holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us is discriminatory. Someone being unable to control their impulses shouldn't necessitate that a private entity make special exceptions for them, or discard a rule entirely, if they're trying to maintain a certain decorum. You say yourself at the end of the post that people can learn what behaviors are frowned upon.

The important distinction here is that "holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us" is making them responsible for how they act, while "don't be a jerk" is making them responsible for who they are. I don't have a problem with the former, while I think the latter can be a dangerous, and potentially discriminatory, practice.

Sorry, but I find this to be nitpicking semantics. No one is dictating what they can and can't be, 'don't be a jerk' refers to actions. They could reword it to 'don't act like a jerk' and there would be zero change to how the rule is enforced. Case in point, you describe yourself as an asshole. If the rules really were about regulating what one can and can't be, you'd already be gone. The fact that you're not is indication it's not ones identity, but rather the actions that the rules are restricting.

And this is a bit tangential, but I don't buy that one can be simply 'a jerk'. Jerk is a label applied to someone based on how they act, not who they are ot what conditions or disorders they might possess. If someone that has difficulty reading social cues and makes gaffes learns to recognize what they shouldn't do, even if it doesn't mean anything to them, they're not a jerk because their natural inclination is one way. I would say they're rather considerate that they'd take the timd and effort to understand and adhere to socially acceptable norms.

 

[vallorn]

I'm just going to head this off at the pass before it gets taken out of context by someone either on accident or on purpose, I'm not a racist by any stretch of the imagination unless you count the belief that people should be able to stand on their own two feet and that schemes like Affirmative Action are patronizing and a sticking plaster over more general issues of poor education in low income areas.

EDIT: Since we are explaining the reasons behind our mod wrath incidents... All four of my warnings are for... shall we say losing my temper when it comes to the behavior of MovieBob back when he was a site contributor, and I never appealed them because... Frankly yeah even I know I stepped over the mark when it came to that.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

I think my position on the rules has been quite clear. I strongly disapprove of the vagueness. I've had people condescend to me something terrible but because there wasn't a direct "You're an idiot" it's totally cool.

...

This is the sort of corporate, pat-you-on-the-head-and-hope-you're-as-stupid-as-we-think answer that pisses me off more than the passive aggressive bullshit I get from other posters. This assumes that I haven't lurked here for at least five years and seen the CONSTANT complaining about the moderation. So either nobody has listened to a damn thing the forumites have said for almost a decade or nobody has been able to come up with an answer for nearly a decade. Tell me, NewClassic, since you seem to be the mouthpiece of the staff who can't or won't run the forums-which failure is the Escapist guilty of then? Maybe next you can tell me (AGAIN) to take my issues to the appeal link that I've gotten utterly ignored by all but once, as if I'd never been burned by that before. How many times do you think people will buy the same hollow responses?

I've been a mod for as long as you've been a lurker. While I imagine that gives you no solace, I can say with some certainty I've seen the complaints you're talking about. And the complaints you've seen have, to some degree or another, changed shape or reasoning in the intervening years, but the sentiment behind them has always been "We don't understand why moderation did this," so I suppose they're in a similar enough vein to equate the two.

As for why these things come up, I think it comes from a variety of sources. I do think there are fair grievances with how moderation has been applied, I do agree that the Code of Conduct is written in such a way that rules can be left to interpretation, and I agree that the forums have always had some measure of issue with how moderation was carried out. That was true for Joe, that was true when it was just wilsonscrazybed and nilcypher, and will equally be true when nuclear war has claimed the lives of everyone, and a cockroach scuttling across a keyboard manages to somehow post "Halo 2 was for stupidheads." in the Religion and Politics section, earning a ban for both low content and flame-baiting.

However, since such times, the rule set has seen change from the Forum Guidelines to Code of Conduct. It's seen countless revisions over numerous community managers, it's seen different parent companies, different forum populations, and different goals. Moderation has changed shape countless times, with the addition of Warnings to the moderation tools, the introduction of the Forum Health Meter, and the uniformity and regulation of ban severity (a move that was seen, at the time, as universally negative).

So I disagree that nothing has been done, but I do find that there have been changes that have not resonated with the moving goalposts of the forum population. However, had nothing changed in the five years, I likely would have given you a probation or suspension for this post, from the Forum Guidelines:

Flaming and trolling: Flaming is hostile and insulting interactions between forum posters. Trolling is posting controversial or inflammatory content or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking flaming or to disrupt normal discussion. Neither is tolerated.

Mod sass: Don't do it. If you feel one of us has dealt with something poorly, send a mod a private message and we will politely respond with our rationale. If you need to contact someone about a problem with a moderator, please Private Message [user]Kuliani[/user].

Part of what makes the rules as they are now is the fact that the forum population keeps changing, shifting, and moving what its needs are present to the day. No one population will behave like another, and no one rule set will do with one what it could with another. So a lot of the issues that come up evolve as the needs of the forum evolve. The exact shape of the need is ever changing, so the rules will naturally follow suit. So no, I don't think there's an easy answer there.

Discussions like these exist, however, to resolve problems. Not air grievances against moderation.

As for the details of how to improve the rude rule specifically though... hard to. Flaw being cited most often as interpretation and lack of consistency, any sort of way to tackle the problem there might help. My take is that since the mod interpretation of the rule can't be trusted (being it is the most cited reason for issues), better to remove that and kill that whole problem at the source rather then excuse its existence out of laziness or tradition. But if you have to keep it, I suppose you could define some root standards with regard to what is or is not rude, give examples, explain the underlying "why" and have that be consistently demonstrated and explained to users and mods alike to help establish a baseline. Beyond that, increase transparency outright and deal with the consequences that come with that, including some degree of accountability from the community itself. Yes it could result in making situations harder for moderation, but as others have said, moderation shouldn't be easy or streamlined, it should be fair.

Honestly though, if the worry is so great that such a thing would be brigading or whatever, I have to ask why that is as bad a thing as presented. I mean seriously, that is saying that the support for the current system is so low that a small group of outsiders could have such an impact, perhaps it is more a sign of general distrust and unhappiness with the system then people would like to admit to. Hell, one could add aspects of that to a seniority system to unlock if worry is so great and still retain the purpose but that is me going into a more major system overhaul. Make it like citizenship where anyone over the proper age and in good standing can do something toward that end. I don't know exactly, I just can recognize the current system is more flawed then it seems worth.

Yeah, the problem with any set of rules is that it's going to be subject to a lot of fiddling to get the language to mean everything it needs to, yet keep the language concise enough to serve as both a posting style guide, and a set of regulations. It's never been an easy task to accomplish, and every set of rules that's ever been presented on the forum has been met with some level of teeth gnashing. (Save, perhaps, the very original Forum Guidelines, which were three sentences long.) I do like the idea of citing specific examples, but I'm aware that any deviations from that in application is going to likely spawn its own series of arguments.

I don't agree that the rule should be done away with, as I feel that the underlying intent of the forum has always had a degree of "make discussion fun," and banning rude or inflammatory language will always be an aspect of that sort of behavior. I can say I'm not opposed to transparency personally, but that isn't an indication that it is likely to come about. That's well beyond my authority as a mod.

As for brigading, I believe it's an issue for the same reason a lot of aspects can be issues, a small handful of very loud voices does wonders to give the appearance of many voices. Any concerted, group effort to cause problems for a party is likely to have some measure of success. For the same reasons that reporting is anonymous, so too is moderation. I'm not opposed to seeing the system change, but I do believe that any implementation that isn't integrated into the entire system is liable to open new abuses. So, until it's been discussed and planned to be implemented with a fair amount of testing and work, I can understand why it hasn't yet come about.

And threads like these, and my participation in them, is all in service of attempting to address the known flaws, and figure out potential solutions. Which is why I often go into threads like these playing Devil's Advocate, in the hope that others can help me see things I don't.

 

[Akjosch]

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.

Sure, in the same way that holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us is discriminatory. Someone being unable to control their impulses shouldn't necessitate that a private entity make special exceptions for them, or discard a rule entirely, if they're trying to maintain a certain decorum. You say yourself at the end of the post that people can learn what behaviors are frowned upon.

The important distinction here is that "holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us" is making them responsible for how they act, while "don't be a jerk" is making them responsible for who they are. I don't have a problem with the former, while I think the latter can be a dangerous, and potentially discriminatory, practice.

Sorry, but I find this to be nitpicking semantics. No one is dictating what they can and can't be, 'don't be a jerk' refers to actions. They could reword it to 'don't act like a jerk' and there would be zero change to how the rule is enforced.

Isn't this the topic of this very thread? I'm firmly in the "rules, laws and similar need to be as precise as the language allows" camp here. Rewording it like this would be a significant improvement, as far as I'm concerned.

Case in point, you describe yourself as an asshole. If the rules really were about regulating what one can and can't be, you'd already be gone. The fact that you're not is indication it's not ones identity, but rather the actions that the rules are restricting.

I never claimed this particular rule is especially stringently or consistently enforced.

 

[IceForce]

And I know everyone has to agree before the CoC is changed, but I feel like it should have been updated before mods decided to change the rules instead of leaving it and displaying false/old info.

Agreed.

I mean, previously we've even had mods come out and say that entire sections of the COC no longer apply (low content in particular). So, quite why they hesitate so much to update the COC with this info, is beyond me.

I must say I really don't understand this stubborn balking and reluctance to make edits to the COC whenever rules are changed or when there are changes to the way certain rules are enforced (even subtle changes), because in my mind having a rules page that is outdated and inaccurate does far more damage to the site than simply editing it whenever an edit is needed.

 

[Strazdas]

I was staying out of this topic because it is technically itself a violation of rules, but since the mods and even staff is coming in i guess it wont get nuked.

We have an issue where we try to keep heat off our volunteers directly (and keep warnings/etc mostly private out of respect to the user who we hope will work any issues out), but people only see the fallout from punishments, rather then the entire picture of what is happening behind the scenes. The infraction meter and the links to the action'd post when a user is currently banned/probated are an effort in that direction... but once the current ban is expired, or a user is nuked due to a long history of offenses, the context often isn't complete outside of their outrage unless their last post was aggressively over the top. There's a few things that can help this transparency, but they need some internal discussion (along with coding time that is currently allocated elsewhere).

I think the biggest issue with moderating here is not so much the rules themselves but transparency. It is precisely because the users dont see anything that issues arrise. You know they say the best mods are invisible ones as the users wont ever see what they done because they do it so well users dont even notice the bad elements the mod removed. but that also creates the problem of users only seeing the bad mods to begin with. and since there is so little transparency that we dont even get told when a new mod comes (there was no notice of Barbas becoming a mod) its really hard to trust the mods to do the right thing when we see zero accountability. Im not saying that there is no accountability, im seeing it is not visible to users. and that creates lack of trust, conspiracy theories (especially when they turn out to be true.... ) and general hostile atmosphere of Users vs Moderators. I think higher transparency would release a lot of pressure that has been boiling between users and staff and thus allow mods to do their job easier.

Another thing that would be more technical would be able to add a comment to your report of a post. this would help to tell moderators what to look for.

P.S. i always love reading your posts, they sound so well thought out..

The problem with re-writing the CoC again is that there will always be people that are unhappy with it, no matter how specific or vague we make the actual rules.

I can only speak of the last CoC rewrite because that is the only one i followed closely. The problem with it was that it actually made things worse, and there were many valid concerns raised about it in the discussion post ensuing, but it was locked because discussing CoC wasnt allowed thanks to the CoC changes. In fact im surprised this thread wasnt locked as it breaks current CoC. The current CoC didnt write out bias-based rules, it just made it illegal to point out they are such.

I do know the Staff oversee everything the Moderators do, and they do know which Mods give which infractions to who. If they see someone being openly biased towards a certain user or usergroup/type then they will step in.

Mods are also usually not encouraged to give infractions out when they're personally involved in a thread or topic. We're always told to pass it to someone else who can judge it fairly without emotional attachment.

Well, i dont. Thats really the problem here though - users dont know.

I had three mod actions overturned by appeal to staff, leaving a clear pattern to make me believe it was TopazFusion, who turned out to be heavily invested into discussion, making those. Since he has left/was fired the infraction abuse has stopped, at least for me. This leads me to conclusion that staff isnt pro-active enough about it.

Capcha: Karma points

No, i dont think ill get any here.

 

[IceForce]

I had three mod actions overturned by appeal to staff, leaving a clear pattern to make me believe it was TopazFusion, who turned out to be heavily invested into discussion, making those. Since he has left/was fired the infraction abuse has stopped, at least for me. This leads me to conclusion that staff isnt pro-active enough about it.

I'm not really understanding your point.

Your incorrect infractions were overturned, and the mod who issued them and abused his powers, was fired. In other words, everything's been dealt with.

Soo, what's your complaint here again?

.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

 

[Strazdas]

I had three mod actions overturned by appeal to staff, leaving a clear pattern to make me believe it was TopazFusion, who turned out to be heavily invested into discussion, making those. Since he has left/was fired the infraction abuse has stopped, at least for me. This leads me to conclusion that staff isnt pro-active enough about it.

I'm not really understanding your point.

Your incorrect infractions were overturned, and the mod who issued them and abused his powers, was fired. In other words, everything's been dealt with.

Soo, what's your complaint here again?

.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

My point was that what was supposed to be curation of moderator actions only happened as a reaction to appeals and it took a third party organizing an event for anything to even begin being done about it. Also according to Topaz, he was not fired but quit himself, though how much of that is to be believed is questionable.

My post you quoted was in direct response to Sky saying that staff is overseeing moderators (hence i think they arent being pro-active enough in the oversight if it takes so much for anything to be done) and that they are not supposed to moderate discussion they are invested in (which is supposedly what happened here).

SO while yes, it has been dealt with for now, it should have been dealt when it started instead.

 

[Darks63]

having a rating system for posts would help.

No NOPE nononononono please don't implement this idea ever it doesn't ever work out well. A rating or rep system is so open for abuse its not even funny. It can also cause a tyranny or the popular where the cool kids get their stuff always upvoted and/or it can cause the rise forum cliques that can use the system to shut people down.

OT: I am mostly fine with the rule what disappoints me is that the site is poor at dealing with ban evaders and ban jumpers. I have seen too many cases where people who were banned or about to be being able to make another account and continue to raise hell after they should have been gone.

 

[IceForce]

SO while yes, it has been dealt with for now, it should have been dealt when it started instead.

Fair enough. Although I would wager that the mods are most likely under a lot more srutiny now than they've been before. So it seems extremely unlikely we'll see another Topaz incident.

.

EDIT:

(there was no notice of Barbas becoming a mod)

Out of interest, are new mods usually publicly announced around these parts? Is it standard practice on this site?

I haven't been around long enough to see very many mods come or go, so I was wondering.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

OT: I am mostly fine with the rule what disappoints me is that the site is poor at dealing with ban evaders and ban jumpers. I have seen too many cases where people who were banned or about to be being able to make another account and continue to raise hell after they should have been gone.

If you suspect a user is evading bans then use the report link that appears on that user's profile. The tech team have a lot of tricks for spotting alt accounts, so it is something that can be easily verified.

Out of interest, are new mods usually publicly announced around these parts? Is it standard practice on this site?

I haven't been around long enough to see very many mods come or go, so I was wondering.

Not usually. Elfgore was the first user I know of to have had a thread made about him becoming a mod.

And for the sake of correction, there was a thread made about Barbas becoming a mod [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.875674].

 

[Jux]

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.

Sure, in the same way that holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us is discriminatory. Someone being unable to control their impulses shouldn't necessitate that a private entity make special exceptions for them, or discard a rule entirely, if they're trying to maintain a certain decorum. You say yourself at the end of the post that people can learn what behaviors are frowned upon.

The important distinction here is that "holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us" is making them responsible for how they act, while "don't be a jerk" is making them responsible for who they are. I don't have a problem with the former, while I think the latter can be a dangerous, and potentially discriminatory, practice.

Sorry, but I find this to be nitpicking semantics. No one is dictating what they can and can't be, 'don't be a jerk' refers to actions. They could reword it to 'don't act like a jerk' and there would be zero change to how the rule is enforced.

Isn't this the topic of this very thread? I'm firmly in the "rules, laws and similar need to be as precise as the language allows" camp here. Rewording it like this would be a significant improvement, as far as I'm concerned.

Case in point, you describe yourself as an asshole. If the rules really were about regulating what one can and can't be, you'd already be gone. The fact that you're not is indication it's not ones identity, but rather the actions that the rules are restricting.

I never claimed this particular rule is especially stringently or consistently enforced.

If theres no effective change in how the rule is enforced, changing a phrase is nothing more than an exercise in useless pedantry.

 

[Username Redacted]

To that end I'm genuinely curious if the Escapist mods are a result of people volunteering for the position, those who where asked to take the position or a mix of both avenues.

When the forums need more mods certain users get messaged asking if they want the position or not.

That's discouraging to hear.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

If a mod is heavily invested in one side of a discussion AND is incapable of behaving like a professional then rules are likely to be more strictly applied (or, worst case scenario, incorrectly applied) to those who they disagree with while being more loosely applied (or, worst case scenario, not applied at all) to those whose side they've taken. If that's the result of someone being more "invested in discussion" then I would prefer if they divest themselves of all assets pertaining to said discussion or, better yet, have them not be a mod anymore.

 

[EvilRoy]

I had three mod actions overturned by appeal to staff, leaving a clear pattern to make me believe it was TopazFusion, who turned out to be heavily invested into discussion, making those. Since he has left/was fired the infraction abuse has stopped, at least for me. This leads me to conclusion that staff isnt pro-active enough about it.

I'm not really understanding your point.

Your incorrect infractions were overturned, and the mod who issued them and abused his powers, was fired. In other words, everything's been dealt with.

Soo, what's your complaint here again?

.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

Going along with Strad's complaint is the issue of oversight being a strange and unknowable land. This is the one and only forum where I have seen an individual have not one, but two permabans overturned. Now I may not actually like that person, but regardless of whether or not they might deserve the ban I get very worried when I see that kind of thing happening what seems to be fairly often. In the end wrongs were presumably righted and people were unbanned as deemed necessary, but the fact that the staff disagreed with the mods on a fairly serious matter (at least relative to a forum) twice for the same person in a relatively short interval is worrying to me. Seems to point to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Oversight is great, but it would be better if the left hand actually knew what the right hand wanted to begin with.

 

[BoogieManFL]

To be honest, I've had four warnings and none were well deserved. Well, at least 3 of them. One of them was a low content post. Doing 90 seconds of random thread searching I found several posts with less said AND less characters used. I got that warning solely because someone didn't like what I said and reported me to be spiteful, using moderators as a way to indirectly attack me because that works very well here. That, more than anything is the core issue with warnings here in my opinion. Often it's simply a means of retaliation that is so simple even a troll can do it.

The other 3, only by the most severe eye could they have been worthy of warnings. The things I've got warnings fore were tame enough to be said on the Disney Channel, so, I think the modding comes off as a bit heavy handed because all it takes to get a warning is for your post to be insulting or rude in the literal sense - even if it's extremely tame and mild, something you could say in front of your Grandmother - it doesn't matter. That being said this is still one of the more pleasant forums to visit so in some aspects it must work. It just needs more heart and less cold logic to decide if something is truly in opposition with the spirit of the rules.

For the most part I don't think such rigid rule enforcement is the best way to go about getting the job done. I don't agree with it, but my opinion is irrelevant as it's not my website so I accept it. Unfortunately it has caused me to contribute to discussions less often than I did before, I don't enjoy feeling of having to walk on eggshells when debating with someone.

If you're willing to debate, you shouldn't be so eager to cry for mommy to come to your defense just because you don't agree with what and how someone is saying something. Get some thicker skin and learn to deal with it. Mommy can't always come save you and kiss your boo boos in real life.