Very Major issue with moderation of this forum

[Fenrir]

I was out of town all weekend. I saw your PM, but I don't like to comment in haste while on mobile without understanding the full context of what you were trying to get at.

 

First, I'm actually going to address Courtney's report of Penek. I handled the report. I closed it. The report was "Penek is a literal trash of the human race." I'm going to come out and say that Penek IS a piece of trash. A scumbag. (Insert whatever variation of this you want to here). He is a criminal who swindles people out of their hard earned money. Would you be mad if someone called a convicted criminal any of these things? How can you compare Penek to someone like Venom? I'm not going to write out a 100 page manifesto about everything that should or shouldn't be said in the forums and every exception to every rule. Use common sense.

 

 

Second, Vakume Cleener may appeal his ban on the main site if he would like to, but I have never accepted a ban appeal from someone with more than TEN unique instances of warnings or bans (not warning points where you might get 5 points for one ban, but separate bans). Vakume had an impressive TWELVE DIFFERENT bans that span from insulting other users to spamming to backseat moderating. The permanent ban was NOT for backseat moderating. If you did the same thing you would not have gotten a permanent ban. He should have been permanently banned 2 bans ago for general spam and insulting others.

 

 

I'm traveling a lot September-October, so I take a bit longer to respond. But PMing is definitely better if you want my input on anything. I wouldn't have seen this thread if Bucket hadn't quoted by rules page.

 

 

So much this ^. And yes, we moderate what gets reported. If you don't report when people are clearly trying to insult someone, chances are a mod will never see it. Another thing to note is that we do take into consideration if something is clearly meant as a joke. However, there are tons of cases where you all get mad when you see something as a joke, but when the target of the insult is reporting it, there's really not much we can do but issue the warning.

 

 

I think what we're getting at here is that there is a problem in the clarity of the ban reasons. I'll admit that I find this as well and find it annoying when I have to deal with the backlash when puddingkip puts in a very vague ban reason without any reference or context. That's something that needs to be worked on. But if you look at the bans and warnings themselves, I have always stood by the vast majority of them.

1) Then you're really contradicting yourself. You're saying it's okay to insult someone if they're actually a bad person, but if a person is good it's not okay to insult them. That's not very convenient, as that makes people at the mercy of whatever Puddingkip thinks of the person you are insulting. You are also deciding that Venom is inherently a good person, and thus we should be banned for insulting him. It's a system that contradicts itself and does not work. Who's to say I can now insult Debra because he's a filthy cheater, and I can insult Venom because he's a filthy shark by your logic. It just doesn't work. 

 

2) Why was it necessary to give a warning point for backseat moderating? Why not just a verbal warning? I believe in another instance, this happened to me where I was warned for quoting another member's post and not adding anything to it and posting it, where I should have used the like button to show I agreed. I actually did PM you to try and get this removed, as a verbal warning is all that is needed for such tiny infractions as warning points really do stack up as we've seen with vakume kleener, yet you refused to remove it. Verbal warnings are all that are necessary for such small infractions, ie backseat moderating, because I could end up like Vakume with a single warning point earning me a perma. Which brings me full circle to Vakume... in essence he was not permad for his other warnings, he was permad for the backseat moderation because that's the warning point that sent him over the edge. Which brings me to say, that warning point should probably not have been given, as a verbal warning is fine. 

 

3) So you stand by puddingkip's decision to dole out 5 warning points for shitposting in the GB? The GB, which exists solely for shitposting?

[CourtneyWendysCommercials]

I want to see more consultations when handing out week-perma bans. And i would like for there to be some form of mild punishment for moderators that excessively hand out improper points/bans. I understand that people make mistakes, but it's like some moderators don't care what's right or wrong, because they have no retaliation against them if they act inappropriately.

 

EDIT: also, make up your mind with rulings. When i was appealing my perma for "abusing the report system" the reports in question were 2 users saying "LOL COURTNEY IS SO SALTY LOL SALTTTTTT" for no good reason, yet i was permanently banned and called "petty" by polar and puddingkip. Lo' and behold, polar just updated the forum rules, stating that calling users salty is toxic behaviour and isn't tolerated. Hm?

[polar]

snip

 

The new rules are new. They weren't in effect when any of those previous things happened. It's those things that actually caused me to think about the way the rules are and to talk to the other mods about what we could do better. So yes, I contradicted myself. We don't want to promote a toxic environment. It's not okay to insult someone if they are a "bad person," as you put it.

 

The backseat moderating issue is discussed in a pinned thread in that section. The rationale for that and Vakume's ban have both been talked about extensively now.

 

I can't stand for what I know nothing about. I don't know what the 5 warning points were given for. In my experience, the ban reason people think is not the same as the ban reason that actually is. And that's something we have to improve upon.

[Fenrir]

The new rules are new. They weren't in effect when any of those previous things happened. It's those things that actually caused me to think about the way the rules are and to talk to the other mods about what we could do better. So yes, I contradicted myself. We don't want to promote a toxic environment. It's not okay to insult someone if they are a "bad person," as you put it.

 

The backseat moderating issue is discussed in a pinned thread in that section. The rationale for that and Vakume's ban have both been talked about extensively now.

 

I can't stand for what I know nothing about. I don't know what the 5 warning points were given for. In my experience, the ban reason people think is not the same as the ban reason that actually is. And that's something we have to improve upon.

 

Alright thank you polar, I have read over the new rules, and I think that what has been accomplished is what I hoped for: a standard. You can go ahead and lock this thread if you desire to stop further discussion that could turn sour.