Oof, I wouldn't use that above as any sort of example given that it drastically limits the amount of films that can be talked about instead of the widely encompassing term of "Movies."

For reference, here is a link to the topics he has started in Geek Media. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/recentTopics/showTopicsByUser/0/118912/95.page

Of the 9 banned posts, only 3 of those had less than 1 page. Two of those were immediately locked by Alpharius for whatever reasons. I am not sure. One of them was actually remade because it was a bad lock and then had more posts in it. (That thread wasn't locked)

Of the others that were locked, they were used to consolidate in to one thread. Then that thread was locked because "Well, since no one actually wants to talk about movies ITT"

His Europa thread was locked because it got trolled and then he was punished for it. One of those was even a mod, or ex mod. Not sure anymore. But it was the same mod who locked two of his other threads almost immediately.

There are some serious discrepancies going on here with this poster and his threads. To the point where it seems he is being targeted by the mods for almost no reason other than an enthusiasm for posting.

I'll post it again. Because the "Its not censorship" response was not a valid response to what I posted above. It is glazing over a lot of what I posted as actually targeting and censoring a guy for little reason. It also doesn't answer the glaring inconsistencies with the mods on this specific topic.

Your question was answered;

Its the same rules for any other sub forum, don't duplicate threads, don't spam, its not a personal soapbox/blog etc. Also if the thread goes too far off topic, is flamebait, gets used as a vehicle for politics etc. it will get locked or deleted as appropriate.

As for your point about Techpriestsupport, moderation is done in private between the Mods and the party being moderated, we do not make it public. If you feel there is unfair moderation then feel free to PM another moderator or the sites admins.

I miss TSS, he had a youthful enthusiasm about him.
Was he banned permanently?

Again, no it wasn't. Because what you are saying is vastly different than what has transpired.

We don't get to discuss the mods in Nuts & Bolts anymore?

Ratius, definitely not! I, too, have enjoyed his threads. All we want to see is a reasonable limit on how many new, similar threads one poster makes in a section, so others have room to post threads, too.

That's it, really. No censure, no hidden motives other than that. Maybe we could've made it more clear to start, but it should be pretty clear now, right?

Dreadwinter, your point is fair and well taken. We'll try to be consistent about this going forward, and shouldn't need any more "emergency measures" now that the forum isn't being spammed.

In short, probably almost any thread you'd like to post is going to be fine, and we only ask folks not to create so many threads all at once that others don't have a chance to get their fair say.

Good to hear, hopefully he'll come back.

So it's all ok, because you're pretending there's only a certain amount of digital space available?

What absolute twaddle.

Unpopular, inactive threads quickly sink and are replaced by other, active, popular threads.

Dreadwinter, we simul-posted, did I answer your question? What was done was a one-time thing from a lot if posters complaining about spam, and we probably should've been more clear on this. You can still make any geeky thread you like in there - just not half the front page's worth in short order!

Excommunicatus, it's not digital space, it's front page space. We limit how many threads a single person can make in any part of the site. In really premium parts, like N&R, we limit threads to one per manufacturer, for instance.

But in any area of the site, if only one poster is dominating a section, we usually ask that they let others post threads and make a few less themselves / consolidate some of theirs together.

This has happened a number of times before, but apparently we just weren't clear about what we were doing here. I apologize for that - is it clear now?

Again, going forward you can make almost any thread you like in Geek Media, as can any user. But if you're making a new thread (or even multiples) in that section every day, we'll probably ask you to either consolidate some together, or make a few less so that one poster isn't making all the threads.

Any questions, just post here or PM me!

Well apparently what will actually happen if I make a thread in Geek Media is that it will be moved to Off-Topic so that I cant post in it in a nakedly petty move.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Well apparently what will actually happen if I make a thread in Geek Media is that it will be moved to Off-Topic so that I cant post in it in a nakedly petty move.

Assuming that you've got a subsection ban chances are the mod that moved the thread moved the thread for legitimate purposes and had no idea or forgot that your section banned. Whilst its a major thing for you, for most mods they've likely forgotten about it unless they dealt with you directly over the incident.

Ah, having checked your profile, I think that was likely a simple oversight, Excommunicatus. There's obviously a team of us here, and while we share all info it's not readily apparent when a user is temporarily suspended from the OT section without going through a few pages. So, I think the thread was likely moved as happens often, without realizing you couldn't post in it.

(I also noted that you'll be able to post there again next week, and OT suspensions are becoming much less needed now that politics isn't being discussed, so hopefully this will be a non-issue going forward)

Edit: Ninja'ed, Overread is exact! Apologies for the oversight, next time just shoot one of us a PM if you can, and we'll get it sorted.

I posted a thread specifically about it, specifically mentioning that it had been moved into a sub-forum I couldn't post in and that made no sense for the content.

Insaniak locked it instantly.

The thread is less than halfway down the Nuts and Bolts front page.

This is the thread, I think:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/766893.page

Perhaps a friendly PM will yield better results

I'll check into it now, but it looks like that kind of thread really does belong in OT (I thought you meant a different one which had no replies, which I would've just deleted for you if I'd realized you couldn't follow up on it).

Edit: Well, it's a pretty old thread and does belong in OT, I think. You can post in it next week when the OT suspension is finished, and hopefully that won't be necessary in the future...

My PMs were ignored.

I'll check into it, Excommunicatus (but I think if your PMs were similar to that thread I linked to above, that is likely the problem...)

 RiTides wrote:
Ratius, definitely not! I, too, have enjoyed his threads. All we want to see is a reasonable limit on how many new, similar threads one poster makes in a section, so others have room to post threads, too.

That's it, really. No censure, no hidden motives other than that. Maybe we could've made it more clear to start, but it should be pretty clear now, right?

Dreadwinter, your point is fair and well taken. We'll try to be consistent about this going forward, and shouldn't need any more "emergency measures" now that the forum isn't being spammed.

In short, probably almost any thread you'd like to post is going to be fine, and we only ask folks not to create so many threads all at once that others don't have a chance to get their fair say.

Sure, no censure, no hidden motives.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769807.page Why was this post locked and why is the mod in question allowed to break rule #1 with his rude response and lock? I don't see any similar threads on the topic. There isn't anything to consolidate like the others threads. Which were consolidated in to a thread which was then locked.

The front page argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. He currently has 15 threads on the Geek Media front page with most of them locked and the oldest over two weeks old. So he isn't bumping any active or popular posts from the front page. It also leaves 35 other posts on the front page. While that would be an outrageous amount of posts on a very popular and quick moving forum, that is not the case of Geek Media. Not a lot of new posts get made and when they do, we often times have to deal with mod shenanigans.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769807.page Why was this post locked and why is the mod in question allowed to break rule #1 with his rude response and lock?

Because Rules for Thee and not for Me is how DakkaDakka seems to operate, at least from an outside observers point of view.

To throw my two cents in, I don't think there is any problem with someone making lots of new threads, so long as they are not artificially bumping them to drown out other threads. Like Dreadwinter said, if no-ones interested in a topic it will eventually fall off the front page anyway.

Example: This is what I consider good moderation. Someone makes a post, realises they made an oopsie poopsie, mod locks the thread and tells the poster where to put their post. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770003.page

While Techpriestsupport has posted some good thread topics, a lot of them have titles that remind me of 'clickbait' web links, and many of them are way off the topic of wargaming. I'd like Dakkadakka to have a high signal to noise ratio. TPS has (as of this writing) 158 threads started with 1029 overall posts, that seems extraordinarily high to me, when 15% of your posts are new threads.

The "View Recent Threads" subforum is probably the most important one on Dakkadakka. Anyone asking a real question they need answering or advice should be able to be listed there for a reasonable amount of time.

Maybe we need a "View Recent Wargaming Threads" and "View Recent More Dakka" Threads subforums.

Alpharius (who has retired from being a moderator) did not lock that thread, I did. There’s no reasonable discussion to be had on binge reading, as opposed to discussing what people are reading or about reading a certain book or genre, etc. That thread is a great example of spamming the forum, which is against the rules.

I appreciate that you are sticking up for another user but we’re not going to give you the detailed run down on how we moderated someone who isn’t you. I can absolutely confirm, however, that this user was not permanently banned nor was he “censured” or even mildly scolded for opening all these threads. And generally, starting a lot of threads all at once — although a little gauche in terms of etiquette — is not normally an issue. Rather, starting a lot of threads all at once that are about either very similar things or perhaps nothing at all ... well, yeah that’s spamming.

As for accusations of personal grudges, I am the one who locked most of the threads. But you can go back and look at them and see that I participated actively in many of them. This isn’t about being mean or uppity or what have you. I think Techpriestsupport posted some good ideas and on more than one occasion, I told him so. So please rethink the idea that moderation = personal animus.

 RiTides wrote:
This is the thread, I think:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/766893.page

Perhaps a friendly PM will yield better results

A polite post would have potentially yielded better results also. We're generally more than happy to discuss the reasons that decisions are made... but you're far more likely to get an actual discussion out of it if you don't lead with insulting us.


I would point out, though, that the fact that someone is blocked from a particular section of the site doesn't make a topic suddenly appropriate to post in a different section.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
almost no reason other than an enthusiasm for posting.

That itself is a valid reason. When that high a percentage of your posts are starting new threads it comes across as caring less about posting your thoughts and more about being overly concerned with being the person who has their name on the OP for as many threads as possible, as if that makes it "your" thread. Most of the threads in question were either pointless nonsense with no real room for discussion or redundant threads that would have worked just fine as posts in one of the existing threads on the topic.

 Ratius wrote:
I miss TSS, he had a youthful enthusiasm about him.
Was he banned permanently?

Looks like he left of his own volition, because before his voluntary leave of absence, he PM'ed me to basically feth myself, even though I basically haven't interacted with him except like one post agreeing that his threads should be consolidated. I'm not sure if anybody else got these PM's, but if that's his attitude towards the place, good riddance.

Ultimately, these stream of consciousness type of spam threads need to curbed since it sets a bad precedent for other newer posters to do the same, meaning we can potentially have flooded threads from multiple posters that basically have to resort to these kinds of spam threads to get attention.

I would point out that documentaries about WWII fits squarely into what Geek Media is supposed to be about, while Off-Topic specifically says it is for threads that do not fit anywhere else.

Which is why WWII documentaries went into geek media while Sunderland Til I Die did not.

I also wasn't banned from posting in Off-Topic when I made the thread in Geek Media. I am now banned from Off-Topic because I expressed frustration with bad-faith arguments in the Veganuary thread. Coincidentally, I'm sure, I'm banned until Veganuary is over.

Meanwhile, every other poster in that thread who posted nothing but ad hominens and blatantly impolite posts was allowed to continue posting without check.

It could not be more obvious that certain 'faces' around here are utterly exempt from the rules the rest of us are subjected to on an inconsistent and capricious basis.

Did you report offending posts?
In my experience quite a few people seethe and rage at moderator inaction, however a lot of reading is interpretation and it was closer to a case where a moderator was interpreting posts a different way; or perhaps didn't consider the full impact of the comments etc...
But at the same time the user was also not reporting those comments nor giving any feedback as to what their problem was with them.

Some would attack back (both members end up in trouble) whilst others would rage and then unleash it at mods/the site/the system.



Heck sometimes mods already know that user X is a sarcastic pain and they are mentally ignoring them anyway; not realising that some others might read user X's posts as direct insults.

This ^

It's also not at all unusual for us to receive messages from both sides of a dispute complaining about the 'blatant' favoritism we're showing the 'other' side...

I found TPS’s habit of making so many similar threads to be of mild annoyance. I don’t know if specific action was required, but I was personally tempted to ask him to consolidate similar threads, or maybe restrain his “I like this movie” threads to once per week. Defining spam is an art, not a science. I am glad to see active posters but on the other hand... posts that have substance (another vague term!) would be preferred.

Anyone that does not like how someone’s sandbox is run is always welcome to create their own sandbox, The moderators of this particular sandbox are unpaid volunteers that, for reasons beyond my understanding, choose to put up with gak from internet randos on their own free time to keep the place in order.

People that could, for the gaks and giggles of it, give anyone a swift kick in the ass, out of the sandbox, with nothing more than a sarcastic “have a nice life.” As justification. But they don’t. Again, I’m not sure why, other than possible masochistic tendencies.

So, one might consider not pissing in the faces of the gatekeepers of Dakka, since they aren’t paid to put up with your gak. Just saying, as someone that had to figure that out the hard way.

but I was personally tempted to ask him to consolidate similar threads,

I did. My entire post was "I think it's time for a TPS movie thread" in yet another thread specifically about one old movie, and whatever response I got was edited by a mod before I got to read it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am now banned from Off-Topic because I expressed frustration with bad-faith arguments in the Veganuary thread. Coincidentally, I'm sure, I'm banned until Veganuary is over.

This is one of the weirder developments on Dakka, right?

One of the things I am most grateful for is this expose of the pro-vegan narrative being pushed by this site. For too long, we meat-eaters have been relentlessly crushed under uncaring, presumably non-animal-origin leather jackboots.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Anyone that does not like how someone’s sandbox is run is always welcome to create their own sandbox,

This. Nobody forces anyone to post here, against their will and/or better judgement. Don't like it, just go!

Although we wouldn't get gems like this:


I LOL'd at that.

 Ouze wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am now banned from Off-Topic because I expressed frustration with bad-faith arguments in the Veganuary thread. Coincidentally, I'm sure, I'm banned until Veganuary is over.

This is one of the weirder developments on Dakka, right?

One of the things I am most grateful for is this expose of the pro-vegan narrative being pushed by this site. For too long, we meat-eaters have been relentlessly crushed under uncaring, presumably non-animal-origin leather jackboots.

I am a vegan. I posted the thread.

Swing and a miss.

I think Ouze was citing the carnivorous bias of our Falango-Maoist Agenda, a.k.a., the Alt-Center movement. It’s super secret but all the cleverest users figure it out (usually after their first warning).

If you read the original thread about this, mostly every one agrees he appeared to be making alot of "spam" threads, i noticed it and said the obvious to him that i don't think what he is saying is worth a thread basically, so i don't know why theirs so much talk desputing this, and its unfortunate that you did not just pm the mods in the first place instead of creating threads with the persons name on it.

 Manchu wrote:
Alpharius (who has retired from being a moderator) did not lock that thread, I did. There’s no reasonable discussion to be had on binge reading, as opposed to discussing what people are reading or about reading a certain book or genre, etc. That thread is a great example of spamming the forum, which is against the rules.

I appreciate that you are sticking up for another user but we’re not going to give you the detailed run down on how we moderated someone who isn’t you. I can absolutely confirm, however, that this user was not permanently banned nor was he “censured” or even mildly scolded for opening all these threads. And generally, starting a lot of threads all at once — although a little gauche in terms of etiquette — is not normally an issue. Rather, starting a lot of threads all at once that are about either very similar things or perhaps nothing at all ... well, yeah that’s spamming.

As for accusations of personal grudges, I am the one who locked most of the threads. But you can go back and look at them and see that I participated actively in many of them. This isn’t about being mean or uppity or what have you. I think Techpriestsupport posted some good ideas and on more than one occasion, I told him so. So please rethink the idea that moderation = personal animus.

So you lock the thread but do not remove the post by Alpharius even though it is clearly breaking Rule #1? This is generally the kind of moderation where people start to wonder if the mods understand what they are supposed to be doing or if they are actually showing bias towards one of their own/ex-mod.

It seems the argument boils down to that he wasn't causing a problem, but people still didn't like what he was doing. So they were locked.

Did it cause forum issues? No.
Did it knock popular posts off the front page? No.
Was he being rude to other posters in those threads? No.
Was he making topics about banned subjects? No.
Was he making spam threads about the same topic over and over? No.

What is the problem then? It seems that people just don't like seeing one person post too much, for whatever reason. Not sure why that ruffles peoples feathers, but it seems to do so. Even when the posting itself is in no way doing any harm.

What rule did he break?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Alpharius (who has retired from being a moderator) did not lock that thread, I did. There’s no reasonable discussion to be had on binge reading, as opposed to discussing what people are reading or about reading a certain book or genre, etc. That thread is a great example of spamming the forum, which is against the rules.

I appreciate that you are sticking up for another user but we’re not going to give you the detailed run down on how we moderated someone who isn’t you. I can absolutely confirm, however, that this user was not permanently banned nor was he “censured” or even mildly scolded for opening all these threads. And generally, starting a lot of threads all at once — although a little gauche in terms of etiquette — is not normally an issue. Rather, starting a lot of threads all at once that are about either very similar things or perhaps nothing at all ... well, yeah that’s spamming.

As for accusations of personal grudges, I am the one who locked most of the threads. But you can go back and look at them and see that I participated actively in many of them. This isn’t about being mean or uppity or what have you. I think Techpriestsupport posted some good ideas and on more than one occasion, I told him so. So please rethink the idea that moderation = personal animus.

So you lock the thread but do not remove the post by Alpharius even though it is clearly breaking Rule #1? This is generally the kind of moderation where people start to wonder if the mods understand what they are supposed to be doing or if they are actually showing bias towards one of their own/ex-mod.

It seems the argument boils down to that he wasn't causing a problem, but people still didn't like what he was doing. So they were locked.

Did it cause forum issues? No.
Did it knock popular posts off the front page? No.
Was he being rude to other posters in those threads? No.
Was he making topics about banned subjects? No.
Was he making spam threads about the same topic over and over? No.

What is the problem then? It seems that people just don't like seeing one person post too much, for whatever reason. Not sure why that ruffles peoples feathers, but it seems to do so. Even when the posting itself is in no way doing any harm.

What rule did he break?

"Was he making spam threads about the same topic over and over? No" - Yes but he was making spam threads.

The rule of cool. Was broken. Through uncoolness.

Or, the rule against spamming threads. Which is kind of what people are getting at. You seem to want some kind of validation. So here it is.

This place isn’t perfectly fair. You can deal with it. The people that run the show can deal with it. I can deal with it. Everyone that sticks around can deal with it. If you stick around you’ll get your license to be a bit gakky sometimes. It helps if you’re funny about it, for what it’s worth.

We have a culture. It’s not just rules. Someone ITT brought up the ratio of post count to topics started. Why do users think that’s relevant? I don’t exactly know. But it’s hardly a surprising sentiment, at least to most people.

I mean, not everyone is going to fit in here. That’s a good insight from greatbigtree. Peregrine also brings up a good insight — OP should not think of a thread he starts as “his” such that locking it means he is being persecuted. That’s a cultural norm rather than a rule. And when people run into a norm they either acculturate to it, and become part of the communitty, or they don’t and eventually hang out with other people somewhere else.

Making an account here isn’t the same thing as being part of the community here, is another way to put it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So you lock the thread but do not remove the post by Alpharius even though it is clearly breaking Rule #1?

There was nothing rude about Alpharius' response in that thread. It was a little unnecessary and spammy, but nothing that warranted removal when the thread was being locked anyway.

It seems the argument boils down to that he wasn't causing a problem, but people still didn't like what he was doing. So they were locked.

No, the 'argument' boils down to that he was causing a problem, by spamming threads in multiple sections of the forums and through his interactions with other users in those threads and others. This was discussed with him directly, as is generally the case with moderation on this forum.

The end result of those discussions was that he was asked to consolidate similar topics and go easy on the starting multiple threads in a short space of time.

And that's really all there is to it. It's nowhere near the gigantic issue that you seem to be trying to turn it into.

 Manchu wrote:
Making an account here isn’t the same thing as being part of the community here, is another way to put it.

Your moderation team, ladies and gentleman.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Making an account here isn’t the same thing as being part of the community here, is another way to put it.

Your moderation team, ladies and gentleman.

Lol, so if ( insert awful evil person here ) creates account on dakka he should be considered apart of the community?

For example, we revently permabanned a guy who just joined up to post white supremacist stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
recently*

 Stormatious wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Making an account here isn’t the same thing as being part of the community here, is another way to put it.

Your moderation team, ladies and gentleman.

Lol, so if ( insert awful evil person here ) creates account on dakka he should be considered apart of the community?

There are people who have created accounts on Dakka, stirred up a ruckus, and subsequently left because they didn't conform to community norms. Just like any other community, be it a bar, a church, a reading club or whatever. Walking into the door doesn't guarantee you belong there.

Whatever helps you rationalize it.

How is one wrong about this? you say its being rationalized with out explaining at all why one is incorrect

 Stormatious wrote:
How is one wrong about this? you say its being rationalized with out explaining at all why one is incorrect

You're talking to somebody who opened his Dakka life with this memorable quote

 Excommunicatus wrote:

I alleged that the mods at the B&C acted like fascists, so to prove me wrong they permabanned me.

So the odds were always against any reasonable discussion on the subject of moderation on this site from the get go.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Whatever helps you rationalize it.

Dafug? I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm just telling it like it is. But if we're getting into that sort of thing, I am happy to diagnose your problem for you:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Making an account here isn’t the same thing as being part of the community here, is another way to put it.

Your moderation team, ladies and gentleman.

Lol, so if ( insert awful evil person here ) creates account on dakka he should be considered apart of the community?

There are people who have created accounts on Dakka, stirred up a ruckus, and subsequently left because they didn't conform to community norms. Just like any other community, be it a bar, a church, a reading club or whatever. Walking into the door doesn't guarantee you belong there.

Or, to be even more obvious, spambots have accounts but are clearly not part of the community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Someone ITT brought up the ratio of post count to topics started. Why do users think that’s relevant? I don’t exactly know.

As the person who brought it up, it's relevant because a high topics to post ratio is often a sign of one of two non-constructive patterns of behavior:

1) Drive-by spambots that see the community as little more than a source for getting more clicks on their blog and spam new threads directing people to their content elsewhere without ever interacting with anyone.

and

2) People who are looking for attention instead of community and discussion. It isn't enough to participate in discussions, they want to have their name on the front page as the "owner" of the Official Forum Music Thread or whatever. Making new threads means more visibility than posting in them, so they tend to start lots of low-value threads for every random idea that crosses their mind instead of first asking whether the forum really needs a separate thread for that idea. And it comes across as "LOOK AT ME" instead of genuine community interaction. This is the problem with the subject of this thread, most of the many threads they posted either had minimal potential for discussion and/or were minor thoughts that could easily have gone in one of the existing threads. So it was really starting to feel like the front page was getting cluttered up with threads that had little purpose besides getting the OP's name out there.

Now, this ratio obviously isn't an absolute rule, and you could have genuinely productive members who rarely post except when they have a major idea that deserves its own thread. But they'd almost certainly have a much lower ratio of threads started per week, mostly lurking until it's time to post the next amazing idea. For the more typical poster if they're genuinely participating in the community they're going to have a low ratio of new threads to posts, simply because participating in active discussion adds post count quickly and legitimate new thread ideas are relatively rare. For comparison, the OP has more than double my total of new threads started, with about 4% of the total posts. And that's including some less than amazing threads in my total, arguably even with that low a ratio I've posted too many new threads!

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So you lock the thread but do not remove the post by Alpharius even though it is clearly breaking Rule #1?

There was nothing rude about Alpharius' response in that thread. It was a little unnecessary and spammy, but nothing that warranted removal when the thread was being locked anyway.

I don't know how you look at the immediate dismissal of a topic and then the "Ugh." at the end as not rude, but that is pretty special.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
It seems the argument boils down to that he wasn't causing a problem, but people still didn't like what he was doing. So they were locked.

No, the 'argument' boils down to that he was causing a problem, by spamming threads in multiple sections of the forums and through his interactions with other users in those threads and others. This was discussed with him directly, as is generally the case with moderation on this forum.

The end result of those discussions was that he was asked to consolidate similar topics and go easy on the starting multiple threads in a short space of time.

And that's really all there is to it. It's nowhere near the gigantic issue that you seem to be trying to turn it into.

"I can absolutely confirm, however, that this user was not permanently banned nor was he “censured” or even mildly scolded for opening all these threads." - Manchu

You guys are going to have to get on the same page when discussing stuff. You cannot even agree on if a rule was broken or if it is a culture, if he was scolded or not.

You probably don't want it to be an issue, that is pretty clear. But it really is when you are on the other side watching the moderators spin in circles and lock things with generally no repercussions to themselves.

Dreadwinter, I think you're just nitpicking at this point. What we've been trying to express is that we did talk to Techpriestsupport, but only to ask him to consolidate threads. I'd personally love to have him continue to contribute on this site, and I've enjoyed his threads quite a bit.

But the fact remains that we don't want any one user to dominate a section with half of the created threads, and that's been the case as long as I've been on Dakka. It rarely comes up, because people tend to deal with it themselves (i.e. asking another user not to make more threads).

I wish we'd been clearer about this (and maybe caught it earlier before things snowballed). But even from this thread, you can see that many users Did think he was creating too many threads. I understand that you don't, but the issue should be pretty clear now.

In the end, like I said before any user can create basically geekt any thread in Geek Media. I wish we'd avoided this snafu, but that's still the case, whether you think we bungled this or not

 RiTides wrote:


I wish we'd been clearer about this

You really didn't need to be though. As has been stated earlier in this thread, moderation is a private affair between the mod team and the poster in question. It's frankly no one else's business. I have no idea why Dreadwinter is banging this drum as hard as he is, it's pretty clear that quite a few people took issue with Techpriestsupport's endless stream of consciousness posts even if Dreadwinter himself didn't see it as a problem. Now he's basically airing someone else's dirty laundry in Nuts and Bolts, which seems wildly inappropriate and frankly I think it's incredible the mods have humored him this much.

I’m telling you. Masochistic tendencies. The lot of them. Possible PTSD. Suggestions of Stockholm syndrome. Mods retire and become part of the posters / terrorist group. They’re sick, I tell you.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:


I wish we'd been clearer about this

You really didn't need to be though. As has been stated earlier in this thread, moderation is a private affair between the mod team and the poster in question. It's frankly no one else's business. I have no idea why Dreadwinter is banging this drum as hard as he is, it's pretty clear that quite a few people took issue with Techpriestsupport's endless stream of consciousness posts even if Dreadwinter himself didn't see it as a problem. Now he's basically airing someone else's dirty laundry in Nuts and Bolts, which seems wildly inappropriate and frankly I think it's incredible the mods have humored him this much.

Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't know how you look at the immediate dismissal of a topic and then the "Ugh." at the end as not rude, but that is pretty special.

Agreed. If anyone else had posted it insaniak would come down on them like a ton of bricks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
"I can absolutely confirm, however, that this user was not permanently banned nor was he “censured” or even mildly scolded for opening all these threads." - Manchu

You guys are going to have to get on the same page when discussing stuff. You cannot even agree on if a rule was broken or if it is a culture, if he was scolded or not.

You probably don't want it to be an issue, that is pretty clear. But it really is when you are on the other side watching the moderators spin in circles and lock things with generally no repercussions to themselves.

Again, "rules for thee and not for me". My issue with it is the dishonesty, just be honest and admit that it's biased and we can all leave happy.

No, this isn’t a “snafu” that “snowballed,” and this isn’t about “bias” and “dishonesty.”

Some users started complaining about a guy posting a bunch of very similar threads. Agreeing that this is spammy, I locked three of four of those threads and posted instructions to continue all of the discussions in the fourth thread which remained unlocked. I also sent the guy a PM saying, I enjoy your threads but consider making your topics a bit broader and posting less of them/PM me with any questions. I got no response.

It’s really as simple as that.

Jerram wrote:
I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Because the same discussion is still happening, just consolidated into single threads. It might not have been bad with just one person spamming those threads, but imagine if everyone started making a new thread for every movie they happen to think about for a moment. You'd have a front page full of a ton of movie threads, most of them minimal-content spam, pushing out everything that isn't movie threads and effectively silencing that discussion. The only fair way to handle it is a uniform policy where that kind of thing is banned even if nobody else is currently doing it, you can't give special spam-posting privileges for one person.

It surprises me that so many people feel they should be able to dictate the way in which their free-to-access service is provided.

Hell, I voluntarily give money to DakkaDakka, and even I don't think I get to dictate such things.

I am shocked that this nonsense thread is not yet locked. Dreadwinter got his answer on the very first page. The mods owe him no further explanation whatsoever. If he can't be man enough to accept it, then he should leave.

How come the spam rules don't apply to the 25,527 times Peregrine has posted the exact same value-less whinging?

How come they don't apply to Pancakey? Delvarius Centurion?

How come Queen Anne's Revenge can go around freely questioning the mental health of other posters?

Why can Peregrine flatly state that another poster is a liar?

Rules for thee... now you’re getting it!

Have you ever visited someone else’s house, and been a rude, belligerent turd? Did you feel welcome after that?

Just because the doors aren’t locked, people aren’t welcome to come in and treat the place like it’s theirs. Because it isn’t. This place belongs to the person that owns it. That person has appointed some people to look after it, on their own terms. Not all appointees do things the same way. They don’t all have the same priorities, and that’s ok because the rules here aren’t *LAWS*. It’s not a Democracy. It is an Authoritarian government. The leaders are not (directly) accountable to the people that walk through the doors. People can be barred entry, that’s true. But no one is imprisoned here. The accountability lies in the Authorities’ desire to have people come to visit them. So long as the people that the rulers like to have show up keep showing up, their system works for them.

Some people like order for Order’s sake...

but I don’t. I like the frontier, bit of the Wild West vibe this place has. If you’ve got a bit of grit and a big pair of brass balls/ovaries, this place is great. You can let your big-ass personality out. It’s freeing. Think of the rules as strong guidelines. Sometimes it’s ok to put a toe over the line if there’s good reason to do so. So take the slap on the wrist. Get a temp ban if that’s what you need to do... then get back in the game!

I hope you like it here, but if you don’t, try someplace else. Sometimes you need to experience other cultures to appreciate where you’re at.

 Peregrine wrote:

Jerram wrote:
I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Because the same discussion is still happening, just consolidated into single threads. It might not have been bad with just one person spamming those threads, but imagine if everyone started making a new thread for every movie they happen to think about for a moment. You'd have a front page full of a ton of movie threads, most of them minimal-content spam, pushing out everything that isn't movie threads and effectively silencing that discussion. The only fair way to handle it is a uniform policy where that kind of thing is banned even if nobody else is currently doing it, you can't give special spam-posting privileges for one person.

Factually objectively untrue, there is less discussion than there was with those threads. And in your hypothetical, the movies people wanted to talk about (as well as other topics) would keep getting bumped and items without discussion wouldn't. Conversation would flow organically instead of being smothered. Subjectively, I would rather have an active forum with multiple discussion to follows than the current state of thread s on the front page that are weeks old.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How come the spam rules don't apply to the 25,527 times Peregrine has posted the exact same value-less whinging?

10 threads per year and 10 posts per day hardly constitutes spamming. 10 posts is a lot, by my standards, but hardly denying other people the opportunity to speak.

How come they don't apply to Pancakey? Delvarius Centurion?

Pancakey's "is it dead?" threads are spread out over months. Delvarus Centurion is frustrating, in my opinion, but has not monopolised a section of the forum to the same extent. It would not surprise me if mods had spoken to him anyway.

How come Queen Anne's Revenge can go around freely questioning the mental health of other posters? Why can Peregrine flatly state that another poster is a liar?

First, please quote so people can judge for themselves, and secondly, how do you know nothing has been done about it behind the scenes?

 greatbigtree wrote:
You can let your big-ass personality out. It’s freeing. Think of the rules as strong guidelines. Sometimes it’s ok to put a toe over the line if there’s good reason to do so. So take the slap on the wrist. Get a temp ban if that’s what you need to do... then get back in the game!

I hope you like it here, but if you don’t, try someplace else. Sometimes you need to experience other cultures to appreciate where you’re at.

Sure you can. If you're a 'face'.

The rest of us get banned.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
You can let your big-ass personality out. It’s freeing. Think of the rules as strong guidelines. Sometimes it’s ok to put a toe over the line if there’s good reason to do so. So take the slap on the wrist. Get a temp ban if that’s what you need to do... then get back in the game!

I hope you like it here, but if you don’t, try someplace else. Sometimes you need to experience other cultures to appreciate where you’re at.

Sure you can. If you're a 'face'.

The rest of us get banned.

Quesion 1) Why do you think the mods prefer some people to others? Have you considered the possibility that you just bring less to the boards than some people you perceive as 'faces'?

Question 2) Even if some people have achieved their status as 'faces' by some method other than contributing to the forum, such as knowing them in real-life, why should the unpaid mods of this private forum not be allowed to show favouritism?

 Fifty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How come the spam rules don't apply to the 25,527 times Peregrine has posted the exact same value-less whinging?

10 threads per year and 10 posts per day hardly constitutes spamming. 10 posts is a lot, by my standards, but hardly denying other people the opportunity to speak.

How come they don't apply to Pancakey? Delvarius Centurion?

Pancakey's "is it dead?" threads are spread out over months. Delvarus Centurion is frustrating, in my opinion, but has not monopolised a section of the forum to the same extent. It would not surprise me if mods had spoken to him anyway.

How come Queen Anne's Revenge can go around freely questioning the mental health of other posters? Why can Peregrine flatly state that another poster is a liar?

First, please quote so people can judge for themselves, and secondly, how do you know nothing has been done about it behind the scenes?

Im confident hes talking about queen saying that my posts about the way knives are designed was that of a crazy man lol, but i didn't take offense i understand it could be seen as unusual topic, and i don't think hes serious since he doesn't know me. ( and if he is serious its just his opinion i dont care. )

I am at a loss as to how to explain that rules being applied inconsistently and capriciously is a problem.

It seems you're already determined to miss the point.

And yeah, I was referring to Stormtatious' thread. The post is still there. It was reported. I'm fairly comfortable resting on the assumption that a post that doesn't get deleted attracts no further action.

Well, your assumption is incorrect.

Unsurprisingly.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am at a loss as to how to explain that rules being applied inconsistently and capriciously is a problem.

If it was the government or legal system applying them inconsistently, it would be a huge problem.

If it was a company applying them inconsistently it would be something of a problem. (And a bigger one if it were due to, say, racism.)

If it were someone applying rules inconsistently to visitors to their home, that is not really a problem. Just accept it, or leave.

And DakkaDakka is closer to being someone's home than a government or company. You have no righst here. You have no entitlement to be here. If you don't like it, just leave.

Seriously, if a friend brought you to a party at my house and I gave them free booze and snacks, but none to you, it might not be very friendly, but if you did not like it your only recourse would be to leave.

If you don't like DakkaDakka, leave. If enough people agree with you and also leave, DakkaDakka will fail, and that will be their problem, but it is their decision.

Ultimately none of the owners or mods appointed by the owner owe you a thing. Deal with it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
And yeah, I was referring to Stormtatious' thread. The post is still there. It was reported. I'm fairly comfortable resting on the assumption that a post that doesn't get deleted attracts no further action.

Excommunicatus, I know there's a lot we're not going to convince you of / completely see eye to eye on here, but this assumption is really not the case. Most posts that are moderated are not deleted, and many aren't even edited.

If the opposite were true (that every impolite or spammy post was just deleted) I think the forum would be much worse for it.

It can be frustrating dealing with moderation that you can't see all of behind the scenes, but it's an important principle for yakface (the owner of Dakka) that moderation mostly remains private for each user.

Hashing out / asking about / discussing broader site issues, including moderation, is part of why we have this Nuts & Bolts section of the site, though - so that we can at least talk about it and answer questions generally.

Again, I know this won't completely satisfy your concerns, but I wanted to address at least that one part (the assumption that if a post isn't deleted in response to a user alert, no action was taken, which just isn't true or even the norm).

Fair enough, you also have arbitrary and capricious rules about which posts get deleted, then,

Mea culpa.

No, the rule is that it is up to the judgement of the mod who responds. Simple and easy

 Fifty wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I am at a loss as to how to explain that rules being applied inconsistently and capriciously is a problem.

If it was the government or legal system applying them inconsistently, it would be a huge problem.

If it was a company applying them inconsistently it would be something of a problem. (And a bigger one if it were due to, say, racism.)

If it were someone applying rules inconsistently to visitors to their home, that is not really a problem. Just accept it, or leave.

And DakkaDakka is closer to being someone's home than a government or company. You have no righst here. You have no entitlement to be here. If you don't like it, just leave.

Seriously, if a friend brought you to a party at my house and I gave them free booze and snacks, but none to you, it might not be very friendly, but if you did not like it your only recourse would be to leave.

If you don't like DakkaDakka, leave. If enough people agree with you and also leave, DakkaDakka will fail, and that will be their problem, but it is their decision.

Ultimately none of the owners or mods appointed by the owner owe you a thing. Deal with it.

If they just came out with it and said 'gak yeah, we're biased as hell', as Manchu implicitly did, this thread wouldn't have been made and Dreadwinter's other thread would be two posts long.

It is the pretense of consistency and "one set of rules for all" that irks me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, the rule is that it is up to the judgement of the mod who responds. Simple and easy

Which is no more than a rationalization of arbitrary and capriciously applied rules.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, the rule is that it is up to the judgement of the mod who responds. Simple and easy

Some People will confuse this with some sort of brutal dictatorship i feel forgetting its a website for specific people, not a country.

Dude, I like this site so I give it money and am defending it. Why are you even still here though?

I dislike some things. I used to find Frazzled annoying when he was a mod, for example, but I weighed up the pros and cons and stayed and accepted that I had to accept what was not mine tk change.

Why are you even here if you have such huge issues with it? Find somewhere that suits you better, or create something yourself. Not so easy? Tough! Learn that the creator of something as awesome as Dakka has earned the right to have it as they want it, and not pander to you.

Suffice it to say that in any forum members have to have a degree of trust in the moderators of that site because they are volunteers who mostly just move threads around and delete spam.

They aren't consulting a 10000 page rule book that outlines the detailed fine points of social rules and codes of conduct; they don't spend 5 years studying and training to become a mod etc...

If people have no faith in even the most basic level of moderation then chances are they are just going to keep butting heads with the staff of any site entirely

Some People will confuse this with some sort of brutal dictatorship i feel forgetting its a website for specific people, not a country.

I can't tell if you finally get it, or if you are drifting even further from understanding the issue.

It can't be a dictatorship because it is a free to access, non-compulsory website, not a country.

It is, indeed, a website for whomsoever the owner sees fit.

 Fifty wrote:

Some People will confuse this with some sort of brutal dictatorship i feel forgetting its a website for specific people, not a country.

I can't tell if you finally get it, or if you are drifting even further from understanding the issue.

It can't be a dictatorship because it is a free to access, non-compulsory website, not a country.

It is, indeed, a website for whomsoever the owner sees fit.

No no, im saying some people will confuse it for that, not me, i have no issues, you misunderstood me.

I'm not really sure why you're interpreting it as being "a huge problem" on my part, except that it's an obvious and convenient strawman.

Overall, I like and enjoy Dakka. It isn't perfect however, and I don't see any reason why issues with the site can't be raised.

A mod just said that we have this section specifically to raise such issues.

Its not a huge problem, but he was spamming the issues been addressed as such and i don't see any reason to continue this.

 Stormatious wrote:

 Fifty wrote:

Some People will confuse this with some sort of brutal dictatorship i feel forgetting its a website for specific people, not a country.

I can't tell if you finally get it, or if you are drifting even further from understanding the issue.

It can't be a dictatorship because it is a free to access, non-compulsory website, not a country.

It is, indeed, a website for whomsoever the owner sees fit.

No no, im saying some people will confuse it for that, not me, i have no issues, you misunderstood me.

Sorry, I think I briefly mixed you up with Excommunicatus due to the slight similarity of your Avatars.

Ahahaha, i thought that might happen here... god now alot of people probably are consfused.

A) Can people stop being disingenuous and comparing this to Yak's home, you don't invite the public into your home at all hours of the night and day. Comments like this are designed to do nothing but shut down discussion.

B)

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I'm not really sure why you're interpreting it as being "a huge problem" on my part, except that it's an obvious and convenient strawman.

Overall, I like and enjoy Dakka. It isn't perfect however, and I don't see any reason why issues with the site can't be raised.

A mod just said that we have this section specifically to raise such issues.

This,

C) How is it ok for the people who originally complained about the multiple threads being started by the same guy to give their opinion on the running of the site but not for people who think there was noting wrong with those threads ? Unsurprisingly not a lot of mods have made such call it just seems to be others trying to make it for them.

I didn't complain about the original threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I'm not really sure why you're interpreting it as being "a huge problem" on my part, except that it's an obvious and convenient strawman.

Overall, I like and enjoy Dakka. It isn't perfect however, and I don't see any reason why issues with the site can't be raised.

A mod just said that we have this section specifically to raise such issues.

The reason I am responding is because you seem to have a sense of entitlement. Very possibly it is just the nature of the internet making it difficult infer tone. I think it is fine to query things, but a lot of what you have written seems to veer into criticism, and not of the positive kind.

Yeah, it's "entitled" to expect evenhanded moderation. That definitely isn't just another illegitimate attempt to dismiss the point being made.

I don't expect special treatment and it isn't possible to logically infer that I do from what has been said.

I expect rules to be applied in a consistent manner, regardless of who they're being applied to.

What specifically is the issue?

Rules being applied inconsistently and capriciously.

Given that the mods are human, yes it is exceedingly entitled to expect inhuman perfection in moderation, especially when each poster has a different history, etc.

That’s not specific. I mean, it what instance.

 Manchu wrote:
That’s not specific. I mean, it what instance.

Have a goosey at the Veganuary thread.

You still haven't paid me the $10 you owe me from that.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/770311.page#10319104

I like how i got snipped there, for explaining that the double headed eagle is a symbol of the HRE and tried to formulate that the IOM is modeled after a HRE in space but was the only one that got the cut.

Meanwhile the others could even discuss politics, in essence.
(and here i thought politics got banned.........)

I belive enough is said about rules enforcement/ application.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Yeah, it's "entitled" to expect evenhanded moderation. That definitely isn't just another illegitimate attempt to dismiss the point being made.

I don't expect special treatment and it isn't possible to logically infer that I do from what has been said.

I expect rules to be applied in a consistent manner, regardless of who they're being applied to.

Again, why are you entitled to be treated even-handedly at this privately-owned, non-essential hobby website?

For that matter, what have you done to deserve any access to Dakka? I mean, you are getting it for free. Sure, question things, but don't set out your expectations.

The mods are even here engaging with you, because they are decent individuals, even though there is absolutely no reason that they should have to. They receive no payment, they get grief and hassle, seriously, how do they answer to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mind you, I am now reading through the Veganuary thread, and you faced a lot of ignorance and hostility in that thread before you finally snapped and resorted to rudeness yourself. Although you were more overtly rude, I can see why you'd want to be and sympathise.

edit: Although, again intentionally or not, you come across as very condescending in that thread. I agree with most of what you say there, but you don't come across well.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
How come the spam rules don't apply to the 25,527 times Peregrine has posted the exact same value-less whinging?

How come they don't apply to Pancakey? Delvarius Centurion?

How come Queen Anne's Revenge can go around freely questioning the mental health of other posters?

Why can Peregrine flatly state that another poster is a liar?

Wow.. This has made my day. Wasn't having my thread locked a few weeks ago enough? now you're trying to snitch me up for a post you're deliberately trying to manipulate the context of? Laughable

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

Again, I'm at a loss as to how to explain why everyone deserves equal treatment if you don't already get it.

If the mods would simply come out and agree with you, that this is the way things are and [Expletive-Deleted] you that's why, this thread would not have been made and the original thread Dreadwinter made would be two posts long.

It's worth noting again, that so far the mods do not agree with your stance. Not explicitly, anyway. They're still pretending they're consistent.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
How is one wrong about this? you say its being rationalized with out explaining at all why one is incorrect

You're talking to somebody who opened his Dakka life with this memorable quote

 Excommunicatus wrote:

I alleged that the mods at the B&C acted like fascists, so to prove me wrong they permabanned me.

So the odds were always against any reasonable discussion on the subject of moderation on this site from the get go.

-removed by insaniak-

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

The Irony here is off the charts, "Dont you dare complain about my complaining"

-removed-

Isn't that also a rule 1 infringement?

Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

Exo, its clear after you raiding my music thread with disgusting thoughts that you are now trolling because you are angry at every one being correct in this thread.

Get over it you're wrong.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, I'm at a loss as to how to explain why everyone deserves equal treatment if you don't already get it.

But these people don't owe you equal treatment!

If someone in the park shouts out "Hey, who wants to throw a ball around?" then they can still throw it to their friends instead of you if they feel like it. And if they think another guy they meet is a better ball-player, or simply seems more like their sort of person than you, they can throw him the ball more. And if they think you are not a cool guy, and kinda rude, they can freeze you out or ask you to leave. It is their ball. And if they like suckups, they can invite me to stay. Or if they think me buying them an ice-cream and telling them what great ball-players they are is kinda creepy, they can ask me to leave. And they can invite the hot girl and the funny guy to the party afterwards, but leave us in the park. Because they owe you, and me, nothing.

It might make them jerks, but it is their prerogative, and even jerkdom is subjective. Go find a different ballgame, or accept not getting thrown the ball much.

What is the specific inconsitency or unfairness in the veganuary thread?

Cool. So your defence is that the mods are cliquey a-holes.

That's vastly worse than anything I've said about them, but ok.

Jerram wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

The Irony here is off the charts, "Dont you dare complain about my complaining"

Not sure how you read that and came to that conclusion but sure, whatever floats your boat.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure most of the “faces” of Dakka have run afoul of the moderation team at one point or another.

I’ve served a (deserved) temp ban, at least once. And it stings, yeah. But I got over that. The reason for my temp ban? Something I still engage in, though I tone it down. Because I enjoy a certain activity, but self-moderate that against not wanting to get shown the door. Though I do run a risk of being (fairly) shown that door. Risk I’m willing to hang my brass balls out to take, I guess.

I report the occasional thread that has no public action taken against. I (probably?) have some complaints lobbed my way that I rarely hear about. People get some leeway when the net positive of their being around exceeds the net negative of their being around. That’s just a life thing.

Contribute something positive. Burning gak down and busting walls and being overall negative? Expect to be... focussed upon with restrictive attention. Help people out with positive advice. Give a painting tip. Hell, just say, “Nice job!” On somebody’s painting thread. Talk about things you *like* about the hobby. That’s improving the site.

Why’re certain posters still here? They either did something incredibly good for the site at some point, or they know where the bodies are burried. Or maybe it’s fun to have an unrelenting target that just keeps coming back for more? Someone that consistently gives you justification for a verbal backhand? There’s one poster here that I used to want to leave. Now, I (selfishly) hope they never do and that they never change. While I simultaneously hope (selflessly) that they embrace the light side and turn their efforts to positivity for the site.

But I see that as long odds, and have embraced having a valid target (like, 95% of the time) instead.


And I’m not saying love it or leave it, to be clear. But from personal experience there are some places I didn’t like, so I left and found someplace I like. You’ll get from this site what you put in. Try positivity and treat the mods like any other poster. With respect. Or don’t, It’s your funeral. The rules may not be applied evenly, or at least openly, but people have more freedom here than most places. But that comes with responsibility too. Everyone gets enough rope to hang themselves, here. Your choice what you do with it.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

Keeping that sort of nonsense under control is a lot easier if you just report it instead of responding to it.


Here's the thing: The fact that you saw a post before the mods did is not a sign of biased moderation.

I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

Keeping that sort of nonsense under control is a lot easier if you just report it instead of responding to it.


Here's the thing: The fact that you saw a post before the mods did is not a sign of biased moderation.

My bad, seems like the web swallowed another Post of mine,. Damn w-lan.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

The post I deleted as soon as I saw it?


The problem here isn't biased moderation. The problem is simply that your opinion of rude and ours don't always align. So you can report a post you think is inappropriate and let us deal with it if we feel it is warranted, or you can not report it, in which case nothing will happen unless we happen to come across the post by ourselves.

Awesome, you deleted that one and left the others.

Almost as if you applied the rules inconsistently and capriciously.

Nothing happens whether I report them or not.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Awesome, you deleted that one and left the others.

Almost as if you applied the rules inconsistently and capriciously.

Nothing happens whether I report them or not.

Something happens when we agree that the reported post is a problem. That doesn't mean that every post you report will be deleted.

You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Has the thread served it’s purpose yet? I’m just seeing aggression bubbling here. Might be time for a breather...

 Manchu wrote:
You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Nyet.

I know this because there is no break in the poster posting, as there would be if any ban was applied to them. The evidence is writ large.

They violate the rules and are allowed to continue posting. Others violate the rules (arguably, since the standards are so subjective, inconsistent and capricious) and get banned for 34 days.

But pissing into the wind is also a valid life choice. *shrug* Excom, may you enjoy the harvest you sow.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Nyet.

I know this because there is no break in the poster posting, as there would be if any ban was applied to them. The evidence is writ large.

They violate the rules and are allowed to continue posting. Others violate the rules (arguably, since the standards are so subjective, inconsistent and capricious) and get banned for 34 days.

Yeah, because banning people is the only corrective measure that can possibly be applied to someone, right?

A user’s account is generally not suspended until they have received FIVE formal warnings from moderators. So another user can receive a formal warning, which you would know nothing about, and not be prevented from continuing to post.

Again, your assumptions are based on feeling aggreived rather than facts.

Fine. You're right. There is no further point to this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cool. I got two, but whatever.

Rules, who cares?

We have Peregrine and QAR - who else do we need to summon?

 insaniak wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

The post I deleted as soon as I saw it?


The problem here isn't biased moderation. The problem is simply that your opinion of rude and ours don't always align. So you can report a post you think is inappropriate and let us deal with it if we feel it is warranted, or you can not report it, in which case nothing will happen unless we happen to come across the post by ourselves.

I really do think overall you guys do a good job but the biggest back and forth in this thread is between those who think there's a problem with occasionally biased moderation and those who think the occasionally biased.
moderation is ok. That should cause at least a little bit of self reflection among the team.

EDIT (PS, thanks for leaving this thread open, locking it early would just have made the frustration some are feeling worse)

*generally* not suspended. But if you go way into the deep end in one go, you could be banned in one shot. You might put a toe over the line 7 times and not be suspended.

Human interaction isn’t about hard and fast rules, Excom. If you need that, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Seriously, though. Try posting some positive stuff around here. You get back what you put in. What have you got to lose?

You are operating on the following incorrect assumptions;

1) Your interpretation of the rules is the only possible interpretation - there are multiple interpretations.
2) Your judgement that something is rude is fact rather than opinion - just because you find it rude, it does not mean the majority of people will.
3) Your judgement that your own responses aren't rude
is fact rather than opinion - just because you don't think you were rude, many people still might.

As for "my" statement that the mods are cliquey arseholes, wrong. All people are cliquey. I've seen nerds be cliquey to jocks, jocks be cliquey to nerds, nerds be cliquey to those too nerdy, or not nerdy enough... Everyone has their favourites. Just because you aren't someones favourite, it doesn't mean they are actually out to get you. I don't disrciminate against the students at my school, but when it comes to nominating people for extra opportunities, I'll generally nominate the ones I don't mind spending extra time with after school. If they are obnoxious to me or my colleagues, I'll pick someone more pleasant. If one of the generally amazing kids messes up slightly, I might "forget" to add them to communal detention. If a child who is a known bully, or who draws graffitti and sniggers at other children's misfortune messes up, they'll find themself on that list for sure.

Maybe instead of complaining that you aren't being treated the way you want (expect) to be, think abu how to behave to get treated that way.

Life is NOT fair, and whinging about it won't fix it. If you can get over the lack of fairness, life, and Dakka, can be pretty great.

Fin.

Jerram wrote:
I really do think overall you guys do a good job but the biggest back and forth in this thread is between those who think there's a problem with occasionally biased moderation and those who think the occasionally biased. moderation is ok. That should cause at least a little bit of self reflection among the team.

EDIT (PS, thanks for leaving this thread open, locking it early would just have made the frustration some are feeling worse)

Life is biased. Sometimes in your favour, sometimes against. It shoudn't be, and when it is government, or society and opportunity in life, it is worth raging against... But here? Not so much.

Theres no problem here, theirs only trouble makers disguised as will intention ed individuals hint hint

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Cool. I got two, but whatever.

Rules, who cares?

You currently have six, in fact. You had an OT-only ban after your second because of a lot of rules violations posted in threads there. Your first general suspension from the site was on your fifth (or even sixth) warning. I myself wrote an email to you explaining the five warnings = temporary suspension system. (Note, it’s not always like this — someone who gets a fifth warning after years of no warning probably won’t be suspended for that fifth one, as is reasonable. I also sometimes don’t ban if it’s something relatively minor. It looks like you may have benefited from this kind of exception as you actually have been formally warned six rather than five times.)

I think the MODs do a good job objectively policing the forum. However anyone that believes humans can remain completely objective is kidding themselves. Even algorithms sometimes make mistakes(Google’s Apes/gorillas/black people debacle).

You guys have to remember that if it’s a human behind the keyboard/mouse they are going to be somewhat subjective - which is expected.

I personally haven’t seen anything blatantly discriminatory toward a user since I’ve been creeping on this site.

I really don't care any more.

Run your fiefdoms how you like. I'll stick to P&M blogs from now on.

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
I think the MODs do a good job objectively policing the forum. However anyone that believes humans can remain completely objective is kidding themselves. Even algorithms sometimes make mistakes(Google’s Apes/gorillas/black people debacle).

You guys have to remember that if it’s a human behind the keyboard/mouse they are going to be somewhat subjective - which is expected.

I personally haven’t seen anything blatantly discriminatory toward a user since I’ve been creeping on this site.

Of course they can make mistakes but whenever someone tries to point out an instance where they made a mistake you seem to get one of two responses "Shut up their perfect or shut up they can do whatever they want"

Note, I'm not putting your post in either category but alot of the post in this thread do fall in to those categories.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I really don't care any more.

Run your fiefdoms how you like. I'll stick to P&M blogs from now on.

Thanks.

Jerram wrote:

 Jjohnso11 wrote:
I think the MODs do a good job objectively policing the forum. However anyone that believes humans can remain completely objective is kidding themselves. Even algorithms sometimes make mistakes(Google’s Apes/gorillas/black people debacle).

You guys have to remember that if it’s a human behind the keyboard/mouse they are going to be somewhat subjective - which is expected.

I personally haven’t seen anything blatantly discriminatory toward a user since I’ve been creeping on this site.

Of course they can make mistakes but whenever someone tries to point out an instance where they made a mistake you seem to get one of two responses "Shut up their perfect or shut up they can do whatever they want"

Note, I'm not putting your post in either category but alot of the post in this thread do fall in to those categories.

My posts kinda do fall into the category of saying they can do what they like, because they can. They actually don't do anything of the sort though, as their measured responses here show, and if they did the website would shut down quite quickly, but a small minority of people complaining about them does not mean they are some sort of rogue moderators behaving outrageously. If they are beholden to anyone, it is to the majority of posters behaving conventionally, not to the outliers who disrupt things and/or demand things be done their way. The fact DakkaDakka is so successful proves they must be doing something right to make it such a popular place.

Y'all really need to read what Manchu actually says in the last post he/she directed at me.

He/she confirms everything I've been saying.

I was banned after two warnings, not five as the rules dictate, ostensibly because of previous rule infractions that were dealt with, or not dealt with, in a manner not in accordance to the rules.

Inconsistent, capricious applications of the rules. From the horse's mouth.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Y'all really need to read what Manchu actually says in the last post he/she directed at me.

He/she confirms everything I've been saying.

I was banned after two warnings, not five as the rules dictate, ostensibly because of previous rule infractions that were dealt with, or not dealt with, in a manner not in accordance to the rules.

Inconsistent, capricious applications of the rules. From the horse's mouth.

You will keep finding some thing to complain about, just like there more then 1 way to describe or interpret many things

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Y'all really need to read what Manchu actually says in the last post he/she directed at me.

He/she confirms everything I've been saying.

I was banned after two warnings, not five as the rules dictate, ostensibly because of previous rule infractions that were dealt with, or not dealt with, in a manner not in accordance to the rules.

Inconsistent, capricious applications of the rules. From the horse's mouth.

You weren't banned from Dakka after two warnings. You were banned from one part of Dakka. Really not the same thing.

And honestly, if you want to think about why people might treat you, in your eyes, harshly, think about how they'll respond to your behaviour in this thread. Having read more of the Veganuary thread, think about how they'll respond to your manner there. Even in posts where you aren't outright rude, you are obnoxious, patronising or both. Seriously, why would I say these things if they aren't true? I'm only having this conversation because I am bored on a Saturday evening watching crap movies, so why would I criticise for no reason? To the best of my recollection you and I have no history of problems.

Excom... you’re right. You get it. You’re the man. Your valiant stand against tyranny has been recognized.

So now what? You’re *right*. Not just right, but *RIGHT*. You’ve cleverly gotten the powers that be to acknowledge their imperfection. To admit that they are fallible human beings. You’re *right*.

But now what? You win your crusade, but now what? Does anything change? Do you change? Do you accept the environment? You’re right, but now what? Do you stop posting as you’ve previously stated and immediately reneged upon? That doesn’t accomplish anything except ruin your credibility.

So now what? Do you accept the terms of playing in this sandbox? Will you try to make this a better place through positive contribution? Or do you just drag the place down with complaints and the selfish persuit of your own vindication? What do you do now?

Frazzled used to be a MoD? OMFG ... the horror!

Oh, and ban Insaniak's animated avatar! It creeped me out 2 weeks ago while reading some Medge how-tos ... never suspected it was animated. Suddenly, the thing WINKED at me! LAZER EYES ... the horror!

 War Drone wrote:
Oh, and ban Insaniak's animated avatar! It creeped me out 2 weeks ago while reading some Medge how-tos ... never suspected it was animated. Suddenly, the thing WINKED at me! LAZER EYES ... the horror!

That thing really sneaks up on you, I think it gets everyone at some point

 Stormatious wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I really don't care any more.

Run your fiefdoms how you like. I'll stick to P&M blogs from now on.

Thanks.

That lasted about as long as I expected

Just to give everyone reading this thread more background about the five warnings thing, which I know I have explained elsewhere, but people ITT may not know:

When you get a formal warning from a moderator, the forum software records that as “warning point” and when you get your fifth point the forum software automatically suspends your account. So it’s up to the moderators, when it is the reasonable thing to do, to manually undo that automated suspension. As I stated above, one reason to undo an auto suspension is because the forum software never “forgets” how many points you have so if it’s like two years between your fourth point and your fifth point, you still get an autosuspension. And in that situation, it doesn’t seem right to be suspended after two years of good behavior.

So it’s not really a rule (in the sense of some inviolable law) that five points = a suspension, that’s just a practical policy that was coded into the forum software at some point. But if you earn five warnings for the same kind of rule breaking at a rate of one or more per month, then yeah you need something more than just another warning. And sometimes someone posts something so egregious that they need a stronger approach right off the bat, like posting racist stuff or a death threat or something.

Full disclosure, I don’t like the autosuspension feature at all and I have been advocating “behind the scenes” that the admins eliminate it.

Hopefully, knowing this, people can see that this isn’t a matter of ”inconsistencey and bias.” The issue is, every instance of moderation has its own set of circumstances that must be taken into account. Nor is moderation primarily about punishment.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to give everyone reading this thread more background about the five warnings thing, which I know I have explained elsewhere, but people ITT may not know:

When you get a formal warning from a moderator, the forum software records that as “warning point” and when you get your fifth point the forum software automatically suspends your account. So it’s up to the moderators, when it is the reasonable thing to do, to manually undo that automated suspension. As I stated above, one reason to undo an auto suspension is because the forum software never “forgets” how many points you have so if it’s like two years between your fourth point and your fifth point, you still get an autosuspension. And in that situation, it doesn’t seem right to be suspended after two years of good behavior.

So it’s not really a rule (in the sense of some inviolable law) that five points = a suspension, that’s just a practical policy that was coded into the forum software at some point. But if you earn five warnings for the same kind of rule breaking at a rate of one or more per month, then yeah you need something more than just another warning. And sometimes someone posts something so egregious that they need a stronger approach right off the bat, like posting racist stuff or a death threat or something.

Full disclosure, I don’t like the autosuspension feature at all and I have been advocating “behind the scenes” that the admins eliminate it.

Hopefully, knowing this, people can see that this isn’t a matter of ”inconsistencey and bias.” The issue is, every instance of moderation has its own set of circumstances that must be taken into account. Nor is moderation primarily about punishment.

Thanks for that- I wasn't aware of any of this at all.

But then I suppose I've avoided the attention of you folks as far as I'm aware which can only be a good thing.

Interesting. It is nice to know a bit about the inner workings of the forum.

I knew about it because it sort of happened to me a few years ago. Managed to keep my mouth shut and straight for nearly a year I think, then I had to say something the flirted too much with the rules and got auto-suspended for a week

I got suspended once.
I should have started a 5 page thread complaining about how unfair it was.
I really missed the boat

Guy who started this thread — and the one before it — notes in his sig (accurately) that he has never been suspended.

So it is clear that there is some serious controversy over this. It seems many people think they shouldn't have been locked. How does that change things? There are now people supporting both sides, since this thread wasn't locked quickly after people complained. THIS is exactly why N&B threads like this should not be locked.

 Peregrine wrote:

Jerram wrote:
I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Because the same discussion is still happening, just consolidated into single threads. It might not have been bad with just one person spamming those threads, but imagine if everyone started making a new thread for every movie they happen to think about for a moment. You'd have a front page full of a ton of movie threads, most of them minimal-content spam, pushing out everything that isn't movie threads and effectively silencing that discussion. The only fair way to handle it is a uniform policy where that kind of thing is banned even if nobody else is currently doing it, you can't give special spam-posting privileges for one person.

The consolidated thread that was locked? Serious discussion going on in there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am shocked that this nonsense thread is not yet locked. Dreadwinter got his answer on the very first page. The mods owe him no further explanation whatsoever. If he can't be man enough to accept it, then he should leave.

Yo, rule #1. I know mods are in here. Not gonna deal with it? We don't need a report for this because it is literally right in front of your faces.

That post doesn’t violate any site rules.

At this point, can you remind us what specifically you are unsatsified about?

 Manchu wrote:
That post doesn’t violate any site rules.

At this point, can you remind us what specifically you are unsatsified about?

Yes it does, he just insulted me by saying I am not man enough to accept the answer. If you cannot see that then we have a much bigger issue with moderation than I assumed.

I don't see his post as being an insult, nor do I read it the way that you have interpreted it.

I will ask again what exactly are you unsatisfied about? You original question on both what can be posted in GM and the specifics of techpriestsupport have been answered. It looks like you want the rules to be defined and codified like laws and that is not going to happen.

Wow. Get some thicker skin my friend.

 ingtaer wrote:
It looks like you want the rules to be defined and codified like laws and that is not going to happen.

But then how will we ever pointlessly debate RAI vs RAW until everyone gets banned?

Uh, John is arguing, like a lot of users here, that you can like it or lump it.

Enforcing Rule 1 is not, for lack of a better term, tone policing.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard against which the moderation should be judged. And that’s not correct at all.

Its simple, there are lawyers for a reason because things can be interpreted many different ways, this is a website forum, not a place where we have courts and lawyers and judges. Simple.

 ingtaer wrote:
I don't see his post as being an insult, nor do I read it the way that you have interpreted it.

I will ask again what exactly are you unsatisfied about? You original question on both what can be posted in GM and the specifics of techpriestsupport have been answered. It looks like you want the rules to be defined and codified like laws and that is not going to happen.

You wouldn't and that is the problem. Inconsistent moderation and bias towards certain posters. I don't want the rules to be defined and codified like laws, that is a stupid idea. I want them to be administered the same way with everyone on the forum. The problem is, that isn't how others see it. The sad part is, the people that are sticking up to defend the mods are saying the same thing I am. The rules are not enforced the same against all users. That should really say something about the moderation involved here.

 Manchu wrote:
Uh, John is arguing, like a lot of users here, that you can like it or lump it.

Enforcing Rule 1 is not, for lack of a better term, tone policing.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard against which the moderation should be judged. And that’s not correct at all.

He sure is. He is also doing so in an insulting way that is showing that not all rules are enforced the same when it comes to forum users. When he thinks he is defending the mods, he is really helping point out that they have a bias towards certain users.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users and mods have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard with which moderation should be administered. And that’s not correct at all.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
mods have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard with which moderation should be administered

Yes, literally the moderators are the ones who judge the standard by which posts do or do not violate the rules.

Is that really your issue here?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
I don't see his post as being an insult, nor do I read it the way that you have interpreted it.

I will ask again what exactly are you unsatisfied about? You original question on both what can be posted in GM and the specifics of techpriestsupport have been answered. It looks like you want the rules to be defined and codified like laws and that is not going to happen.

You wouldn't and that is the problem. Inconsistent moderation and bias towards certain posters. I don't want the rules to be defined and codified like laws, that is a stupid idea. I want them to be administered the same way with everyone on the forum. The problem is, that isn't how others see it. The sad part is, the people that are sticking up to defend the mods are saying the same thing I am. The rules are not enforced the same against all users. That should really say something about the moderation involved here.

 Manchu wrote:
Uh, John is arguing, like a lot of users here, that you can like it or lump it.

Enforcing Rule 1 is not, for lack of a better term, tone policing.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard against which the moderation should be judged. And that’s not correct at all.

He sure is. He is also doing so in an insulting way that is showing that not all rules are enforced the same when it comes to forum users. When he thinks he is defending the mods, he is really helping point out that they have a bias towards certain users.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users and mods have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard with which moderation should be administered. And that’s not correct at all.

Why on earth do you think that any of us would have a bias against you? You have zero warnings, how is that bias? Many of the people who didn't agree with your position have multiple. As you say inconsistent moderation is the problem well 2 out of 2 moderators looked at that post by JHDD and didn't see it being against site rules. 100% that is consistency.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
mods have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard with which moderation should be administered

Yes, literally the moderators are the ones who judge the standard by which posts do or do not violate the rules.

Is that really your issue here?

You want to discuss the rest of my post as well? Because my issue is that the moderators are failing at being moderators.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
I don't see his post as being an insult, nor do I read it the way that you have interpreted it.

I will ask again what exactly are you unsatisfied about? You original question on both what can be posted in GM and the specifics of techpriestsupport have been answered. It looks like you want the rules to be defined and codified like laws and that is not going to happen.

You wouldn't and that is the problem. Inconsistent moderation and bias towards certain posters. I don't want the rules to be defined and codified like laws, that is a stupid idea. I want them to be administered the same way with everyone on the forum. The problem is, that isn't how others see it. The sad part is, the people that are sticking up to defend the mods are saying the same thing I am. The rules are not enforced the same against all users. That should really say something about the moderation involved here.

 Manchu wrote:
Uh, John is arguing, like a lot of users here, that you can like it or lump it.

Enforcing Rule 1 is not, for lack of a better term, tone policing.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard against which the moderation should be judged. And that’s not correct at all.

He sure is. He is also doing so in an insulting way that is showing that not all rules are enforced the same when it comes to forum users. When he thinks he is defending the mods, he is really helping point out that they have a bias towards certain users.

But that speaks to the larger issue here where some users and mods have an idea of what they think the rules and norms should be in their heads and they think THAT is the proper standard with which moderation should be administered. And that’s not correct at all.

Why on earth do you think that any of us would have a bias against you? You have zero warnings, how is that bias? Many of the people who didn't agree with your position have multiple. As you say inconsistent moderation is the problem well 2 out of 2 moderators looked at that post by JHDD and didn't see it being against site rules. 100% that is consistency.

I didn't say I had bias against me. I said there was bias towards users. Bias towards JHDD in this instance. That is 100% consistent bias.

OK you think we’re failing. Got it.

Don’t post another thread about this.