Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.