My question was not answered, Insaniak.

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.

**Manchu**

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?

**ingtaer**

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.

**Dreadwinter**

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.

**Manchu**

OK you think we’re failing. Got it.

Don’t post another thread about this.