Okay, I just reread all the forum rules. I agree with 95% of it, but there are two things that stand out.
1. Moderators can ban users for any reason. This just leaves the door open to abuse. For example: I was once in a conversation with a mod that was not going very well. I decided to end the conversation, and said goodbye. What response did I get in return? "DO NOT REPLY AGAIN OR YOU WILL BE PERMABANNED!" It's like the mod in question didn't understand the concept of "Goodbye."
2. "Note that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of everything that a user can be punished for."
This is fine and all, but I really think a warning message should be sent by the mods first. I don't think it would be fun to wake up to a ban saying "You broke this unwritten rule, so you're gone from the site for five or six days." Also, if somebody needs to be moderated for a rule that has not been written, then why not work on spelling that rule out ,and adding it to the list of rules? That would be an awesome help for people looking to avoid moderation.
fair concerns raised.. I'll say this though, in nearly all cases, a user will be PM'ed, prior to a Formal Warning, prior to a Ban. Outside of exceptions, this is the guideline we expect the mods to follow. Also, while mods can ban for any reason they see fit, this ability is rarely used, and if it ever came to that, we would tell the user in question to come to a Head Mod about it.Â
Simply put, repeat offenders won't get the same sorts of Warnings if what they're doing continues to break rules, but they are more guidelines than anything else.Â
Yeah, as long as somebody has at least a warning its all good. Also, good to know there's a process in case any mod goes rogue. But that would be insanely rare, for a mod to actually ban somebody on a whim like that, and I've yet to actually see it happen.
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 24 April 2019