@trasharmdsister12

It would be nice to get a warning though before a ban, i just got banned for a day which was requested by kowenichi and moderated by kantor, for pointing out that microsoft fans are not as holy as they think they are.

Now i've been on this site for more than 5 years and just became more active, in posting that is. If this is how moderation works, then i'de have to conclude that it still has some ways before you can say that everyone gets treated equally no matter what their game/console preferences are.

Actually no. But you're welcome to think what you wish. I'm not at liberty to divulge who reported you but it does extend beyond whatever subset of users you wish to believe.

Finally, as we've always maintained you're welcome to remake a thread that has been locked as long as you've made it more clear what your intentions are and you believe it doesn't have the possibility of become a console war. If you're unsure run it by us.

As for your ban, I publicly apologize for overlooking the reduction made on your history. I did not see it and I feel no reason to hide and deny it. I'm sorry. 

However, I will clarify that the rule you quoted in the message doesn't mean we're more lenient on established members. We have an idea of what an established member is set out to do and how they behave. That rule is meant to be taken as "If you're not established, you will undergo more scrutiny by default. We apologize for the inconvenience but it's common practice to see new accounts crop up simply to post slander and flame so this is the way it has to be."

As an established member, if you have a clean record then we can be more foregiving; not in the sense that we won't moderate, but in the sense that it will be discussed more thoroughly. In the case of a full record (such as yourself), there is still a thorough discussion but it isn't on whether or not to take action, but rather how severe it should be.

Broken logic, on all accounts.

1. Established members with a a clean record usually have one because they've learned how to play the system.

2. New members don't know how to play the system.

3. People with long moderation history should be commended for not having left striaght off for being a victim of the moderation system.

4. No moderator seems to get any of 1-3 hence there's a problem.

Your logic, that is shared amongst all mods here would work well if we were all a society of robots without ability to manipulate. It's too much of a simplistic stance to take for effective fair running of a forum.

The whole system of basically "report a post" -> "person getting reported gets moderated" is abused by the very "established members" who should have been banned themselves. It's all part of their manipulation game.

Personally don't bother reporting anyone except on 2-3 instances since I've been here for a bit of fun against Turkish when he was getting on my tits.

There's some damn fine members on VGChartz, most of them have an extensive moderation history. I don't understand it all really how it's so difficult to make a good judgement, that looks OUTSIDE the box. You've been here long enough to know who's who. It seems all the members know who's who...but the moderators don't.

That is an unbelievable situation, and hence I don't believe it. Which can only point to your moderation 101 being insufficient to do a good job, I would suspect that the moderators aren't given the remit they need to look deeper into things and read between the lines of perception. Not the lines of a moderation history.

The whole setup is very broken.

I wish you guys would look at the people behind the post, what motivated them to make a post that might be up for moderation and put yourself in the position of that person to work out why they said what they did. Saying something that comes from the heart even if it's controversial shouldn't be punished, within reason.

In this world there are "good" people, and their are "manipulative" people. That's all you need to bare in mind to clean up VGChartz and Microsoft fans will soon sign up, and not leave within 5 minutes.

@trasharmdsister12

It would be nice to get a warning though before a ban, i just got banned for a day which was requested by kowenichi and moderated by kantor, for pointing out that microsoft fans are not as holy as they think they are.

Now i've been on this site for more than 5 years and just became more active, in posting that is. If this is how moderation works, then i'de have to conclude that it still has some ways before you can say that everyone gets treated equally no matter what their game/console preferences are.

Lol. I was banned for asking phenom08 if he ever said something that wasn't bullshit (it was directed at a post that was full of bullshit - and I proved it). This victimization is just a load of crap.

Obviously, because that was your intention...

Broken logic, on all accounts.

1. Established members with a a clean record usually have one because they've learned how to play the system.

2. New members don't know how to play the system.

3. People with long moderation history should be commended for not having left striaght off for being a victim of the moderation system.

4. No moderator seems to get any of 1-3 hence there's a problem.

Your logic, that is shared amongst all mods here would work well if we were all a society of robots without ability to manipulate. It's too much of a simplistic stance to take for effective fair running of a forum.

The whole system of basically "report a post" -> "person getting reported gets moderated" is abused by the very "established members" who should have been banned themselves. It's all part of their manipulation game.

Personally don't bother reporting anyone except on 2-3 instances since I've been here for a bit of fun against Turkish when he was getting on my tits.

There's some damn fine members on VGChartz, most of them have an extensive moderation history. I don't understand it all really how it's so difficult to make a good judgement, that looks OUTSIDE the box. You've been here long enough to know who's who. It seems all the members know who's who...but the moderators don't.

That is an unbelievable situation, and hence I don't believe it. Which can only point to your moderation 101 being insufficient to do a good job, I would suspect that the moderators aren't given the remit they need to look deeper into things and read between the lines of perception. Not the lines of a moderation history.

The whole setup is very broken.

I wish you guys would look at the people behind the post, what motivated them to make a post that might be up for moderation and put yourself in the position of that person to work out why they said what they did. Saying something that comes from the heart even if it's controversial shouldn't be punished, within reason.

In this world there are "good" people, and their are "manipulative" people. That's all you need to bare in mind to clean up VGChartz and Microsoft fans will soon sign up, and not leave within 5 minutes.

I honestly don't know why I am bothering with this, but:

1) If by "play the system" you mean "follow the rules", then yes.

2) See (1)

3) They should be commended if they've managed to reform. Seece is a good example of that happening, as is Carl.

4) Because moderators are chosen from the ranks of people with relatively clean mod histories (not entirely clean necessarily, looking through).

We don't moderate everything that's reported nor do we only moderate what is reported.

Yes, most users here do have some sort of moderation history, because when you're new you don't really know the rules, and the whole point of the mod system (other than keeping the peace) is ensuring that you learn those rules and stop breaking them.

And we do look at the people behind the post, that's why mod histories exist. That is why we are stricter on repeat offenders.

And you are right with the final paragraph, except that good people are just as capable of breaking the rules as manipulative people, they just tend to do so less.

Thanks for the response.

haha, you bitched out lol xD

j/k