man the timing on this thread is fantastic. read this:

Post:

no a fanboy is like a religious fanatic who denies reality. they will always side with their preconception regardless of the absurdity.

lots of people like this here. be nice if they would grow up.
This post has been moderated by axumblade

"Moderation - Ban
from axumblade, to DarkWraith 8 hours ago
(Delete Message)
You are receiving this message for violation of forum rules regarding Flaming (The term fanboy is not necessarily the flaming part but moreso the part where you insist users on the site are fanboys is unacceptable. Furthermore, telling them to grow up is also unacceptable.) [Post Reference] Please review the forum rules here to avoid future moderation action. Banned: 1 days"

are there fanboys here? yes, so why am I banned for stating the obvious? didnt call anyone in particular out even. is this a joke ban or what?

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=156796&page=1
This is the thread carl and rol are talking about fyi

I think mods have become more lenient, I got banned or warned a total of 7 times between 2010 and 2011.

Maybe they now accept that what people are saying is either sarcasm, or an opinion they others dont have to accept?

lol i remember that thread.  I took the blame for most of what happened.  To hell with people taking a little responsibility for their own actions.  And no i dont believe Carl should have been moderated in there.  

Tagged for later

What if you call someone a troll because they called someone else a troll because they were actually trolling, but then get called a troll for calling the trollcaller a troll, all the while avoiding calling the actual troll a troll?

Food for thought.

We can't have people going around calling each other "trolls" - the problem with having a rule that allows the use of the word in a case of actual trolling is that people (particularly of different console-alignments) will have different opinions on who a troll is. It's the same as the strictness regarding the word "fanboy", and I think the rule works well as it is.

Yup, I got banned for one of those. The funny thing was, the person I cracked the joke at didn't seem offended, yet a certain user had to go whine to the mods. Apparently they aren't familar with North American humour in The Netherlands! 

My name is Viper and I approve of this message.

As the head admin of another forum for the past 11 years, Rol has it correct.

One of the reasons that trouble makers are often left alone is because they generate traffic. Controversy and troublemakers generate more money than does a well behaved community. That's simply the nature of the ad driven monetization of forums. But it shows that money is valued over the service provided. Communities that truly value their community and service over money establish a moderation system that more closely resembles what Rol is depicting.

Here's a thought...why do trolls troll? Because they know damn good and well they'll get away with it and likely one of those they are trolling will end up getting moderated rather than the troll himself. It's not the community that feeds the trolls, it's the rules and moderation that feed them.

Regarding Carl,
The point was that there were rules in place that were not being followed. Baiting was at maximum capacity, with trolling and flaming following close behind. It was rampant, with only moderation for newish users.

For people looking for a tl;dr of the link above (300 posts), basically Jaywood made a thread about a sale on xboxlive. Some users came in and definitely trolled. Others came in and "questionably" trolled. All were moderated. This set a precendent, that even borderline violations should be moderated. This set up a string of people posting quotes that had not been moderated. The question was made as to why violations were not being moderated, when we saw this clear mod presence in jaywood's thread. The main problem being addressed was that rules were being broken and not moderated. In the mode of fairness, Carl should have been moderated. I even say so in the thread:

"No i don't want carl banned, he is a great user, but a warning would be the "fair" thing to do"

Because it's a goddamn rule. Regardless of who it is, in what context, with what history, a rule is a rule. If the rule doesn't make sense, then change the frikkin rule!

 My viewpoint on the subject is that if a rule is broken it needs to be moderated. Rol would prefer a common sense ruling where the user has leniency based on history and posting style. I prefer Rol's point of view, but the problem is that we almost never see it in action.

Just a few weeks ago, there was a thread about demand for ps4 being higher, using the secondary market pricing as evidence. Another user came in and immediately started with very rude comments, snark, and basically mocking me. I was polite the entire time, knowing that he probably didn't understand what he was talking about. The user made a fundamental mistake of economics, so I asked him if he had studied econ, because it was directly relevant to resolving the argument.

The user asked me if I had taken computer science because he often sees me posting in cs threads.

It was completely off-topic and flaming, and nothing was done, I was even told that "i had it coming". It was basically, "ok I don't know shit about what I'm talking about, but you don't know shit about CS and you post in there". I just really don't understand how posts like those go unmoderated. I really don't.

You can't understand how carl was warned. I can't understand how a personal attack gets..literally...no moderation of any kind.