It's quite pointless to make it a rule that 'M$' should not be allowed. It's the kind of thing where pedantic mods who tend to take things literally are prone to make a situation worse than it ever needed to be. I looked at the thread you linked to earlier and it is pretty much what happened there. Yes, you are pedantic and you know it already that you get yourself into drawn out debates over semantics. Even if you mean well, it can do more harm than good.

The usage of the term 'M$" is one that cuts both ways. It has been used as implication that Microsoft is rich because they are greedy, but also as a token of pride that Microsoft is so rich that they can buy exclusivity whenever they feel like it. The latter was obviously a lot more prevalent during the 360 era where Microsoft was moneyhatting a lot of third parties, lots of PS fans were upset about it and Xbox fans were gleeful.

But more importantly, 'M$' should never be the core for moderation. It's merely a further indicator what a user is up to. If someone uses 'M$', then their comments are usually already sprinkled with other indicators that qualify as stealth trolling or outright trolling. You can look at 'M$' as something that adds to the sum of one post or multiple posts and makes the decision easier whether a moderation is in order or not.

This whole 'M$' thing is about using rules literally. As in, the mod team may be unable to pin down someone with their literal rule enforcement, so they come up with a new rule that can hopefully be applied later and used as justification for a moderation. I think this is where the saying "missing the forest for the trees" is appropriate. You don't need an M$ rule when you have a bunch of DPS7 posts and recognize a pattern of covert trolling. You collect those posts in a spreadsheet and eventually add those links to a ban note to prove a pattern. It's like in football (real football) where the referee might give a player a yellow card for a foul that wasn't deserving of a yellow card, but the referee noticed that the player in question commonly uses low-key fouls to disrupt the flow of the game and the foul that earned the yellow card was already the fifth of that kind.

I haven't seen the ban note in this specific case, just went with COKTOE's comments and the sample of posts that I've read of the user who got banned. And there was this unnecessarily long discussion about how bad the term 'M$' is, so I wanted to say that it's really not particularly important in the big picture.

Since I am already here, something short about the morals thread. I didn't mean that padib is obligated to defend his point of view, but it's weak to not even bother and instead ask for the other guy to get moderated, on top of the entitlement that people should be free to make up their own definitions.

I'm going to address this as best as I can.

I just checked the rate at which your threads were locked. You've only had three locked of 70+ (and only one of them was in 2020). So, I think you're doing fine there.

Next, sometimes, even though people can be thread banned, a topic goes too far and too many off topic discussions and/or needless fights are being generated by it (typically more than 4 users or so), which usually results in a lock or a threat of such if things remain unchanged. I can understand why it would bug you, but I also see why JWein would drop a Warning in there to keep things civil. Even then, a mention of a lock doesn't necessarily mean one is eminent. There is just a higher probability that this may occur if things don't make a turn for the better. 

Hopefully, I covered all the bases. If not, you could always send JWein a PM for his specific stance on the matter (or wait for him to address it here). 

There's no way it's just been three threads that were locked. I know for a fact that I've posted on way more threads than that that have gotten closed. There's some possibility that I've mentally conflated some of my posts to threads others authored with my own threads in that connection, but that only three of my own have been closed to date doesn't seem real. It has to have been more than that!

The rate at which my threads are either closed or altered in some way by the moderating team cannot possibly be less than 1 in 3.

Go to your profile and look at your thread history. I checked each of your threads over the last year, and as CGI said it was one, which we already discussed. That's out of 20 threads you've created in the past year. I trust that CGI's numbers are correct on the overall, but I just wanted to see how often it's been recently. https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/157644/jaicee/posts/threads/1/#content You can see for yourself.  

As for the thread in question, it's a good thread. I was participating. When I said "I think it's an interesting topic, so let's keep it civil so it can stay open", I wasn't like being sarcastic or anything "boy it sure would be a shame if I had to close this topic". I legitimately meant that... It's the kind of thing I like discussing, and I really have no desire to close it. 

As of the point I posted in the thread, it wasn't near the point of closure. But things can devolve really quickly, especially on these kinds of issues. In the thread I was literally making a warning post for one user, and by the time I posted it another user made a flaming post. So, it felt like things were getting out of control, and I thought a general thread warning was necessary. That doesn't mean the next step was going to be closure, but a lot of times, especially when you're dealing with issues like abortion or religion, people tend to jump in, and I felt that if I didn't say anything it could quickly get to the point where it was too many users and the thread was derailed, and at that point it'd have to be closed.

Again, the objective is not lock the thread, but to stop things from getting out of control. And it had nothing to do with anything you said or did. If that were the case, I'd have said something to you directly. I get that nobody wants to have their threads closed (and again that's not my goal) but it's not a punishment to the thread's creator (unless the problem is with the OP itself, in which case we'll tell them).

On a personal note, I have what is called atypical depression. I am IN NO WAY SUGGESTING YOU DO AS WELL OR MAKING ANY ASSESSMENT OF YOUR MENTAL STATE. One of the symptoms is being overly concerned about what people think of me. When people aren't direct with me, I get really nervous and feel like I've done something wrong. Again, I'm not saying anything about you. I'm just saying that the feeling that I must have done something wrong is something that's constantly with me, and I only really feel comfortable when I know someone will be direct with me. So, that's how I try to treat people. If you're doing something wrong, I'm not going to look for excuses to close your threads or anything like that. I'll let you know exactly what it is. Beyond that, I don't really know what to tell you.

@Jaicee. The morally acceptable thread was tricky and could fit in either the General Discussion or the Political Discussion. As you saw, I was directly attacked, people will take personal opinions on moral matters as a discourse for politics, and you know political threads are more lax due to their controversial nature. On the other hand, I really just went there to post my mind, as is the style of the General Discussion section, and was accused of bringing some kind of agenda and propaganda, and was directly insulted as an immoral liar, a pure turn-off for me. Like was obvious, I was just chilling in the thread and even made a joke. By the way I liked that thread, I regret having retaliated to whoever attacked me, I should have just reported him and moved on. It would have probably kept a better mood in the thread. But in fairness to me, I was kind of blindsided. Living and learning, since I do want to help this place be fun and cool, since that's what I like.

It's just my advice to you for next time, if you make threads of that sensitive nature, and you foresee this kind of behaviour, you might consider putting them in politics section and notify a mod to monitor (JWein and SpokenTruth are active in that section).  I want to encourage you to keep making content here, it helps make the place more crowded and dynamic, and that's a good thing. I used to post a lot more threads as both happydolphin and since 2013 padib. I don't anymore, so if you do, I really want to encourage you. Kudos and don't let these things slow you down. Stay confident in yourself and if the others go against it, just keep making good content for us.

Malicious intent was assigned to your post because you used the type of language that is used by intellectually dishonest proponents against abortion. The reality of abortion is misrepresented by talking about murder of babies which is an attempt to trigger more empathy in people who follow a debate (in order to increase the chances to sway them), but the vast majority of abortions occur before the developing life has reached a clear human shape. That's what the accusation of lying stemmed from, which in turn was the basis for the accusation of hypocrisy. I am not even sure if you recognized that hypocrisy was the main accusation.

Those were the specifics of that particular thread, but generally speaking, it's one of those situations where you face a blunt accusation and get too defensive too fast. That's when things can go downhill quickly, so you have to make an extra effort to stay calm and cool. The thread about morals has seen a few new posts since you posted the above (what I quoted), so there's an opportunity for you to practice how to keep your composure, in case you decide to continue to respond. The very first response you received in the thread may have been too quick to leap to an accusation, but the same guy (and Jaicee) look willing to give you the time to explain your point of view.

It happens every now and then that you get wrongly accused of something. But instead of looking at it as a great offense, take it as an opportunity to be the bigger man.