Quantcast
The Moderator Thread

Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

-pic

Right? It's like that feeling mods get when reading a report about you.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

-pic

Right? It's like that feeling mods get when reading a report about you.

Hey, I try! Really, I do! It's hard to be squeaky clean all the time! 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
CGI-Quality said:

Right? It's like that feeling mods get when reading a report about you.

Hey, I try! Really, I do! It's hard to be squeaky clean all the time! 

That's fair. Sometimes, we just have to step back and try to get a feel for the entire situation. 



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Hey, I try! Really, I do! It's hard to be squeaky clean all the time! 

That's fair. Sometimes, we just have to step back and try to get a feel for the entire situation. 

Yeah I didn't actually have anything to say in regards to criticizing the moderation. I deserved it with my tone. Was just funny to see that message first thing when I logged in. 



potato_hamster said:
Well I once got moderated for saying that a certain fanbase that were overtly enthusiastic about their platform of choice, and extremely dismissive of anyone that didn't share their enthusiasm "sounded like born-again Christians" because apparently a Christian apparently could interpret in such a way that they might be offended by it.

So based on that, it's best to just not even act like religion exists and is something that should ever be mentioned on this message board. The only way to win that game is to simply not play it.

You could have tried to be a little more respectful and tactful in your approach instead of being so brazen in your attack against a particular community.

You can criticize any fanbase, any religion, any belief, but if you do so that is simply not constructive and thus doesn't add to a discussion, then you will certainly be moderated for it.
In short, there is a line, you clearly crossed it, you weren't moderated just because off the anti-religious rhetoric. (Again, parts of the mod team is Atheist and thus not supporters of religion.)



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
potato_hamster said:
Well I once got moderated for saying that a certain fanbase that were overtly enthusiastic about their platform of choice, and extremely dismissive of anyone that didn't share their enthusiasm "sounded like born-again Christians" because apparently a Christian apparently could interpret in such a way that they might be offended by it.

So based on that, it's best to just not even act like religion exists and is something that should ever be mentioned on this message board. The only way to win that game is to simply not play it.

You could have tried to be a little more respectful and tactful in your approach instead of being so brazen in your attack against a particular community.

You can criticize any fanbase, any religion, any belief, but if you do so that is simply not constructive and thus doesn't add to a discussion, then you will certainly be moderated for it.
In short, there is a line, you clearly crossed it, you weren't moderated just because off the anti-religious rhetoric. (Again, parts of the mod team is Atheist and thus not supporters of religion.)


Here, I'll quote my moderation directly.

'We also take issue with your ''born again christian'' comment, we do not tolerate hate/offensive speech again any religion here.'

The fact that anyone took what I said as "anti-religious" is beyond any sort of reasonable comprehension, and reflects more on the person or persons who decided that thinking that a deeply religious person having any notion of being sad or disappointed that someone doesn't share their views and feels they're missing out is in fact a negative act and something that should be frowned upon. To be clear, it was actually the moderator or moderators that decided that saying someone is "acting like a born again christian" is derogatory or an insult is actually the one(s) being anti-religious, not me.

And, just in case that isn't clear enough, let me put it to you another way - if someone said another was "acting like a politician" that would be a compliment to someone that was say, a political candidate who is doubting themselves, or an insult to someone who thinks politicians are awful people that shouldn't be respected or trusted. But that doesn't mean that if the person saying that phrase was attempting to insult the person it was said to. And, if you heard that being said to another person, and told the person saying it to stop insulting the other person would likely mean that you don't view politicians very highly, and doesn't say anything about the views about the person who said it.

So, since no one actually asked before they assumed I was insulting someone, I'll actually give you my perspective. I was actually just getting a chuckle out of the intensity that some users have for what appears to be a pure and life-changing love for VR, and thought it was a bit cringe-worthy that people were expressing such disappointment and incredulity about people "not getting VR" in a very similar way to how born-again Christians express such disappointment and incredulity in what they literally believe is a person making poor choices that will see them spending an eternity burning in hell. As if the stakes are anywhere close to the same! The born again christian is literally mourning the loss of what they think is a perfect and wonderful future for the rest of that's person existence, and the VR enthusiast us morning someone preferring to play video games using a TV or monitor. That appears to be a pretty large disparity in importance to me. So that being said, it was very clearly NOT intended as an insult against born-again Christians in any way, shape or form, but it was still taken to mean that by the moderation team, and continues to be seen that way despite numerous efforts to clarify and explain.

Hence my comment about not even bothering to act like religion can be used to draw comparisons or create relatable examples is a losing game on this site. It's not worth it. So I won't do it in the future, and I suggest others just pretend like it doesn't exist. This is my last time trying to explain this, hoping that you'll see my perspective this time. If you don't, clearly the moderation team and I aren't ever going to see eye to eye on this, and I'll have to try and respectfully disagree going forward.



I miss our fallen brothers.



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.



Cerebralbore101 said:
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, 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 a multitude of reasons (this fits more in line with the Terms Of Use), the ability to ban for anything generally doesn't occur (and if it ever came to that, we would tell the user in question to come to a Head Mod about it). 

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. 



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
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. 

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. 

Awesome thanks!

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