On Censorship (please don't censor this)

Recently there were several additions to the modly ranks.

Although I might question whether all of the appointees are completely ready for the rights and responsibilities they now have, what's done is done, the sky will not fall, and this is NOT the intended focus of this thread. Please, everyone, I ask all of you to not say one word in here about whether a specific person should or should not have made the cut. Moving on!

I feel that recent events must be discussed in this community, because there are some crucial details that remain to be addressed. (Silly note: the preceding sentence contains a topic-relevant pun.)

CONCERN NUMBER ONE

In a recent thread, "Posting while banned?" (thread no. 8798), ioi stated the following:
"Banning will be updated today. As of today a mod will select a reason for ban and a length of ban when they ban someone. That will then appear on their profile, will pop up when they try to log in and will automatically "unban" the user when their ban period runs out. Will make life easier for mods and will give different levels to bans."

I would like a little clarification: does this mean that anyone checking the user profile will see a brief summary of why the banned user was banned? If so, GREAT! If not, can this feature be added? I think it would be an asset, if for no other reason than to forestall the endless speculation of "why was he banned?" which sometimes leads to an accusatory atmosphere that can spiral out of control.

CONCERN NUMBER TWO

In a recent thread, "New Mod Announcements" (thread no. 8811), ioi stated that moderators' powers would include "editing forum posts and thread titles". I would like to know that there is a formal rule in place that a mod who edits a user's thread should place a note in that edited post giving a summary of the edits made as well as date and time of the edit.

CONCERN NUMBER THREE

Also in thread 8811, leo-j was banned for making an out-of-line comment about one of the recently-appointed mods. He was banned. A certain user, Crucial, criticized the site and its mods in general for "ban[ning] people for speaking out against their competence". Although his tone was scathing, he was articulate, his point was well-argued, and he did not resort to any kind of profanity or even 'caps-lock syndrome'. He did not single out any mod. This was his first post on this subject.

ioi proceeded to ban him for 3 months.

Whatever his actions were afterward -- and he well and truly earned his permaban -- this initial ban was in my opinion totally uncalled for. Anyone should be able to post a legitimate, well-articulated complaint that is not personally attacking any individual without fear of reprisal.

Just because ioi felt that the complaints users had been posting about his taste in mods were getting really old was no reason to bring the banhammer down on one who was making no such complaint. And if ioi did it solely for his stated reason that Crucial was "criticising the site and the appointments we made" -- that is totally unacceptable. Crucial had not in any way criticized the recent appointments ioi had made, which leaves only one thing: criticizing the site.

If criticizing the site harshly but with well-reasoned, rational arguments and no profanity is enough to earn a 3 month ban, then I guess you won't be seeing much of me for a while after this post, and frankly I probably won't want to come back.

Some of you may assert that ioi, as owner and operator of this site as well as Supreme Mod, has total and unquestionable dictatorial authority to do whatever the hell he wants and we should suck it up and tow the line. It is true that ioi has that power, but I don't think that he really wants to run the site that way, and I don't think many people want to be part of a site run that way. In that case, ioi is (or should be) voluntarily restricting his own power to a level that seems more fair to the users -- a level I should think is well short of giving someone a 3-month ban just because he happened to annoy ioi at the wrong moment.

From thread 8798 "Posting while banned?"

ioi, 10/18/07 18:25

Banning will be updated today. As of today a mod will select a reason for ban and a length of ban when they ban someone. That will then appear on their profile, will pop up when they try to log in and will automatically "unban" the user when their ban period runs out. Will make life easier for mods and will give different levels to bans.

ioi, 10/18/07 21:56

I'm happy with the mod choices and I feel we have plenty of mods now to take us forward as the site expands.

A moderators job is to be unbiased and make the right decisions. If a mod were to start banning based on personal preference he would have his position removed. Mods are appointed by the site to help in it's running.

By the end of today mod powers will include:

- Banning members
- Editing forum posts and thread titles
- Removing and approving game database games, removing screenshots etc
- Adding news stories
- Adding new polls
- Stickying threads

Rocket pig? Are you Fing kiding me? He is as much as a fanboy as me or soriku. He HATES SONY. HATES, not DISLIKE, HATES

******
(leo-j gets smacked with a ban)
******

This site is such a joke. Mods here actually ban people for speaking out against their competence? Wow.

Here is your job as a mod: Keep threads on topic, get rid of racism and kiddy porn. Thats it.

Its so funny to see mods publicly warn people. Use private messages. That is, unless you really have to show everyone what a big powerful mod you are.

Your job isn't that important, so, you shouldn't feel as important as you obviously do.

******
(Crucial was apparently given a 3 month ban for this comment, apparently by ioi himself. This ban has since been extended to 28.4 years. [update:  It's back down to 3 months.  naznatips was "experimenting"])
******

ioi, 10/19/07 11:44

Every mod I chose people would disagree with - this is the essence of having personal opinions. There isn't a person in the world that sees eye to eye with every other.

This isn't all about console wars. The two banned on this page were banned for criticising the site and the appointments we made. People aren't picked on personal bias and what they like to argue, they are picked primarilly to add to the game database, bring some balance to news stories and so on.

From now on, a user cannot be banned by a mod (unless in very obviously extreme circumstances) without first consulting either myself, Stof or Benkenobi. We make the final decisions, the other mods are here mainly to keep things running smoothly, look after the game database, remove spam and so on. Personal bannings based on differences of opinion isn't going to suddenly start happening so if you don't get on with a mod then that shouldn't matter and won't stop them doing their job properly.

ioi

omgwtfbbq, 10/19/07 04:02

I hope crucial wasn't banned for what he said in this thread, because he was 100% correct and banning him would have been completely unfair.

konnichiwa, 10:19/07 04:11

X_______X I agree with OMGWTFBBQ.

Crap you posted my comment too!

Crucial ban is extended with 28 years.

Rofl why do we see him now posting?

X_X.

I thought I'd made it clear that the systems set up on this site are a joke. Coded by a highschool student at best. So, in such an environment, I'll do what I please. Banned or not.

I didn't want to put you on the hot seat konnichiwa but I did want to point out that respected users with huge post counts also think that this was grossly unfair.  Hope you don't mind ... or get banned!

Final-Fan said: I didn't want to put you on the hot seat konnichiwa but I did want to point out that respected users with huge post counts also think that this was grossly unfair.  Hope you don't mind ... or get banned!

 Nah i don't care really much about it. It would be sad if I get banned for this lol.

I think Crucial haves a point but I never would do like him I would send PM's to the moderators about this and don't post on forums like he do now.

I've sent PMs to the mods. I've sent emails. After no response, I started posting again.