Survey: Should moderators be stricter or not ?

[Conegamer]

Jumpin said:

Looser in the gaming section, stricter in other sections.

I made a non-serious joke about hardcore gamers, not directed at anyone, and not in a serious tone (and several laughed), and I got banned 2 weeks for racism; the moderator identified hardcore gamers as a large identifiable group of people, like people of a specific race, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion. This is the equivalent of getting banned for making a joke about Manchester or Chelsea football fans.

In the non-gaming forums, people say much worse things about Arabs and Chinese in these and do not get banned; (yet people will get banned for criticisizng the US). There is also a HUGE amount of very open prejudice against religion and religious people (I am not talking the philosophical conversations, but rather outright blatant insults), and these users keep going at it and never get banned. These are real identifiable groups of people.

I agree with this, and what the poster above you said. It almost seems as though the current mods either don't understand the non-gaming discussions, or don't have the time to moderate them, or simply don't care.

I reckon it's a mixture of all 3. Maybe mods exclusive to/specialising in different sections? So when you report a post, it goes straight to a certain mod who checks it from there?

This is why we need more mods. I don't see the advantage of only having 4. The site used to have 20 I believe, and nothing slipped through the net. The more mods, the more vigorous, and if they abuse the power, ban them straight away. Seems logical to me.