trasharmdsister12 said:
Actually no. But you're welcome to think what you wish. I'm not at liberty to divulge who reported you but it does extend beyond whatever subset of users you wish to believe. Finally, as we've always maintained you're welcome to remake a thread that has been locked as long as you've made it more clear what your intentions are and you believe it doesn't have the possibility of become a console war. If you're unsure run it by us. As for your ban, I publicly apologize for overlooking the reduction made on your history. I did not see it and I feel no reason to hide and deny it. I'm sorry. However, I will clarify that the rule you quoted in the message doesn't mean we're more lenient on established members. We have an idea of what an established member is set out to do and how they behave. That rule is meant to be taken as "If you're not established, you will undergo more scrutiny by default. We apologize for the inconvenience but it's common practice to see new accounts crop up simply to post slander and flame so this is the way it has to be." As an established member, if you have a clean record then we can be more foregiving; not in the sense that we won't moderate, but in the sense that it will be discussed more thoroughly. In the case of a full record (such as yourself), there is still a thorough discussion but it isn't on whether or not to take action, but rather how severe it should be. |
Broken logic, on all accounts.
1. Established members with a a clean record usually have one because they've learned how to play the system.
2. New members don't know how to play the system.
3. People with long moderation history should be commended for not having left striaght off for being a victim of the moderation system.
4. No moderator seems to get any of 1-3 hence there's a problem.
Your logic, that is shared amongst all mods here would work well if we were all a society of robots without ability to manipulate. It's too much of a simplistic stance to take for effective fair running of a forum.
The whole system of basically "report a post" -> "person getting reported gets moderated" is abused by the very "established members" who should have been banned themselves. It's all part of their manipulation game.
Personally don't bother reporting anyone except on 2-3 instances since I've been here for a bit of fun against Turkish when he was getting on my tits.
There's some damn fine members on VGChartz, most of them have an extensive moderation history. I don't understand it all really how it's so difficult to make a good judgement, that looks OUTSIDE the box. You've been here long enough to know who's who. It seems all the members know who's who...but the moderators don't.
That is an unbelievable situation, and hence I don't believe it. Which can only point to your moderation 101 being insufficient to do a good job, I would suspect that the moderators aren't given the remit they need to look deeper into things and read between the lines of perception. Not the lines of a moderation history.
The whole setup is very broken.
I wish you guys would look at the people behind the post, what motivated them to make a post that might be up for moderation and put yourself in the position of that person to work out why they said what they did. Saying something that comes from the heart even if it's controversial shouldn't be punished, within reason.
In this world there are "good" people, and their are "manipulative" people. That's all you need to bare in mind to clean up VGChartz and Microsoft fans will soon sign up, and not leave within 5 minutes.
