| RolStoppable said: Actually, I don't think it would be more time consuming as checking the last few posts before a reported flaming occured should be a standard procedure. Moderating without taking any context into account sounds like bad form. And you know just as everyone else that this isn't a super busy forum with hundreds of posts to sift through. |
This is definitely true. But even if it were significantly more time consuming, that wouldn't mean that it shouldn't be standard procedure. Kind of like how proving beyond reasonable doubt in law is a time-consuming process, but is still the standard rule - if the law were applied the way that moderation is applied here, then you could be charged with starting a stampede from a cinema by shouting "fire", when there actually was a fire, for instance.
The bigger problem, though, is that moderators typically completely ignore you, or brush you off, if you point out that their moderation was lopsided. For instance, I received a 1 day ban a while ago for calling a user a fanboy (and I didn't do it in an accusatory manner, either - I probably should have said "fan", given the context in which I used it)... but the thing is, the person I used that word for actually called not only me, but a large number of other people on this site, a fanboy (indeed, "the most hardcore of fanboys") - he just didn't do it by name, instead smearing people in the thread indiscriminately by description. I pointed this out, and nothing whatsoever was done - I didn't even get acknowledgement for my complaint.
This isn't even a case of needing to read the history of the thread. The sweeping "Fanboy" comment was made in the post I had quoted, so if the moderator had even read through the post he was moderating, he'd have seen the offending, sweeping declaration. I don't think it's too much to ask that the moderator at least read the post they're moderating.
