Politics and moderation

[Cerebralbore101]

The only way to prevent psy-ops bans is to rewrite the rules unambiguously and objectively. 

Cerebralbore101 said:

Here's a great example: Let's say someone genuinely doesn't like rap music. Under the current rules they would be banned for making too many anti-rap statements or trying to argue that rap isn't music (It absolutely is music!!!). Under the rules proposed above they wouldn't be banned just for that. Why not? Because liking or disliking a certain genre of music has nothing to do with whether or not one race is better than another and is not discriminatory towards race. 

Just going to explain what I mean by psy-ops BS. Take the example above of someone trying to argue that rap isn't music. Now let's say a mod comes along and decides that the entire reason that the user is trying to argue that rap isn't music is that the user is a racist. The mod in my example is just assuming that they can read the other user's mind and then applying rules against being racist in an open-ended manner. This psy-op ban is the kind of BS that needs to stop on vgchartz. Mods need to stop assuming they can read the minds of users and then banning people on that alone. Psy-op bans are done when it comes to flaming, trolling, etc. as well. As JuliusHackebeil pointed out...

"those rules are not exactly applied on a personal whim, their application is not completely arbitrary, because they are applied in a certain socio-political climate. Every get-together of a number of people develops this. This website has one too and as other commenters have alluded to, that climate is not exactly a hallmark of diversity and individuality when it comes to hot button issues people love to dissagree about. Such a climate assures that vague rules are interpreted in a particular way and not in another.