It took more than a few hours to change theprof00's mind. I know he was already reporting people while I tried to talk him out of it. It took a couple of days until the issue was resolved.

Anyway, I am asking for something that is more of a common sense ruling than executing rules strictly by how they are written. Like another user said, calling someone else a troll is rarely needed in the first place. The problem is that someone can get punished for doing so under the current system. If DarkWraith presented his case truthfully in this thread, then that's another example of highly questionable moderation. It would also illustrate that the current rules can be a trap for new members. Get moderated for stating that a video game forum has fanboys and that it would be a better place if they grew up. Really, axumblade? That's an offense now?

Like I said, the mod team can't be held accountable by an overarching internet law, so you have the freedom to interpret the rules you've set up. That interpretation should always be in the best interest of the community, because otherwise you open the door for abuse and in the absolute worst case scenario you could become puppets who strictly enforce rules to the benefit of a group of scumbags who want to get rid of anyone who doesn't surrender to their hive mind mentality. Now you guys aren't stupid and gullible enough for the latter to happen, but I implore you to use more common sense in enforcing the rules than what you are currently doing.

If the mods don't give proper support after you went through the right channels, then there is a problem. If they give you support but you and the mods disagree, then you could try:

• Creating a thread in the website feedback section, ask other users of different factions their thoughts on the post reported.
• Cutting the mods some slack and say "I'll win some and lose some". After all it doesn't really matter all that much in the end, it's only a forum we can't take it too seriously. But if you consistently get shut down, then you can revert to solution 1 which is to create a thread about the problem.

In the end when reporting users we need to see it as a long-term effort where mods look at your reporting style as a profile. If you consistenly make shady reports or bash the mods, chances are they will take them less into account. If you make good reports and put effort into them, and target the problem users, odds are on the long run your reports will become more effective.

That's what I understood from the mod queue personally.

@2. I believe they have one, and I think I saw the login page but obviously we can't log in. They also have IM set up for all the mods to chat. I think they call it the mod chat.

@1. We have a few pro-active mods. Khan, Trucks, Kasz316, Yo_John, I know they participate a lot. That's a good share of proactive mods. It can always be better but remember these are hand-picked volunteers and so far they are doing fantastic.

@2. I believe they have one, and I think I saw the login page but obviously we can't log in. They also have IM set up for all the mods to chat. I think they call it the mod chat.

@1. We have a few pro-active mods. Khan, Trucks, Kasz316, Yo_John, I know they participate a lot. That's a good share of proactive mods. It can always be better but remember these are hand-picked volunteers and so far they are doing fantastic.

That may have been a vague answer. They have their own forum, it's just not on vgchartz.com. I saw a login screen for it but I don't have the link anymore. I think I saw it in the thread regarding the JLucas secret PM fiasco.

About pro-active mods. I prefer personally to have a few excellent mods than to crank up the mod count and including some lower-quality mods who are not as professional just to tie some loose ends. You end up creating more work that way.

You mean using the word "troll" as a descriptive term, I would assume. Calling someone else a troll over mere disagreement is not acceptable.

The bigger problem I have with the mods is the reluctance to overturn moderations. Nobody expects you to be perfect, but if a mistake happens, then it should be acknowledged and corrected instead of being explained away as "I know it doesn't seem right and I don't really agree with it either, but the call stands, because that's the rule." or something like that. A special case was when ethomaz got banned for using the word "troll" or "trolling" in a non-harmful way and the mod handed out a ban length that defied the progressive moderation system. You know, that's basically an admission that something isn't quite right with the rules, because the mod felt a bit guilty for handing out the ban.

I've repeatedly asked myself where this reluctance comes from. Can you guys really be that afraid of setting some precedences and properly explaining your decisions that you don't want to do it? I've seen rule 27a repeatedly getting refused with the reasoning that if you unban one person, then you can't ban anyone for flaming anymore. That wasn't the case during the reign of your former boss Machina who enforced 27a on more than one occasion. It never caused any problems or confusion back then (other than mods being puzzled that a user requested such an action), so why has it become an issue now?