I think Ive had 4 or 5 moderations overturned. Probably more if I actually looked back at the Maxwell days and counted them. Mr Khan from the current mod team overturned a previous moderation of mine. I dont think there is a problem with regards to overturning wrong moderations, as long as the user explains things well enough. Granted, none of them were for flaming though as far as I remember.

It'd be great if we could actually change the rules section of the website

help ioi recruit that webdeveloper then

I'm not sure how I could help with that, but it's good that he's hiring one.

bump the thread about it once in a while, if im the only one doing it it looks pretty sad

People seem to be focusing on Rol's suggestion of allowing trolls to be called trolls indiscriminately. And I agree with those that say that doing so would be a problem.

The focus needs to be on the purpose, as I've said in a few other ways in previous posts in this thread. It's not the use of the word "troll" that is offensive, but the use of it as ad hominem, for the purpose of insulting someone. If I were to say in response to someone "You have come into this thread with almost completely off-topic content that you know will incite angry responses from people in this thread. As far as I can see, you are a troll. If you have nothing to actually contribute to the discussion, kindly leave", it would be different from if I posted "You are a troll, I have no interest in your opinion".

Actually, I think the biggest problem, when it comes down to it, is how the moderation is done. From what I can see, moderators don't remove offending content, and they don't give any sort of public warning in connection with the offending content. As such, all that other members see is that something about that post caused the poster to receive either a warning or a ban - completely useless to either the member or the community at large.

When I was a mod over on the Wiire forums, mod edits would usually either delete the offending content (replaced with an appropriate general warning) or be made with the specific purpose of redirecting the discussion back to the topic at hand and away from whatever tangent the offending content caused it to take. We didn't warn/ban people for using words like "troll" or "fanboy", even in reference to specific members; instead, we looked at the context, and judged whether the use of the word was done for insult, rhetoric, or completely benign purposes, with only the former being moderation-worthy.

If a mod either doesn't have the time or doesn't have the ability to tell the difference, then they probably shouldn't be a mod. The whole point of moderation is to keep the discussions on the website moderate, hence the name. And people have said, repeatedly, especially in here, that the problem is that the trolling and the posting behaviours that closely resemble trolling have become expected, to the point that people make threads specifically to troll the trolls, and then to troll the people who try to troll the trolls, and so on. Meanwhile, those who simply challenge the poster's intent in writing their post typically get warnings or bans, which only encourages more of the same behaviour.

To borrow from one of my favourite shows, The West Wing, "I don't mind being held to a higher standard; I mind being held to a lower one."

Name calling in general is looked down upon on VGC, in any form. It's annoying trying not to call someone out on what they clearly are. I've been moderated (warning) for calling/telling someone that they were being pathetic, when they were. And then another time I said that, yet nothing happened.

I think a major discrepancy is consistency. Now, I understand that there is a small Mod team when compared to how large our community is, but is it not possible to have a "VGC's Most Wanted List" or something? That way the moderators can keep check on who has been the biggest pot stirrer. In fact, this list can be changed at the end of every month so people can have a clean slate. However, I can see the issues with this.

In the end, I agree with Rol. I guess I should've just said that in the beginning, though.