But yeah, there was a lot of animosity this weekend, that permeated into every nook and cranny of the site.

Kudos to the few mods and users who were here and kept cool heads and put the well being of the site ahead of their own time and life outside of the Chartz. I appreciate you all more than you know.

I'm just here to burn every village

If I'd made such thread, would you report me for spam, CGW?

The other moderator involved in the discussion was me. We were going through the other moderations, and I noticed that one and left it as I was unsure of the context. Star also did the same so it was left for a while, eventually we went back to it and as there was no further input we decided to moderate, with Star asking my approval of the mod note. Upon further inspection the context was different than I had imagined, so it was an easy decision to reverse the decision. I have no resentment of this fact, and had another moderator been online to provide the context the ban would never have happened.

There was no covering up going on, I'm fine to concede this was an error in judgement on this occasion, which happens from time to time. Star must have just decided to keep it a secret due to protection and aminosity and all that. But that's all it was really.

It is part of a moderator's job to talk to the community. And as Ka-Pi pointed out, we've been doing just that. Cone has now entered the thread and decided to reveal I consulted with him on Curl's ban. I appreciate him doing that, but also feel he should not have too.

Whether or not I cop flak is immaterial to the base point here. Irrespective of who I consult with, when I make a ban, I am responsible for that ban - my name tag goes on the ticket. When I reverse a ban, I am responsible for that as well. In this case as Cone points out, we lacked context, and that meant I wound up making the wrong call. When a third mod brought this to my attention and asked me to take a second look, I did a quick Google search, confirmed that mods suspicions, unbanned Curl and sent a quick note to explain and apologise.

So given that, why is it important that I consulted with another mod in the first instance? Just because ultimately one moderator takes responsibility for a ban, doesn't mean they shouldn't do everything they can to get it right, and to be consistent with the rest of the team. In this case, that didn't work. In the overwhelming majority of cases (several moderations both small and severe a day across the mod team), that system works well to ensure there are no overreactions, and everyone is treated fairly.

In a nutshell - Curl got banned because Cone and I didn't know a bit of gaming trivia that is now 4-5 years old. That ban was very quickly reversed once our error was realized.

I want it.

hmmm, I do agree that the mod that issues the ban is ultimately responsible, but I really don't see the harm in letting others know who you consulted with before issueing that moderation.  If anything, it gives the person (or in this case other people....) a chance to ask another mod with knowledge of the situation and maybe get a different angle on what they did wrong.  Whether you issue the moderation or are consulted in the process, either way the mod has knowledge of the situation and can offer an explanation.   There really isn't any harm from revealing this information, any mod should be able to explain their role in the process in the moderation without difficulty.  In fact, talking with the mod that you consulted with would probably be more effective than trying to talk to kantor or smeags...

Ban's can be revoked eh? I'd like me 4 yr old ban for being Homophobic overturned please ...

Fair enough, I'll take your post in the spirit you've requested.

My entrance into the matter was that Curl's ban had been addressed. I apologise if this was not clear. For the most part, as Curl has not at any point offered a complaint, I viewed it as a matter for Curl, and me. That said, I have previously noted in this thread, I'll try to make more of an effort to keep this thread posted when relevant.

On the more general issue, I just disagree. If people want to have their private conversations and deliberations aired here, great. If not, I think its counterproductive for Mods offline to be wondering which element of their comments might be revealed in this thread.

But again, if the consensus on this changes, I will go along. I just think its counterproductive to believe a mod is, could be or would deliberately lie in this thread about consulting with other mods.

No, you're still homophobic.