Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
1. I was no moderator back in the day when IEDEI got warnings and bans, so I don't know the details of all that happened. You know that, so please do not rewrite the past. The 'powers that be' = anyone who has the capacity to hand out a warning/infraction or a ban to a forum fellow.
2. As Law righteously pointed out, moderators try to address questionable situations (which were brought to their attention or which they noticed themselves) with common sense, impartiality and fairness in the light of the house rules. Facts of life: choices are inevitable, nobody's perfect and one cannot please everyone. Many forum fellows = many personalities, each with their personal ways of expressing their views. Mutual respect is key to keeping this forum a good place. Otherwise the atmosphere within the community could rapidly turn toxic.
3. There is some indulgence/leniency regarding freedom of speech on this forum. Discussions may be intense, but there are limits which most people experience as a line that should not be crossed (for example a racist comment is outright unacceptable: zero tolerance). Allow me to let you in on a secret: it already happened that some forum fellow 'suggested' to moderators to ban you, further to comments that you had made. So far the suggestions were dismissed: being a tad grumpy or abrasive so now and then, ain't necessary being a 'nuisance'. Through your comments I always experienced you as an OK guy. But, hey, don't push it now that you know that.
|
I was not re-writing the past. There is no way that I could remember (or care) when you specifically became moderator. Sorry.. you just aren't that important to me in my life..
I appreciate the response however. It's nice that YOU
believe that " moderators try to address questionable situations with common sense.. " . however... what is patently obvious .. is that decisions are not based on moderator GROUP THINK.. ... in other words.. there appears to be no STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE when it comes to disciplinary action including bans.
Again.. I am pointing out to you that your statement above IS IN ERROR, because I have experienced something that is NOT in line with your belief.
Here is an example of how I would have hoped things like this would be handled.. For example.
Moderator receives info on possible infraction by a member.
Moderator reviews to determine if infraction occurred.
Moderator NOTES on a register or log that an infraction occurred and then notifies the member via warning or some other method.
I would think that a roll or account of how discipline is handed out would be in existence.
I would think that a BAN of a person would need a decision that is made by more than just a SINGLE individual.. however clearly that is not the case.
So.. as I stated previously.. if a moderator or administrator gets BUTTHURT.. then they can ban someone without anyone else knowing.
Sure doesn't seem like an open/transparent method does it?