Quote from: Statefarm on October 09, 2014, 06:00:56 PM

Spoiler

The following isn't to be taken personally. I honestly don't think any members of this site are bad, the worst I'd describe someone is misguided.


Moderating specific members is horrible.

That system needs to get removed, ASAP, and I won't support the moderation if it continues. Ban the user if they get out of hand. It's a good idea on paper but it leaves so much room for more anger and bias it's not even funny.

Yeah, I get it's to try and stop inflammatory posts that cause pages of stupid internet drama, but I don't support censorship. If this site is so shitty that one idiotic response causes a hoard the mods can't handle then:

A) The moderation is completely ineffective, since clearly people don't care enough to watch what they post

or

B) This site has become such a circle jerk that it isn't going to survive long anyway.

As someone who isn't involved in any of this crapfest:

The drama needs to be stopped. This is the first time I've had issues with it so I'm not going to go crazy. But if this spirals out of control again I'm positive this site will die.

I feel that this recent incident was handled correctly in regards to the new rules.

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm unhappy with the the lack of foresight. It should have been obvious that certain people in certain positions would stir trouble.

Anyone, not to brown nose, but promoting you was probably the best reaction to the recent events. It shows I can at least trust this site to stick together a little longer.

Overall the increased popularity of the site was incredibly bad timing, combined with Anarchy weekend I think a lot of new members were exposed to less than ideal conditions.

Moderation Bias should no longer be an issue, if it becomes a popular complaint again I hope more strict actions are taken.

As a final note, I do support temporary posting restrictions, but only in emergencies (when there is too much going on for the moderation team to handle and they need time to sort through posts). That being said, temporary restrictions shouldn't last a noticeably long period, and I'd only use them to not anger a member with a ban that was placed before fully understanding a situation.

Spoiler

The warning system was put in place for minor offenses that, originally, would call for a temporary ban. In order from least to greatest restrictions, it goes watched >> moderated >> muted. All warnings decay over time, slipping down through the statuses until it reaches 0%, or non-moderated status.

It's not our intention to censor users here in terms of restricting what they can say; the practice is done to keep someone who obviously won't abide by verbal warnings from flooding the forum with rule-breaking posts. If a moderated individual's post isn't breaking any rules, then it will be approved.

Since we have so many members who can approve a post (4 monitors, 5 ninjas, and myself) it's extremely unlikely that someone's post will be held back just because someone doesn't like it. It's only going to be rejected if it breaks the rules (and Ninjas are the only ones who can reject a post).

Lot seemed to happen today, I'm glad I was not here for the most part.

Man I thought that the Drama with Anarchy was bad. What the hell happened while I had the flu.