Dear Users Complaining About Moderators

[Rylot]

snip

...So you were part of an internet community for six years and after one, I repeat one instance of unfair moderation you quit the whole thing?

Pretty much everyone I've seen refer to the incident agrees it was a cluster fuck. Honestly you have every right to be upset about that, but to just up and quit after one incident of a site not handling something well isn't the site or it's moderators or staff rejecting you. You are still completely free to come and participate in this community but decided not to because of human mistakes. That's your choice.

So while I do agree you have a legitimate reason to be upset but to hold that kind of a grudge it kinda seems like sooner or later there was going to be an incident that convinced you to quit the site.

 

[flarty]

I like how people are always real quick to accuse us of "abusing our power", but these people never provide any evidence of this.
Funny that.

Isn't it normally standard practice here on the Escapist forums to provid evidence of claims made? "Citation needed" and all that?

The reason why there's no evidence of it is because it doesn't happen.

In all fairness I received a warning for describing something as faggy once, but I've seen gay used as an adjective plenty of times on this forum with no such infractions being issued. I think its that kind of double standard that upsets people. Personally I couldn't be bothered, even if i do get banned its not like I've lost something really important in my life, just a dark corner of the internet where i used to waffle some rubbish once in a while.

 

[BeerTent]

I actually really like how things are run around here. With the forum health bar in place, you'd have to be pretty unique to actually get banned.

I also like how on the first page, it's established the problem of people calling moderator abuse doesn't actually bring anything to the table. No evidence, no nothing. Just a "I was wronged." And not half-way down the page we have someone doing just that. I think Marter even went above and beyond to find that post Lunatic complained about, as in my eyes, it's not something that moderation staff is expected to do. Shit, if I ran the place, I wouldn't expect them to say anything other than "Put in a ticket." Kudos to the both of you, Tetris guy too... What was your name again? Aaah, I'll find it after I edit.

It really does go without saying. If you don't like the rules, don't agree to them in the first place.

If you have a problem with moderation and staff, go to the source of the problem. (Put in a fucking ticket. Really, nobody can do anything if you don't put in a ticket.)

And finally, if you're going to publicly sprout this, have some evidence. No evidence means that people have to assume you're full of shit. However, if you have evidence, then people can turn around and say "Yeah, they're really not right!!" Check your PM's. You should have a PM titled "Warning notice" from "System Message." If you don't have the balls to post that PM, you don't have a case.

Captcha: "battle royale" No, we really haven't gotten to that point, little buddy.

 

[shootthebandit]

Ive been here for a good while (on and off) ive got a multitude of infractions (all deserved). Eamar is also a regular too and all of her posts are within guidelines. She tends to be pretty squeaky clean when it comes to the rules. I personally have never read the CoC but ive learned from experience what I can and cant get away with and its cost me a probation. Eamar is clued up and knows the rules and I think shes one of the best posters on here and she is always pretty reasonable and adds a lot to the discussion. I tend to get along well with her (even if I disagree with her) because of this (she'll probably disagree)

Well, I just saw this and now I'm blushing Thank you, kind sir! And no, I don't disagree at all, I always enjoy our conversations.

Any time. Like I said you know the rules and youve put the effort in to read the TLDR CoC which is a lot more than can be said for most (me included) who just click accept. Its people like yourself (and many others) that make this place great. We have a huge mix of people mostly into videogames but others who are into different stuff and the discussions are usually pretty varied and I always learn something about a hobby/topic I would never have thought about before. As a general message to everyone Id like to say keep it up guys. Its us that make this place what it is and its the mods that keep that standard up.


I dont have a problem with the mods. My health bar is in the yellow (which I deserve) and I accept that. A lot of people here say the mods are shit just as an excuse for their actions. My only qualm with the mods at the minute is that they havent locked this thread although to be honest it shows them in a good light

 

[kalakashi]

The escapist is a site on which it is fine to troll, but not to accuse someone of trolling (or even genuinely politely ask). Snidely insinuating unpleasant things about people is fine and dandy, but explaining in detail the reasons why you think someone is stupid/immoral/etc is not.

The problem with moderation is that it is not consistent, it does not look at context; it follows letters instead of spirits.

This last part is a curiosity; I saw the phrase "I don't want to have to hand out any more infractions" during this thread. By what measure does a mod 'have to' hand out infractions? What are the consequences (for moderators) of a post slipping through the cracks?

 

[DanDanikov]

snip

...So you were part of an internet community for six years and after one, I repeat one instance of unfair moderation you quit the whole thing?

-snip-

The fact that the rule still stands (that is, admitting to using adblock) is pretty much why I quit the community, but there's been other reasons and incidents along the way (the whole paycheck fiasco and losing Extra Credits springs to mind). It isn't just that things are wrong, it's that there's seemingly no way to change them. People are always saying 'fight with your wallet', well, it's the closest thing... and the sad thing is, if it does have an effect, I doubt those who'd notice would correctly attribute it or do anything to solve it.

I still think the community is great, and if any collection of strangers could have a reasonable, well-thought out discussion about the many facets of difficult subjects like adblock, piracy, drugs, human sexuality, sexual assault, or other difficult and controversial topics, it'd probably be the Escapist community (I don't know if that makes you all look good, or just the rest of the internet look bad). I'm not saying anyone would necessarily be right but there would be food for thought.

The core problem is, as mature as the community may be, it's primarily attached to and policed by a business which imposes its own rules out of things like legal requirements and the seeking of profit. Naturally they will endeavour to appear reasonable and be responsive to serious issues they perceive as a threat to the community or their bottom line (pretty much the same thing in their eyes), but ultimately what comes down on high is a business decision and we're left with "accept it or leave"- a sentiment that is offered often. I came to the realization I didn't accept it, so I left, and it really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that people take that choice.

 

[DSK-]

I'm going to give my 2 cents, not that anyone particularly cares.

Over the last couple of years I've been surprised at quite a few warnings, suspensions and bans on the forums.

I fully accept that not everyone has as tough of a skin as I do, but I have seen warnings and suspensions that were particularly light, and posts by some of the more prominent members of the community that are on the strong side left alone.

These are just some of my observations. I know the mods have a tough time of it, and I really don't envy their job

But still, this has been on my mind for a long while

 

[DarkRawen]

I don't mind the mods at all, though, that might be because I post mostly in the Roleplaying forum. I've never had any incidents involving mods, yet at least.

Which makes me a bit curious, to be honest. Are the RP threads less moderated? It certainly seems like that at points. Is this because less people read them/flag them? I mean, there's certainly less posts in those threads that seems like they would be breaking the rules, but there has to be some of them, somewhere.

>_>

<_<

*Not that I mind such a thing, of course *

Perhaps we just report less people, seeing as spam usually is taken care of rather quickly.

But yeah, I've never seen a post that I thought was unfairly given a warning/ban/stuff like that for, some were a bit borderline, but I haven't really seen anything that looked like outright abuse of powers.

 

[lacktheknack]

My only qualm with the mods at the minute is that they havent locked this thread although to be honest it shows them in a good light

One mod (I dunno who) actually did sink this thread (not lock it), but another mod (not saying who) unsunk it.

I'm also pretty amazed that the thread still lives, but as long as people don't start committing en mass forum seppuku (only one so far!), there's no real reason for them to lock it.

 

[shootthebandit]

My only qualm with the mods at the minute is that they havent locked this thread although to be honest it shows them in a good light

One mod (I dunno who) actually did sink this thread (not lock it), but another mod (not saying who) unsunk it.

I'm also pretty amazed that the thread still lives, but as long as people don't start committing en mass forum seppuku (only one so far!), there's no real reason for them to lock it.

I forgot you made this to point out people complaining. At the time of my comment I thought it was just people complaining

 

[Vareoth]

While I mostly agree with you I will also say (please don't take this personally) that I do not need someone telling me whether or not I should agree with general mod behaviour. I'm perfectly able to judge this myself. The mods are not omnipotent and they do make mistakes. They are only human after all.

Even so, I have almost naught but good to say at the way this forum is being moderated. They abide by a clear set of rules and do so amicably and resolutely. I've only been in a singular instance where I disagreed with a warning I received but in the end it is up to them to decide on the correct course of action. And that's the way things should be and people must accept that.

And the only rule I fundamentally disagree with is the Adblock one. That rule itself ultimately does more damage than whatever purpose it serves. But it's not up to the mods themselves to decide whether or not a rule is worth enforcing.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

As much as I completely agree that pointless whining about moderators is silly, these times when the biggest users on the site sing their praises aren't really all that helpful.

It feels like a major executive in a company cheering for the board of directors of said company. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad, just that it's an odd position.

Not really. It shouldn't be surprising that the people who have been here the longest are the ones who work well with the mods and ruleset.

Well of course, but it also calls into question the objectivity of the arguments. Especially since it's most often one of you fellows that makes these threads.

 

[lacktheknack]

As much as I completely agree that pointless whining about moderators is silly, these times when the biggest users on the site sing their praises aren't really all that helpful.

It feels like a major executive in a company cheering for the board of directors of said company. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad, just that it's an odd position.

Not really. It shouldn't be surprising that the people who have been here the longest are the ones who work well with the mods and ruleset.

Well of course, but it also calls into question the objectivity of the arguments. Especially since it's most often one of you fellows that makes these threads.

Oh, I never claimed to be objective myself. The "arguments" are not objective arguments, they're objective facts. No amount of excellent debate and arguing is going to change that the mods are the wrong channel for people's frustrations with the rules, which was the point of the thread.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

As much as I completely agree that pointless whining about moderators is silly, these times when the biggest users on the site sing their praises aren't really all that helpful.

It feels like a major executive in a company cheering for the board of directors of said company. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad, just that it's an odd position.

Not really. It shouldn't be surprising that the people who have been here the longest are the ones who work well with the mods and ruleset.

Well of course, but it also calls into question the objectivity of the arguments. Especially since it's most often one of you fellows that makes these threads.

The "arguments" are not objective arguments, they're objective facts.

Well, to a point.

The fact that this thread is 5 pages long is evidence that at least [i/]some[/i] of the things you said are debatable.

 

[lacktheknack]

As much as I completely agree that pointless whining about moderators is silly, these times when the biggest users on the site sing their praises aren't really all that helpful.

It feels like a major executive in a company cheering for the board of directors of said company. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad, just that it's an odd position.

Not really. It shouldn't be surprising that the people who have been here the longest are the ones who work well with the mods and ruleset.

Well of course, but it also calls into question the objectivity of the arguments. Especially since it's most often one of you fellows that makes these threads.

The "arguments" are not objective arguments, they're objective facts.

Well, to a point.

The fact that this thread is 5 pages long is evidence that at least [i/]some[/i] of the things you said are debatable.

If you'd like to point them out, I'd be interested. I'm not exactly sure how this thread managed to hit five pages of really-not-that-much-content.

 

[Ieyke]

My complaint with the mods is arbitrary standards of "rudeness", where apparently sarcasm containing no insults is considered rude.
Somewhat hilariously, flagging my sarcasm as "rude" marks it as legitimate and something the other person should feel insulted by, and confirms that the moderator understands that the person I was being sarcastic to WAS an idiot.
Had my post not been flagged, it would've just been me sarcastically telling someone not to believe everything they read on the internet.

In effect, I got a Warning because the Moderator turned my sarcastic comment into an insult....which, while funny, is BS.


Also, the whole "Low Content" thing, while being good for blocking spambots, I guess, is pretty completely and massively stupid when it comes to being able to make concise points like a competent human being.

 

[DoPo]

Also, the whole "Low Content" thing, while being good for blocking spambots, I guess, is pretty completely and massively stupid when it comes to being able to make concise points like a competent human being.

Making "a concise points like a competent human being" would, actually, not ding the low content post. I do not understand how can this keep being misunderstood after being reiterated so many times: "low content" does not mean "too few words" (and simply having X amount of words doesn't actually make a "full content" post). It is basically to stop meaningless posts like "^ This", "First!", "Yes", "LOL", and other similar things. This includes "What this person said", "I post first in this thread", etc which would be longer rewordings of the same. Posts such as these are clutter and entirely meaningless in the context of a discussion. Hence "low content" as they don't have any. If one does make a point in under 10 words (or whatever), then the post, by definition, is not low content. On the other hand, it's rare to find posts with under 10 words making a point, simply because if one does make the barest amount of effort, they'd usually be able to come up with at least two sentences about that point.

 

[Darks63]

My complaint with the mods is arbitrary standards of "rudeness", where apparently sarcasm containing no insults is considered rude.
Somewhat hilariously, flagging my sarcasm as "rude" marks it as legitimate and something the other person should feel insulted by, and confirms that the moderator understands that the person I was being sarcastic to WAS an idiot.
Had my post not been flagged, it would've just been me sarcastically telling someone not to believe everything they read on the internet.

In effect, I got a Warning because the Moderator turned my sarcastic comment into an insult....which, while funny, is BS.

This problem is not a new one on the Internet though. Sarcasm relies on tells that don't translate to text so when you use it online people will take your words and twist it whatever way their personal biases lean. This is why having a snarky sense of humor can be problematic on the net since people can easily think you're being snide and rude instead of light-hearted and funny.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

My brief experience being a mod on another site taught me that it's a thankless task, which is really only worth it if you are genuinely keen to keep that particular online community together. In that case, I quickly came to the conclusion that I would rather leave.

Seriously, Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is a pretty good analogy for what being a mod is like.

 

[Ieyke]

Also, the whole "Low Content" thing, while being good for blocking spambots, I guess, is pretty completely and massively stupid when it comes to being able to make concise points like a competent human being.

Making "a concise points like a competent human being" would, actually, not ding the low content post. I do not understand how can this keep being misunderstood after being reiterated so many times: "low content" does not mean "too few words" (and simply having X amount of words doesn't actually make a "full content" post). It is basically to stop meaningless posts like "^ This", "First!", "Yes", "LOL", and other similar things. This includes "What this person said", "I post first in this thread", etc which would be longer rewordings of the same. Posts such as these are clutter and entirely meaningless in the context of a discussion. Hence "low content" as they don't have any. If one does make a point in under 10 words (or whatever), then the post, by definition, is not low content. On the other hand, it's rare to find posts with under 10 words making a point, simply because if one does make the barest amount of effort, they'd usually be able to come up with at least two sentences about that point.

Unfortunately, that's not true of any of the things I got Low Content warnings on recently.
I can make a point in a few words and often more powerfully than any greater number of words would do. What makes that really damn annoying is that I'm ordinarily verbose and have trouble being concise.
I CAN pointlessly extend a complete thought of a few words out to hundreds of words worth of "padding" without adding any content, and it would NEVER EVER get flagged....but I rather not sound like so many others who waste everyone's time making a lot of redundant noise.