Let me clearly address your point about inconsistency regarding your warning vs. Furball’s infraction. In the collective view of the moderation team, Furball deserved an infraction instead of a warning because he was coming off a ban and jumped right into the type of posting that had resulted in his banning to begin with. You obviously feel that he should’ve been given a warning and his ban should’ve had no impact on his subsequent posting. We’ve now debated this issue extensively and we obviously disagree. Therefore, we’re choosing to move on as the infraction will not be reversed. If you insist on bringing this up over and over and we don’t respond, that doesn’t mean we don’t have a justification. We’ve already provided it – you disagree with it, there’s nothing further to debate and hence we consider the matter closed.
We DO address opposing points. This thread is 49 pages long BECAUSE we have addressed opposing points. GIMH – I say this with all due respect, but you are very stubborn in your opinions and do not budge from them. We’ve been answering your points about consistency and your perception of poor moderation for pages upon pages and through emails. Each time we do, we end up in circular arguments as you basically refuse to accept any of our points and keep repeating yours. It’s clear that we have a disagreement about moderation. There’s no point in getting into another 49 page debate repeating the same points that were made in the previous 49. Eventually one tires of this, concludes that there is a disagreement that won't be resolved, and moves on. You seem to think that when that happens, you have “won” your argument and we are simply not responding because you have stumped us.
Fair enough. If you took offense to that, I apologize.
That's complete bull****.
Yeah.
The worst part is to see the baiting replies from some of the folks like Burgey and GIMH, who are generally very good posters, carry on to the next thread, just because that guy is posting there...
At risk of making us look a bit divided, I'd have had no problem with the post if he didn't put the mean person thing in it. Calling a post crap (or horse ****, or whatever) should be allowed IMO. Posting your opinion of another member shouldn't be accepted if it's negative and likely to provoke though.
There isn't going to be consistency between warnings and infractions. There's no such thing as a warn-able offence as such; we give out warnings when we feel there are mitigating circumstances. The same thing isn't going to get a warning all the time though or the warning would be pointless; warning one member for the same thing over and over again would accomplish never. We've adopted a lot of warnings so far to give people the benefit of the doubt when we think they just don't quite understand the new system and thought their post would be okay. Furball having been given infractions for similar things already to the point of being banned meant that we were no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We'll give out less and less warnings over time.
Well, I'm telling you know, if someone comes to us with "I can't get an infraction because so and so did something vaguely similar and didn't get one" we're going to be ignoring it. Every time.
So why am I sitting with 5 extra points?
