The issue is not voting on who gets an infraction or whether a post gets deleted. (I don’t think any post should be deleted unless its out and out offensive, rude, or targeted at someone in a hateful manner)
The suggestion is to allow some forum moderation through the use of post ratings and to replace deleted posts and threads with a simple comment IN the thread saying it’s a bad post and received an infraction.
Issues that are potential libelous etc... remove.. but with a comment
I think we’ve established that when you “move” a thread all the posters lose access to it.
I’ve had at least 5 posts I have made “vanish”. I like to think my time is not free. To me, losing my post is personally insulting if my post was a thoughtful response.
Then perhaps the rules need to be consolidated and made clearer. Seriously. Have you seen appraisals at this place and matched them up to appraisal “rules”?
Inconsistency.... there’s a danger in that. I will now religiously flag all posts by moderators that I think are inappropriate. They are numerous (not you or ~mm~ - you guys actually are catching heat for others by being nice enough to try and make sense)
Why do you assume we don’t.
Has usualcliche shared his reasoning with you? with ~mm~ with RJ?
I infer from the posts that you and ~mm~ know what the issue is and just aren’t sharing it for privacy reasons. If so, do you agree with a 20pt infraction ? If you don’t then arguing the corollary - assume it was justified - is no better. imho.
For the record:
You can freely discuss all my infractions with anyone.
Yes. This is a fact. It is human nature. It is the way things work.
Why do you think BP, The Whitehouse spend so much money on spin?
If you are not transparent in how rules are applied then it becomes very confusing for everyone. I’m not saying there IS a conspiracy because of a lack of transparency, I am saying conspiracy IS created when there is a lack of conspiracy.
It’s not a hard concept.
I believe people are questioning the reasons for a ban and not the specifics. Maybe the two cannot be appropriately separated. I personally want know why usualcliche chose to ban tDS and how much review there is. If it is reviewed by other moderators who believe the ban is justified then fair enough. I don’t like that it’s based on one opinion when the ban is total. If it is under review... then just say, “it’s under review”. This would save a lot of the nonsense in this thread.
I still think that there is room for improvement in the manner the forum is moderated.
There's a difference between a duplicate account, shill bidding, 1 post spam, and someone getting baited. At least 5 points of mine were because of a "report" where I didn't think the post was all that bad... but I was baited. I didn't get a warning. Just deleted post and 5 points. I was rude. Yep. I was. But I don't think it was worth 5 points. I reported an "unnamed" person about 3-4 times - each time their post was within the rules.. i.e. overtly annoying is ok. "rude" is not.
This is the opposite of a lynchmob. This is people looking to see what they can do to help a person they like out.
I’ve said I’d like to know why there is no transparency when it obviously causes threads like this. What I think is sad ? This is a suggestions subforum. So far, any suggestion I make is mocked by the mods.
Privacy laws ? I’m asking to have a system whereby infractions are made more public/transparent. If tDS had been logging on as three users, shill bidding and conning people then I want him banned- and YES I do WANT to know it.
Then you have much more to learn than your 5 1/2 years experience as a 15 year old.
Having now seen what Vito has done and the manner in which he was banned.. and assuming that it was the truth.. the manner and way in which this happened is nothing short of disgraceful.
I simply will not post here anymore until he's reinstated (and my one ongoing auction is complete) or it is clear that more than one moderator believes the ban was warranted. I don’t even need specifics.
If you or or ~mm~ or someone other than usualcliche can say “Yes. I agree” the offense was a 20 pt offense then i will metaphorically eat my hat.
My assumption is that the 20 pt special warning under review is a category meaning that is is, indeed, under review.
What I find amusing is that overall tDS has less infractions than me!? WTF?
