Disappointed in moderation of "Animals and Pets"

Strokesfan

I just posted regarding my disappointment at the moderation of the "Animals and Pets" section. I posted it here also because it was suggested.

My issue was disappointment at reading a thread where a poster was banned but far more provocative posters received a "wink" from the moderator. I don't know if I should name the moderator but the thread is locked and entitled "Dogo argentina" in the Animals and Pets forum.

This was my response in that forum and I am in no way connected to the banned poster.


I often come in and read the posts in this category and in no other forum is there such unequal treatment of posters by moderators.

I realise that alot of people here are acquintances and know each other possibly outside of boards but what I just read made me quite disappointed in boards.

I don't know the OP in the thread titled 'dogo argentina' (sic) but reading through the thread I thought it was unfair they were banned. Clearly reading over the posts - the OP displayed some sarcasm in his initial posts but then a poster called "Bambi" wrote a message referencing muppets and mickeys which was offensive by suggestion. I thought the poster tried to recover the situation but then was quickly ganged up on resulting in his being banned.

The forum is entitled Animal and Pet issues and from what I see anyone that posts who is interested in buying a dog rather than rescuing a dog is subjected to a barage of abuse. Maybe the category should be renamed Rescued Animals and Pets. I understand this is a serious problem but we cannot attack every poster looking for information.

I feel some posters here are highly provocative and I don't mean to point to anyone in particular (and am not referring to the poster previously mentioned). Boards is a source of information and a forum for discussion - I think poor moderation - where people are banned and others who try to push all the wrong buttons are clearly overlooked. In the particular thread - a "wink" even appears in response to their provocative comment.

This message was not meant to be offensive or threatening but I just wanted to express my disappointment about how this particular section of boards operates. I have the upmost respect for people involved in animal welfare and dog rescues but We cannot judge people based on one sentence.




I feel that moderation is deteriorating on boards with friends of mods gaining immunity from being banned and allowed to be as offensive as they like. It's a shame because it turns people off certain forums.

Ruu_Old

Have you contacted the moderator via PM (or was the above the PM you wrote?) regarding this issue to try and sort it out before posting here? I go there often but haven't read that particular thread, I will now though.

edit: okay the user was being abusive and the others users were warned but should have kept it on topic.

WhiteWashMan

Strokesfan wrote:

I just posted regarding my disappointment at the moderation of the "Animals and Pets" section.

My issue was disappointment at reading a thread where a poster was banned but far more provocative posters received a "wink" from the moderator. I don't know if I should name the moderator but the thread is locked and entitled "Dogo argentina" in the Animals and Pets forum.

This was my response and I am in no way connected to the banned poster.

I often come in and read the posts in this category and in no other forum is there such unequal treatment of posters by moderators.

I realise that alot of people here are acquintances and know each other possibly outside of boards but what I just read made me quite disappointed in boards.

I don't know the OP in the thread titled 'dogo argentina' (sic) but reading through the thread I thought it was unfair they were banned. Clearly reading over the posts - the OP displayed some sarcasm in his initial posts but then a poster called "Bambi" wrote a message referencing muppets and mickeys which was offensive by suggestion. I thought the poster tried to recover the situation but then was quickly ganged up on resulting in his being banned.

The forum is entitled Animal and Pet issues and from what I see anyone that posts who is interested in buying a dog rather than rescuing a dog is subjected to a barage of abuse. Maybe the category should be renamed Rescued Animals and Pets. I understand this is a serious problem but we cannot attack every poster looking for information.

I feel some posters here are highly provocative and I don't mean to point to anyone in particular (and am not referring to the poster previously mentioned). Boards is a source of information and a forum for discussion - I think poor moderation - where people are banned and others who try to push all the wrong buttons are clearly overlooked. In the particular thread - a "wink" even appears in response to their provocative comment.

This message was not meant to be offensive or threatening but I just wanted to express my disappointment about how this particular section of boards operates. I have the upmost respect for people involved in animal welfare and dog rescues but We cannot judge people based on one sentence.




I feel that moderation is deteriorating on boards with friends of mods gaining immunity from being banned and allowed to be as offensive as they like. It's a shame because it turns people off certain forums.

ok, a couple of things.

youve been on boards for approx 4 months.
now, that doesnt mean your opinion is any less or any more, but im curious as to what you base your 'deteriorating' mod standards.

as for the rest of your complaint, if you have something to say and something to complain about, then do it.
i fail to understand this whole reduction of letter size.

if you are trying to say something, then i suggest you link to the posts and posters in question.
if there is an issue in a forum, then i suggest you pm the moderator, and if you feel you cannot do that, then you should pm the cat mod.

now, until there are links etc, im not even going to look at this, but what i would say is that mods are not infallable. and if there are people who contribute on a regular basis, they will be given prefernce over people who 'float' into a forum. im not saying its right or wrong, its just a fact.
but since i have no idea exactly what the case scenario is here, i cant really give you anything better than that.

by the way, if youre going to make a copmplaint, make it succinct and to the point. i actually have no idea what your 5 paragraphs of whittle are about. ive read it twice, and i still dont understand. maybe im dim, and thats my problem, but can you explain it a bit more?

Strokesfan

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054987087

I'm not going to be stirred so I'm leaving it at that. The smaller font was to show what I posted in the actual forum - perhaps italics would have been more appropriate but that's not really the point.

wyndham

My eyes hurt.

seamus

Looks reasonable to me mate.

There was some general abuse, people were warned to keep in on-topic. People were warned a second time to keep it on-topic, the threat of a ban was even made clear.

eldanny then obviously persisted, resulting in a ban.

Smilies or not, the logic seems solid to me.

DublinWriter

WhiteWashMan wrote:

by the way, if youre going to make a copmplaint, make it succinct and to the point. i actually have no idea what your 5 paragraphs of whittle are about.

I agree. I couldn't make out what your 6 paragraphs of whittle were about either.

I'm confused.

Strokesfan

I'm objective and I feel that worse comments were tolerated towards the OP - it looks quite clear to me. All that business of implying someone looking for that dog was a "muppet looking for an extension of their willy"???

I thought that was quite provocative language and the poster didn't get banned for it. The OP seemed to be trying to keep calm enough. I think it's a shame and I would like to make that point.

I haven't got a problem with Mods in general whether you back each other up or not - I just thought it was dealt with unfairly.

GuanYin

Ahh Mr. Spinny has a long history of weird moderation back from his A/M/D days - nothing to be surprised about.

He probably objects to dogs on the basis of them being man's best friend.

seamus

I'm not going to say that biase doesn't exist, cos that would be stupid. The OP, through his language in each of his posts (excluding the first one) would ring alarm bells in most moderators' heads as "this guy is going to act like a bit of a pratt". He instantly went on the offensive, thus losing any real chance of being treated like the aggreived party.
Bambi has indeed been here longer, and besides having learned the art of phrasing one's post so it doesn't appear like you're specifically abusing someone, he has also earned enough respect and kudos to get away with what are tongue-in-cheek advisory posts.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that the slate was wiped clean for all parties to cop on, but the OP decided that wasn't for him. Since I didn't make the decision, you'll need to PM the moderator if you want to discuss the issue in any more depth.

WhiteWashMan

Strokesfan wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054987087

I'm not going to be stirred so I'm leaving it at that.

no actually.

its not a case of being stirred. i have given you a pretty reasonable request, and you are passing it off as mods sticking up for each other. thats too easy. i want you to go through what your issue is.
you do that and i will take you seriously.
im not interested that you copied what you said somewhere else.

if you have an issue, then i expect you to present the facts as they are, not a couple of paragraphs of subjective opinion. negative subjective opinion os called whinging in these parts.

Strokesfan wrote:

The smaller font was to show what I posted in the actual forum

great. that proves what exactly?

Strokesfan wrote:

- perhaps italics would have been more appropriate but that's not really the point.

why, would it make your point more worthwhile or poignent?

Strokesfan wrote:

I'm objective and I feel that worse comments were tolerated towards the OP - it looks quite clear to me. All that business of implying someone looking for that dog was a "muppet looking for an extension of their willy"???.

then why not just say all this in your original post.
like i said, try and be more succinct, and if you are making a complaint, then make one. dont waffle on about the evils of the world.

Strokesfan wrote:

I thought that was quite provocative language and the poster didn't get banned for it.

and? this is an issue for you?
why?

Strokesfan wrote:

The OP seemed to be trying to keep calm enough. I think it's a shame and I would like to make that point.

what, that the op of the thread on the pets forum was clam, but you decided that you would fight their corner and complain here?

Strokesfan wrote:

I haven't got a problem with Mods in general whether you back each other up or not - I just thought it was dealt with unfairly.

back each other up?

you know, just becuase many people come out with the same opinion does not imply there is either 'backing up' or brian washing going on. it may be that there is a thread of common sense runnnign though the opinions.
perhaps even you might find that just becuse you make a complaint, does not neccassarily mean you are right and correct. while you are completely free to complain, it doesnt mean that everyone else agrees with you. in fact, it doesnt mean that anyone else has to agree with you. you may actualyl find yourself on your own in your opinion.
now, im not saying this is the case, but perhaps you might remember that in future before you go tarring everyone with the same brush.
after all, we are free to make our own decisions here. just the same way you are free to make your comaplaints.

Strokesfan wrote:

I just thought it was dealt with unfairly.

then concentrate on that instead of trying to sidetrack into other things which have little or no relevance.
seriosuly. you start slagging off other people, youre going to get nowhere fast.

no, how about you lay out your complain clearly so the rest of us can understand what youre talking about?

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote:

ok, a couple of things.

youve been on boards for approx 4 months.
now, that doesnt mean your opinion is any less or any more, but im curious as to what you base your 'deteriorating' mod standards.

I've been around here a lot longer than 4 months and I agree with the OP, The standard of moderation on certain forums is very poor and inconsistant. If a mod takes a personal dislike to you or you are forceful with your opinions you are deemed a disruptive influence and likely to be banned for very little . Some moderators here are directing the course of discussion rather that facilitating it and moderating what is actually posted.

Strokesfan

WhiteWashMan, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I posted the link - the OP in the original thread was sarcastic but I thought it was unfair he was banned. I am just citing it as an example of poor moderation in this case.

I'm not particularly fighting their corner - I am pointing it out - as is my right to do so. I do not feel the need to justify everything I already wrote because it's pretty simple and self-explanatory. The poster was looking for information, got no relevant help, other posters replied provocatively then all patted themselves on the back, OP got banned for getting affronted...

No offence but you might be trying to overanalyze some of my sentences.

Faith

Strokesfan - the reason the OP in that thread was banned was because he repeatedly ignored the moderator's warning and continued to bring the thread off-topic and he became abusive. The other posters were not abusive and stayed on topic, therefore were not banned. Had, for example, Bambi come back and started adding insults to the thread with no constructive advice, he/she too would have been liable to be banned.

It's as simple as that.

hullaballoo

The Muppet wrote:

I've been around here a lot longer than 4 months and I agree with the OP, The standard of moderation on certain forums is very poor and inconsistant. If a mod takes a personal dislike to you or you are forceful with your opinions you are deemed a disruptive influence and likely to be banned for very little . Some moderators here are directing the course of discussion rather that facilitating it and moderating what is actually posted.

Wait a minute, mods aren't robots. We're not programmed to stick to specific logical steps like robots either. We have a reasonably demanding job to do and we don't get paid for it. Now for most mods, we enjoy the work. We're here because we have an interest in the subject-matter in question, and we want to stimulate discussion of it.

We do so as best we can, but we're not robots.

I was going to leave it there, but I think I'd better elaborate. We have to make decisions about how we stimulate debate, and how we try to keep as many people happy and interested as we can. If there is something that's happening that makes people feel that "there's no point in reading the forum anymore" or that there's nothing that can be said to certain people to enable enlightened or rational debate, then we try to do something about it.

Given that our only real* powers in dealing with problems like this are editing/deleting/banning, then we pick from those. Editing/deleting is pointless and intrusive and people would generally be happier if we dealt with the problem another way. So we use the ban. It's not pretty, but it does the job where there are sometimes no other options.

It works too. I've seen it happen plenty of times that posters who come back from a ban become very good contributors to debate, and vigilant against other problematic posters.

To address the inconsistency issue: why do you think there might be inconsistency? I presume you're talking about the inconsitency between one poster being banned for posting abuse, and another, more longer-standing member not being banned. The answer is simple enough if you devote about 0.2 second's thought to it. Banning a new user is a better option because you're letting them know, "look, that's not the way we operate around here. Maybe you could take some time out of this forum and just read it so that when your ban is up, you'll know the story". Whereas long-term posters should be aware of the way it works.

Why shouldn't they be banned, then? If they contribute regularly, and generally in a useful way, then why shouldn't they be given a bit of leeway to get annoyed at people who do something they shouldn't? I mean, when a spambot posts links to porn and someone calls them a sick twisted freak of nature, it would be highly irrational to ban them for it.

With regard to the suggestion that some mods are directing the course of conversation: who? I don't know of any mods who direct the course of conversation. You can't make wild accusatory statements like that without some manner of backup. Some evidence. Some examples. Some flesh to your argument.

Just in case you try to accuse me of attacking your post, The Muppet, I'm not. I'm highlighting yours because it's reflective of a recurring theme among posters here that they're being oppressed by mods who are trying their best to run a forum.

*Once discussion (maybe via PM, maybe on the thread in question) have been exhausted.

Strokesfan

Faith - not alot of the thread I'm referring to was "on-topic" - it seems like different rules for different people.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

FranknFurter

Faith wrote:

Strokesfan - the reason the OP in that thread was banned was because he repeatedly ignored the moderator's warning and continued to bring the thread off-topic and he became abusive. The other posters were not abusive and stayed on topic, therefore were not banned. Had, for example, Bambi come back and started adding insults to the thread with no constructive advice, he/she too would have been liable to be banned.

It's as simple as that.

It really is.
Warnings to stay on topic were given and the user who ignored said warning was banned for one week as I had said I would. He made that choice as far as I am concerned.
Bambi made the choice to heed the warning and stay on topic and therefore was not banned.

Then I specifically said....
" I will close the thread and issue a weeks ban to anyone else posting off topic on this thread."
He did and he got a week's ban as warned.

He chose not to start a new thread on the NEW topic he seemed so eager to debate. His call. Everybody else understood it and left it, he did not.

And yes, I am definitely going to be slightly more lenient with a poster who has been around for four years and is usually reasonable, than with a poster who has just joined and has a total of 9 posts. To me thats logical.

Lastly, strokesfan if you have a problem with me (or any other mod) I suggest you at least PM the mod first with your issue.
I would have answered any questions you may have had.
You may or may not realise it, but when there is a problem thread such as that a lot of communication with the people involved goes on via PM and is not always in the thread, they would be ridiculously messy otherwise.

B

[I would have posted earlier but I'm usually only online 11pm-5am or so].

The Hill Billy

As someone who flits around between numerous fora & is familiar with quite a number of moderating styles - I don't see that FnF was being particularly strict or biased in giving the ban to eldanny. Also I don't think that FnF was being excessively lenient in not banning the more established users for that matter.

Talliesin

And the loss of someone who can't understand "I won't warn you again" from a forum for a week is a bad thing, why?

Hellrazer

Strokesfans--Im going to be smart here and ask why you`ve even bothered to complain about a thread that you didnt even post in???

Id understand if you were the one hard done by,but you werent so why does it bother you so much.

Ive been moderating Pets/animals since it started and so far this is the only complaint Ive seen against it and its a complaint which doesnt affect you in any way.

If you have a problem with moderating that did affect you then Id understand completely but to be totally honest I dont get this.

Richie

The Muppet

Hellrazer wrote:

Strokesfans--Im going to be smart here and ask why you`ve even bothered to complain about a thread that you didnt even post in???

Id understand if you were the one hard done by,but you werent so why does it bother you so much.

Ive been moderating Pets/animals since it started and so far this is the only complaint Ive seen against it and its a complaint which doesnt affect you in any way.

If you have a problem with moderating that did affect you then Id understand completely but to be totally honest I dont get this.

Richie

How is that relevant? You don't have to post in a thread to form an opinion on the content of it. The op is giving feedback on something he percieves as unjust afaik that is one of the objectives of this forum.

WhiteWashMan

Strokesfan wrote:

WhiteWashMan, I'm not going to argue with you about this. I posted the link - the OP in the original thread was sarcastic but I thought it was unfair he was banned. I am just citing it as an example of poor moderation in this case.
.

im not looking for an arguement, im asking you to present whatever it is oyu are complaining about in a manner that people can understand.

im still at a loss as to what the problem is.

Strokesfan wrote:

.

I'm not particularly fighting their corner - I am pointing it out - as is my right to do so. I do not feel the need to justify everything I already wrote because it's pretty simple and self-explanatory. The poster was looking for information, got no relevant help, other posters replied provocatively then all patted themselves on the back, OP got banned for getting affronted....

what exacly is that you are looking for. youve made a complaint, but....

its like going into macdonalds wher eyou just bought a burger, going up to the counter and saying 'hey, i dont like this burger...' and then staring at the counter staff.

what are you looking for?
whats the point?

Strokesfan wrote:

No offence but you might be trying to overanalyze some of my sentences.

you give yourself too much credit. im simply asking you to be more explainatory. if you wont, then why should anyone else take the time out to understand what youre trying to say?

the muppet wrote:

I've been around here a lot longer than 4 months and I agree with the OP, The standard of moderation on certain forums is very poor and inconsistant. If a mod takes a personal dislike to you or you are forceful with your opinions you are deemed a disruptive influence and likely to be banned for very little . Some moderators here are directing the course of discussion rather that facilitating it and moderating what is actually posted

but thats a different scenario, so i fail to see what throwing your weight into this debate adds.

either way, im sure youre not wrong, and i have my own personal view on the moderation of certain fora, but what do you suggest is done?

i hate, i just hate people that join in a thread to complain, but dont offer anything significant other than to moan. you have a complaint, then great, but what do figure is a solution?
and if you dont have a solution, then at least tell us what you think is the correct way in your mind for things to happen.

after all, if i complain about that burger in mcdonalds, im likely to say what the problem is and why i dont like the burger and then ask for another one.

or my money back and leave.



by the way, my own personal view on this exact issue here is not too distant from the OP, but to facilitate a useful discussion, there are a few things that needs to happen.
personally, i really fail to see the point in banning people for 'off-topic discussion'. i think tis a useless and patronising rule and adds nothing to forum.

Gordon

The Muppet wrote:

How is that relevant? You don't have to post in a thread to form an opinion on the content of it. The op is giving feedback on something he percieves as unjust afaik that is one of the objectives of this forum.

I think that's fair fwiw, it does happen a great deal that when someone comes here with a problem due to being banned from a forum you will get mods saying:
"I bet you wouldn't be complaining about this if it was someone else being banned".

Personally I think it's nice that other users feel they can comment on such perceived problems whether or not their points are valid.

FranknFurter

The OP never bothered PM'ing me about his issue, nor has he since.
As far as I am concerned if he had thought it was such a big deal surely he would have by now?
I would have been happy to answer any concerns he may have had as well as I could in an appropriate manner.
But he did'nt, so all I can conclude is that he just wanted to stir. Thats somthing I find it difficult to respect.

It's simple, a warning was given to a member, twice, and ignored. He was informed that ignoring it again would result in a one week ban. He did and it did.
Thats not that hard to understand strokesfan.

B

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote:

but thats a different scenario, so i fail to see what throwing your weight into this debate adds.

either way, im sure youre not wrong, and i have my own personal view on the moderation of certain fora, but what do you suggest is done?

i hate, i just hate people that join in a thread to complain, but dont offer anything significant other than to moan. you have a complaint, then great, but what do figure is a solution?
and if you dont have a solution, then at least tell us what you think is the correct way in your mind for things to happen.

after all, if i complain about that burger in mcdonalds, im likely to say what the problem is and why i dont like the burger and then ask for another one.

or my money back and leave.



by the way, my own personal view on this exact issue here is not too distant from the OP, but to facilitate a useful discussion, there are a few things that needs to happen.
personally, i really fail to see the point in banning people for 'off-topic discussion'. i think tis a useless and patronising rule and adds nothing to forum.

I wasn't aware I had any weight around here . I just happen to agree with the OP which is why I joined the discussion.

What I referred to is another scenario which is why I didn't elaborate when asked to do so above. I know you are aware of the incident/decision I am referring to. IMO there is falling off in the standard of moderation on a few forums here.

Considering your last statement is it fair to indefinitely ban a user for alledgedly going off topic on a thread ?

Funny I have a dislike for people who join a thread to support a decision when their main interest appears to be to raise their own profile and standing with the powers that be here. I,m not surprised that happens though as it appears to be an advantageous tactic for some users.

What to do? Police the Police independently or as a community, have a proper appeal procedure rather than users having to run the gauntlet of the mod wannabe's in the feedback forum .

Why not use the legal discussion forum or somewhere similar to hear both sides a disputed decision and then let the whole community decide whether a decision was just or unjust. That may be a stupid idea, I've had a tough day and it's off the top of my head .

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote:

Considering your last statement is it fair to indefinitely ban a user for alledgedly going off topic on a thread ?

personally, i dont think so, but then again, what i say doesnt matter

The Muppet wrote:

Funny I have a dislike for people who join a thread to support a decision when their main interest appears to be to raise their own profile and standing with the powers that be here. I,m not surprised that happens though as it appears to be an advantageous tactic for some users.

well, i hardly think i need my profile raised, nor do i feel the need to be sycophantic to the admins. on the other hand, i think there are a lot of people who *do* exactly what you say in order to gain further standing with mods, admin etc.
although im not sure why. i never felt affinity with people who hold the same opinions as me. why would i? i mean, i dont consider myeslf the brother of people who like lasagne.
yes, i like lasagne, ok

The Muppet wrote:

What to do? Police the Police independently or as a community, have a proper appeal procedure rather than users having to run the gauntlet of the mod wannabe's in the feedback forum .

what way do you want things to go?
i find that the more proceedures and processes that are brought in to something, the more common sense goes out the window.
and then you start getting loopholes, and the hole thing becomes a farce.

this is a community. mods should be allowed free reign to be sensible.
some mods are more sensible than others.
the aim is to make 99% of the people happy 99% of the time.
they are. the number of complaints becasuse of something pretty small and inconsequential in the grnad scheme of things is farily minimal, and they are handled individually.

there is no need for some grand process to be put in place. unless you want to spend days at a time on here reading reposts and depositions and transcripts of events.
doesnt blow my skirt up it has to be said.

The Muppet

If what you say doesn't matter what chance do users in general have in trying to get unfair decision overturned. It not worth the hassle trying and just leaves a bad taste about the procedures on the site TBH.

I wasn't haveing a pop at your profile but as you say there a quite a few users on this forum jockeying for position. Again I agree with you about not caring for people who share the same opinion as myself luckily you are "in" well enough that you can afford to be forcuful with your opinion and not get banned for it. Some users are not in that position and holding strong on their opinion can lead to the being accused of being a disruptive influence and getting unfair bans. Unfortunatly some users and mods (not you)appear to think that if you express a different opinion that they do you are trying to cause trouble or start an argument with them.



As I said my suggestion was off the top of my head, having given it a little more though I can see drawbacks with it but I think it could be workable for some contentious decisions with a little effort. With proper guidelines there is no need for it to take days. EG One post from the Mod outlining the reason for the ban, One post fro a reply from the banned user and a poll open for a set time to adjudicate . A day max could do it.

Talliesin

So, I'm going to have to do this for every little git who signs up and posts "CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE: www.example.com/~yetAnotherTosser it good website you enjoy! - word 0ut!"

Eh, no.

The Muppet

Talliesin wrote:

So, I'm going to have to do this for every little git who signs up and posts "CHECK OUT MY WEBSITE: www.example.com/~yetAnotherTosser it good website you enjoy! - word 0ut!"

Eh, no.

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it would be suitable for "some" contentious bans. The ones that usally turn up here and can take take days to deal with . The type of user you refer would be unlikely to appeal, I havn't seen much on feedback from the scenario you highlighted

I understand why some mods would be unhappy using such a system but I think some form of orgainsed appeals procedure may be welcomed by the community as a whole.

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote:

I understand why some mods would be unhappy using such a system but I think some form of orgainsed appeals procedure may be welcomed by the community as a whole.

the problem with 'organised appeals' is that people will get the idea that they have a 'right' to appeal, and that no matter what has happened, that they have a 'right' to fight for something, when really, at the end of the day, if someone is a disruptive force in a forum, they should really be removed.

read carefully into disruptive though. im not talking about holding different opinions. im actually talking about being disruptive.

be it right or wrong, its up to different mods to decide at what point someone is disruptive.
personally, i ban on site anyone being directly abusive. i dont generally ban for trolling, off topicness, random other things, unless they really get on my tits. at that point, i know that someone is being disruptive.

in some forums, people get banned for posting 'lol'.

what you are suggesting is that someone gets to waste their own unpaid precious time on people who are going to scream and shout anyway.
and most of the time, those people are trolling anyway, so why would you waste peoples time like that? theres no reason for it.

no, at the moment, there is no reason for an 'organised' anything, becuase people will abuse it, it will waste time, and really, if someone should be banned, you know they should be banned, i know they should be banned, then why shouldnt they be banned?
why should they have some sort of proceedure to waste time?

hey, half the discussions that go on here are a waste of time.
if you ban someone, then you ban someone. if they dont like it, then fine they dont like it, they are still banned.
if you made a mistake, then own up to it and unban someone. thats a pretty simply philopsophy, but it seems to work for me. most of the complaints i get against me are of the 'i only wished their mummy would die, and i got banned, the world is collapsing, all mods are power hungry whore' type complaints. thats fine.
i can live with those

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

What to do? Police the Police independently or as a community, have a proper appeal procedure rather than users having to run the gauntlet of the mod wannabe's in the feedback forum .

Why not use the legal discussion forum or somewhere similar to hear both sides a disputed decision and then let the whole community decide whether a decision was just or unjust. That may be a stupid idea, I've had a tough day and it's off the top of my head .

At the risk of being accused of jockeying for position...

What makes you think people will be any happier with a defined system in place? I mean, most of the complaints on feedback about moderation are from people who don't read forum charters, or choose to ignore them. This thread wouldn't esist if the banned poster from Animals and Pets had listened to two clear warnings from the mod.

As for the running the guantlet of wannabe mods on feedback, that whole issue swings both ways Tom. There's plenty who are happy to jump in for a spot of mod-bashing whenever a complaint appears, shouldn't a moderator have get the same consideration as an ordinary user? Why is it that people continually complain about being shouted down on feedback when they are happy to publicly criticise a moderators actions and invite similar criticisms from others in that same forum?

I would wager a sizeable bet that the majority of complainants do not contact the mod in question privately before launching their feedback crusade, nor do they consider contacting a CMod or Admin.