Forum charters and consistency

I guess a big problem with that “rule” is that, it would appear, a lot of dicks don’t realise they are being dicks and think what they say, how they say it and how they conduct themselves is perfectly fine and reasonable.

This would be explain the numerous threads in the “Dispute Resolution” forum where posters with terrible attitudes, seething anger and rotten posting histories act like victims of some, site wide, moderator and admin conspiracy against them.

Then you have the frequent threads popping in “Feedback” having a go at the mods, and admins, again. These same users are given chance after chance but are still not happy because they can’t say what they want to say in a civilised way. It’s, really, not that hard to post within the rules, even when you have some, truly, odious opinions.

If they were applied consistently these, truly awful, posters wouldn’t be given so many chances.

Aside from given lessons in online conduct and general “behaviour” I’m not there’s much else the mods, or admins, could do.

I, myself, have been warned, more than, a few times. It’s not hard to look at what the warning is for and think ‘yeah, I was being a bit of a dick there’. I’ve found the mods open to discussion I’ve felt aggrieved and compromise was met. Haven’t had the prison bars, though, that’s never a good look on a poster.

The idea that the mods, and admins, are out to get posters with a certain outlook is, simply, risible. The site is loaded with people with all sorts of “views”, it’s just that a certain cohort can’t seem to express there’s without breaching the rules of the forum/site.

Honestly, if these “types” could learn how to get their point across without breaking the rules there wouldn’t be half as much time wasted in “Dispute Resolution” or “Feedback”.

They are, somewhat, open to “interpretation”. For example, a user with a, somewhat, clean record will be given more slack. Same goes for good users who add to the site.

Terrible users, posting terrible opinions, terribly, attacking posters, ignoring mod instructions and breaching site rules will always be “judged” harshly, after they’ve been given chance after chance, after chance, of course.

Then the whinging starts.

Not all warnings are visible. I can’t speak for the mods, or admins, but if I had to guess I’d say the user getting the warning was, probably, being a dick in the way they were “engaging”.

There is a chance that the mods are working off reported posts and that’s where some users, engaging in similar “actions” are getting away unscathed but, again, that’s just guessing.

Really, though, it’s not that hard to not get warnings/infractions, you just have to stay within the rules, attack the post not the poster, follow mod instructions and, generally, don’t be a dick.

On the inconstancy in applying warnings, there were two threads recently in dispute resolution, in one a mod said

A warning given on one post is often related to that post and preceding ones. We don't generally give all the preceding ones a warning as that could result in the poster earning enough points for a full ban.

While in another a poster, after receiving three warnings, put forward the argument

I've no issue with one pointed warning, the additional two suggested I was ignoring the first one, all the warnings were applied within a few minutes of each other a day after the posts they warned were posted.

And that point wasn't even acknowledged by c-mod / admin