(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

I'm not talking about me.

I'm talking about the perception of inconsistent modding generally.

The last thread ban I received I was trying to reply to something like 38 replies from people being openly uncivil towards me that I received within a couple of hours. I was told that by replying to them all I alone dragging the thread off topic.

I was issued with pointed warnings for two separate posts a day after they were posted, the logic being that I had been warned once and the ignored that warning and posted again, the problem being that the first warning came a day after the second post was posted, the logic and timeline was flawed.

The mod in question understood why I felt unjustly treated and offered to over turn the ban but not lift the warnings, I refused on the grounds that only one warning should stand not two, the issue went to Dr and was reviewed by Ancapailldorcha who had been abusive towards me in that thread, and he upheld the ban, big surprise.

So whatever perception you have of me wanting the rules changed to suit me is completely baseless.

I want the rules applied evenly across the board, that is not happening currently and having dispute resolutions overseen by someone who is so hostile in their approach to discussion on threads is a conflict of interest.

It would be useful if you could take on board what I'm saying instead of making assumptions.

I'm not able to report posts currently, but that post from Shoog was a prime example of a post that warrants being sanctioned on thread.

Like you said, it's pure baiting and adds nothing to the discussion at hand, just jabbing at someone for the hell of it.

Yet another poster calling my mental health into question which is an absolutely disgusting type of commentary.

He has stated that he purposely ignores or has "on ignore" people who post like you do to circumnavigate being banned which is, in my opinion, a really good idea.

While people claim it results in an echo chamber, it does the opposite. It prevents him from being banned and allows him to still speak his mind.

There does seem to be a lot of people who go out of their way to shut down dissenting opinions by luring them into responding in a way that gets the poster threadbanned or the conversation shut completely, all the while "staying within the lines" of acceptable speech to moderation from people that agree with them.

Thats a true echo chamber.

Again , you're ignoring what I said. Why?

I explained how I was banned unfairly, the mod themselves acknowledged that fact but refused to overturn the warnings they issued to me but offered to overturn the thread ban.

I went to Dispute Resolution on principle because the rules weren't being enforced properly. I was happy to accept one warning but refused to accept the second for the fact that the mod themselves acknowledged they were wrong for giving me that warning.

Then I get to the DR thread and find myself at the mercy of Ancapailldorcha, who had been abusive towards me in that thread, that's a conflict of interest.

So I'm not talking about perception in that case, I'm citing observable facts. I spoke about perception on a larger scale which is influenced by situations like the one I detailed for you.

You're ignoring the facts presented to you and telling me that my lived experience doesn't match my perceptions which is preposterous.

If its OK with the mod in question I'd happily share the PM exchange if you require proof.

We're all entitled to suggest rule changes in feedback, my suggestion about banning baiting phrases was intended to cut out petty arguments not censor people.

You're creating your own narrative now.

You've ignored the content of what I laid out for you and are just pushing your opinion.

I have no issues with robust debate but the way the site operates currently allows it for one group of people while coming down hard on another for identical behaviour, that's the issue.

And that's the beauty of it.

You read it as exasperation, I read it as aggressive.

Because you agree with it, and I disagree with it.

I brought it up once when the ignore function was being discussed by someone else.

Others such as yourself are the ones who keep brining it up, treating it like a Trump card any time I say anything here "well you have X amount of people on ignore", as if using the ignore function invalidates anything I say.

This thread is specifically for feedback, I have had experiences where I have been sanctioned where others being abusive to me either haven't been sanctioned at all or were dealt with more leniently.

That is the reason I began using the ignore function, for years I had nobody on it, through experience I've learned that it's better for me to just ignore people than get into pointless petty arguments, kind of like this one ironically enough, although I'm only willing to discuss this type of thing here because it's a more open forum in terms of expression.

As most decisions are upheld in DR what you're proposing is to take away any potential for decisions to be questioned at all.

What you're proposing wouldn't have been out of place in East Germany tbh.

You are suggesting that if someone questions the moderation by a certain mod, that the mods can choose to further punish the poster for doing so?

How very Orwellian.