Dispute with mod

You have to deal with a poster's specific post ..no generalisation allowed ! Your mistake was to believe the rules apply to everyone 😝

PM sent, etc.

What do you mean sorry don’t understand?

Dispute resolution was mostly populated by people who should have been there IMHO- ie they did wrong - I was “successful” in dispute resolution I think twice over the years - I’ve also been in boards prison - it’s paradise you’d love it 😀but in all seriousness I did and probably do like the idea of increasing ban lengths with no appeal - it takes out the bull that goes on -

BUT- if it’s to work, the mods need to get in there first and warn/ban the trouble makers, before the likes of me gets pizzed off with no intervention and hits the nuclear button - I’d say 80-90% of my bans or warnings or zero point errors would be eradicated had mods been around in the first place.

Maybe I need to get olde boards out of my head and concentrate on “new” boards- but it’s not easy- it’s a constantly changing landscape- you report report report and nothing happens - then you lash out and you’re banned and lectured to - feic that!

Like I said, some users have a grievance but you can’t say there’s not a number of users in here just using the thread as a way to “have a go” at the mods.

I appreciate your concern, Flan, I do. I consider you to be one of the better posters on the site. A mod once warned me, when I’d racked up a number of warnings over a short period of time, to adjust my posting style so I did. Since then I’ve still gotten warnings but not nearly as many.

It’s obvious you don’t like that you’ve been warned for something, you feel, is unwarranted but the new rules of CA don’t allow for any “dispute resolution”. Not at that stage anyway. If it were me I’d have made my protests and left it once the mod “wasn’t for turning”.

The mods, and admins, have done everything in their power, bar leaving CA unmoderated, to appease the type of user who frequents that forum and attracts, excessive, attention from the moderators. As a result there’s going to be some “collateral damage”.

Totally agree Oscar . Has happened to a lot of posters

Am in awe of those who say they have never had a ban warning etc! Can't imagine such a luxurious happy state 😶‍🌫️

probably if you stay out of CA and don’t argue that Coleman’s English Mustard is just rank…you’ll be fine 😀

Beasty mods the site purely to get a response like this thread. He feeds off threads like these.

That is toxic modding at its finest.

__________________________________________

Warned: Do not abuse the volunteers

The mods, and admins, have done everything in their power, bar leaving CA unmoderated, to appease the type of user who frequents that forum and attracts, excessive, attention from the moderators

That's not why changes were made.

The lifting of threadbans was done solely to ease the burden on mods, you've been told this. I don't think anyone was asking for the changes that were made, and absolutely nobody was celebrating them, as you implied earlier. (I might go back and reply to that post in a minute if the threads not locked)

I don’t get what burden there was from eg. Pointing out that yes, as the judge clarified, Trump is a rapist.

Just some thoughts on the new rules:

The idea to restrict CA posting to a minimum post count was a good move and can be noticed in the forum.

Clamping down on link dumping to at times dubious Twitter account etc. also made sense within reason.

Lifting of thread bans though has undone all of these efforts to free up mods time.

In a previous feedback thread it was my suggestion that was implemented to create a thread banned poster list and it seemed to work well for the most part.

If the first two changes were made first it would make a lot more sense then to look at removing thread bans.

except it leads to as much reported posts now evidenced by users being banned

To paraphrase the new rules, 'posters will learn quickly what is acceptable and what is not'

“Business model” would lead people to believe that’s it’s being run as a commercial enterprise when in fact whichever dunces are in charge are slowly running whatever is left into the ground

I haven't and yet, I am worried on the contrary about this bold text effort to squelch what I feel is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have expressed. I am concerned that the bolded posts exemplify the very thing looking to be dispelled in a prior post. I'm also concerned that the reason given for retroactive enforcement on the thread of harsher penalties comes from a place of passions, "I'm sick of" etc.; furthermore this is not Feedback, this is Help Desk, you said you'd be enforcing Feedback's Charter upon this thread. Does that mean users with fewer than 100 posts or 3 months membership in this thread will be getting 2-pointers also?

In agreement on the thread bans, there seems to be a prolonged death for posters in a thread. They eventually get the forum ban for a while and eventually return again.

Also while things like mentioning Trump being a rapist are a no go in the election thread, outright personal abuse is completely fine much of the time.

That last warning is actually absurd. I don't know why anyone would participate in a forum where that happens.

Do you even realise how many times in this one thread alone you have basically said, and to paraphrase:

"Anybody who doesn't like it can **** off somewhere else"

I've just read the full thread and its at least five or six times now, its quite noticeable.

Interesting thread, lot of old names, including a poster I was only thinking about today. He was banned from the astronomy / space forum (or whatever it was called back then) for 'link dumping' updates on a mission in the appropriate thread...