Yeah that was a nightmare, people would then think you had it out for them when really you were just doing your job and that's why there were so many anti-mod sentiments back then

..the infraction is from a representative of the forum for a rule break though, so it isn't really relevant which moderator actually implements it...

Its a Red Line
the poster goes over.


What does Zee really want?

But it's down to the mod how much of a rule break it is and how many infraction points are given out

Like someone could call someone a dick and get 5 points and someone else call someone something ridiculously OTT racist/homophobic whatever and only get 3

Obviously wouldn't have a clue on the ins and outs of what goes on in the Towers but still pretty sure that each of them do their bit as moderators... if anything occurred within the year then they'd take it up themselves anyway, which works fine. Plus it should be a choice TPTB are more involved in, not just your favourite members.

Everytime MMI get's an infraction gets put on a ban so I'm sure some mods purposely give him a lot of points for small things.

Well you'd have thought the amount of infractions/bans he's had would have taught him not to break the rules :shrug:

...I don't know that there aren't set points for specific things but I do like the sound of the 3 strike system because it's like in everything, I think that things should be clear for members when they break rules etc...but there is also a huge flaw in that because lots of things are said in joking and to member's they are familiar with, which is totally different to saying something as an insult...

Do you even know what he has done every time though? He probably just gets lots of little infractions and I don't think points expire after you get banned for them. :S I am not sure though. When I used to get banned a lot I always had loads of points for ages, maybe they give him ones with long expiration times.

Moderators to treat their position like an annually contracted position and to consider whether they really want the responsibility on a regular basis, rather than being appointed and that being that.

The British Judicial system allows for an appeal to be heard before a panel of independent judges because not even High Court judges are infallible when interpreting the law as they see it.

..but there are two ways you could look at that though..not Jack specifically but with members in general who are often on bans and it's often said that it's harsh etc..?..but if they're often on bans and are still allowed back, then that's quite a relaxed moderating because it wouldn't necessarily be the case on other forums that they would be allowed back .....

I've seen it pretty much straight after he's come off a ban though, so he must have been given a lot of points to push him back onto another one (if that makes sense)

I think it was stupid hiding the infraction points since it's gonna make people suspicious that they're not being given out fairly.

It doesn't show how many points you have or get any more? :shocked: That is a bit silly, it would make people more well behaved if they knew they were close to a ban.

...yeah, of course it's not perfect, nothing is but it's also just an internet forum and no one gets paid for what they do and without active moderation, I wouldn't think it would be a site that a lot of us would want to use...

yeah I agree that y'all need to calm down with MMI

I don't see a problem with this, but I would imagine if a Mod wanted to step down they would just say so? also if it ain't broke why try to fix it?

But it is fine as it is.

No Change is needed

I think the point is that members should be well behaved all the time, not just if they know they're close to a ban - that shows they haven't learned a lesson, they're just faking it until their infractions come off their record.

At the end of the day I just created this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic of conversation raised in another thread which was locked so people didn't get the chance to discuss it. :shrug:

I feel this is veering off in a direction that wasn't zees intention, we all have an opinion on moderation but that was not the question posed was it?

Tbh I'd sooner have 4/5 weeks of someone pretending to behave than having them acting dickish all the time, being banned for a few days then coming back and carrying on acting the same

I think it is interesting to get different points of view on it, don't have a problem discussing it at all.

I'd rather people like that were just banned full stop.

:worship: My point exactly.

Yeah I didn't really anticipate arista accusing me of wanting some kind of forum game :laugh: I just wondered what people thought

yes, of course

The anonymous nature of moderation protects those handing out unfair infractions too, I doubt very much all moderarors agree on them 100% of the time.
Removing appeals and queries was another shift towards a very undemocratic forum, just my opinion you understand.

Well I don't see that happening any time soon :laugh:

To be fair people were abusing and misusing the appeals forum more than anything. It deserved to go because people used it incorrectly far too often.

I think a lot of people on here think of the whole moderator thing as way more serious than it actually is :laugh:

And to be fair to the people who just used it for an appeal or a query it didn't deserve to be removed as far as I see.

The ratio was about 85% misuse to 15% using it correctly. :laugh:

I actually think the mods are great here, generally they are impartial and they do their job well. I think inactive ones should be taken down but that's not in a nasty way, just to keep the mods as active as possible.

Ammi should be a mod though, that's my only complaint! :P

I don't believe that, I thought it was great it brought whatever the issue was to the attention of all the moderators as opposed to one or two.
It was surprising how some things were seen very differently depending on who answered your query :laugh:

Except that that the anonymity doesn't protect us as we pretty much moderate each other.

The Appeals thing is ridiculous as you were one of the people that misused it. This isn't the UN, love. Rules are rules and if you don't follow them then you will be infracted, opening it up for debate just leads to people trying their luck every time they're rightfully infracted which is a waste of our time. The Appeals section was a privilege that the majority of the forum members couldn't be trusted with.

I personally wouldn't like to see elected mods,I would guess it is likely that decisions by mods are looked at in some way.

I think the system works fine as it is with admin making the decisions,there have only I think been 2 new mods installed since I joined and they were 2 really excellent choices in my view.Sadly we lost one of them far too soon.

So for me, things as they are now as to selection and ongoing matters is the best way I'd say.

No need to start finger pointing babs, rules are rules yes and moderators do get reprimanded too sometimes I guess?

I think the alerting system needs to be reviewed :suspect:

this tbf