First off each case gets reviewed individually, particularly when it's a permaban. In Mikey's case there was a discussion and a vote. I know that it's only after a ban, but the posters do have the ability to email us with their thoughts and reasoning, it may not always been in place, but it is there now.
I don't really know how you expect a discussion to work on this forum to be honest. MTF is very cliquey as it is and I don't believe the discussion would result in anything even resembling something constructive. Posters will support their (always unjustly) banned favourites, while some will claim the person is a troll anyway and deserved what he was getting.
ACC has always been a highly controversial subject, always causing a lot of problems, people arguing, insults being thrown around, posts reported, people asking for it to be cancelled. And over the years we first tried to be stricter in enforcing the rules during the contest, but when not much progress was made, we decided it was for the best to remove it as a whole. I can guarantee that the contest does not have the support of 80% of the posters and that's also not the case with a lot of the objections. It's an impression you can get, cause of the nature of the protests, but that's misleading I believe. We get people PMing or repping us in support, when they don't feel like posting their support in public in order not to get attacked by the people against the decisions. That's just how it is.
Look, I've said it before and it has been established that if anything the longer the poster is here, the more it takes for him to get a permaban. What would've a discussion about Mikey changed, when he's been banned and warned tons of times and knew that he was on his final warning, which he has stated himself. I think his total suspensions have been of more than 2 years, I mean how long should mods keep turning a blind eye just cause someone has been here for so long and has so many friends, when the person themselves don't accept responsibility and don't change their approach.
Again, you're missing the point. The reason mods are 'disrespected' is not the decisions per se, but the fact that said big decisions are taken unilaterally. Yes, there was discussion between the mods, I'm sure, but were MTFers heard? Was CF given a chance to defend himself? No. You need to understand that in a forum like this one a permaban is a big decision, especially when the poster in question has so many posts and has made so many friends on MTF. Being a big decision, one that has a great effect in the community as a whole, it should never be taken unilaterally and of course it should never be take a blind application of the rules as the be and end all. The same applies to the ACC, a contest a lot of people here love and which is user-organized. No one is asking the mods to turn a blind eye on infractions or anything, just to take a different approach.
I call BS on the assertion that it's impossible to get constructive discussion on MTF. See this very thread or the CF ban thread, there's a lot of people just mad their friend was banned, some happy a poster they don't like was banned, but there are a lot of good points as well, which is what would happen if permabans were put to discussion. Yes, I know that filtering through the nonsense and focusing on what's important in said thread does require some patience and some time as well, but that's what moderators are for, that's why we are supposed to have intelligent moderators capable of empathy and critical thinking. If you really think the rules are the rules and must be applied blindly, you must have really low self esteem to carry out a task that a bot could be programmed to do with the same level of efficiency (actually higher).
I do not own this forum, neither do the rest of the people voicing their concerns in this thread. If the site owners and moderators feel that mods taking big decisions unilaterally and all sort of dialogue being avoided is the way to go, well it's their forum. But it's quite hypocritical to expect any respect in return and they will never get it. All the flak you guys get is warranted and then some, I know that if, in real life, I lived in a country where decisions are taken using the same logic MTF moderators apply, I'd most definitely not respect those in charge. I concede that it might be a general system flaw rather than a particular moderator's fault, but there you have it.
Originally Posted by SloKid;14359481[B
]Why is it good? I think you're missing the point. In large part when it comes to bans, people don't disagree with the ban reason, but with the banning of their friend. It's like I don't care what he did or said to someone else and how they took it, I like him, he's been here for ages, you can't ban him. How's that fair and good for the forum? That's the wrong kind of democracy.[/B]
Only rules that applied blindly are rules that don't leave any doubt, like starting result threads before the match is over. Otherwise I don't think that's really the case.
I have no problem with hearing arguments, but they are few and far between and drowned out by all the bashing of a decision just because it happened to someone or something you like.
Are you telling me that everyone voicing their views about Feldman's ban matches that description? Complete BS. Not to mention that, want it or not, a fact that a poster is very popular in the community is a factor that should be taken into account - no I'm not saying popularity should make a poster immune to being banned, but it should be taken into account. After all, the goal of the moderating stuff is to improve the forum experinece for everyone, not banning people for the sake of it I'm assuming.
And sure, you have no problem hearing arguments now, but you should have been hearing them before the decision was made.
No "dura lex sed lex" ? It's very redundant to take everything into consideration.
No. The premise of every rule system is that we should treat equally what is equal and different what is different - anything apart from that leads to injustice.
That is not how moderation works, unfortunately for you. The objective is to make the forum experience pleasant for as many as possible, trying to do it in an objective way as possible. To achieve this, they remove posts that could be deemed offensive by a number of posters. When a poster is deemed to have offered a certain number of these offensive posts or actions, they are banned. The one thing that should not be done is being lenient on a certain member because they are liked by everyone, or anything similar to that. This isn't a democracy.
Let me make it simple though. You commit an offence, you are punished appropriately. There are no ifs and buts because if a certain poster's social standing, to an extent.
It is. Simply put, MTF is not a moderated forum at all. There's a set system of infractions and punishments set in motion, only with figurehead humans (known around here as moderaters) instead of an automatic software to detect them and enforce them. That's not what moderation is, moderation is not a mindless, robotic task.
The introduction of the actual moderator role would be very beneficial for the forum though, surely a step forward towards improving the quality of the discussion and everyone's experience. Is handing out infractions like candy and banning posters improving people's forum experience as you put it? No. And here's a spoiler: it never, ever will.