How many infractions do you have?

[Stifle Tower]

This has been explained a gazillion times but, mods don't act unilaterally. It takes no less than 3 mods in agreement for a disciplinary action to occur.

But mods are all alike...drunk with their own power (just like politicians). What's sad is that they were once just regular, likable people.

Just kidding. I had one infraction and one warning, but they've long-since expired. I know, hard to believe a choirboy like me once pushed the envelope a couple of times and had about a 3-month feud with the PTB.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I was hoping for something more detailed. For instance, on a forum I moderate I strive for a PG-13 level of behavior. I'm assuming that the standard is higher here. Maybe PG? Maybe G? I'm not sure. Some guidelines as to what constitutes 'generally offensive text' or 'Excessive or graphic sexual innuendo' would be helpful. I'm especially unsure on the innuendo part, as innuendo seems an odd choice of language there to me. But, I assume it'll become clear on example.

And I'll admit I find it very subjective. At times, it seems a LOT is allowed to slide without any problem at all. Then something a little off-color but fairly innocuous catches the attention of the mods. I suppose it all depends on who and how many report a post.

The worst part is that we can't even ask ourselves what would Jesus do, because HE was banned.

 

[Fishsticks]

So was Satan....

 

[bigb]

The worst part is that we can't even ask ourselves what would Jesus do, because HE was banned.

Not only that, but He came back on His resurrected form and was banned again. I think all the mods are going to hell just for that.

 

[jazzfan1971]

What did you get it for that was so disgusting according to Rev's edit?

Well, it WAS disgusting.

I wont' repeat it at the risk of getting a 2nd infraction, but, in general terms...

I didn't like the title of the thread, "Why do we hate Lou Williams and Aaron Brooks again?". I felt it was a loaded question, and I wanted to poke fun of it as such. So, I suggested that those two did some highly objectionable things to my (non-existant) sister. Admittedly, the things were objectionable, but, by making them over the top objectionable examples I was trying to be humorous in pointing out how ludicrous it was that we all hate Lou Williams and Aaron Brooks.

I guess it just came across as profane when I was aiming for humorous. I'll know better next time.

 

[franklin]

I used to post pictures of what I thought about some of these troll threads and have received infractions for a picture of animal poop and a picture of someone who may or may not have hung himself to death, but not for afterbirth related pictures. The moderators must be into this new eating your own placenta fad.

I've also received warnings/infractions for being too explicit at times (i.e. telling someone to suck something). Some of them were more or less identical to much of the stuff on here lately. I'd chalk that up to stuff falling through the moderating cracks and not to them playing favorites or being more lenient. My point is that just because this stuff goes without moderator action does not mean it's acceptable.

You should have a hard time earning infractions here if you keep yourself to the realGM standards. I'd be surprised if you think you're more lenient moderating over there... at least the staff as a whole.

 

[Gameface]

I used to post pictures of what I thought about some of these troll threads and have received infractions for a picture of animal poop and a picture of someone who may or may not have hung himself to death, but not for afterbirth related pictures. The moderators must be into this new eating your own placenta fad.

I've also received warnings/infractions for being too explicit at times (i.e. telling someone to suck something). Some of them were more or less identical to much of the stuff on here lately. I'd chalk that up to stuff falling through the moderating cracks and not to them playing favorites or being more lenient. My point is that just because this stuff goes without moderator action does not mean it's acceptable.

You should have a hard time earning infractions here if you keep yourself to the realGM standards. I'd be surprised if you think you're more lenient moderating over there... at least the staff as a whole.

I think it's important to add that a lot of times when something gets "moderated" it isn't because the mods identified a rule infraction but because someone complained. So while some things seem to be allowed in reality it's just that no one has complained about it.

 

[colton]

I think it's important to add that a lot of times when something gets "moderated" it isn't because the mods identified a rule infraction but because someone complained. So while some things seem to be allowed in reality it's just that no one has complained about it.

True. And like franklin said, we just may not have noticed a particular problematic posts. The moderators can't be everywhere.

For what it's worth, I looked at the 15 most recent issues reported to the moderator forum. 5 of them were reported by moderators and 10 of them were reported by others.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Funny observation: Everytime I see someone come on here and complain about a banning or infraction and a mod explains the process, the OP says, "well, you're one of the good ones." Who are these nefarious, unnamed, 'bad' mods?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Funny observation: Everytime I see someone come on here and complain about a banning or infraction and a mod explains the process, the OP says, "well, you're one of the good ones." Who are these nefarious, unnamed, 'bad' mods?

 

[Dr. Jones]

^ how's yours hangin Dala .. at least I HAD an actual observation.

 

[Deleted member 848]

^ how's yours hangin Dala .. at least I HAD an actual observation.

Teehee, I wasn't making fun of you, silly. Was giggling at the fact that I doubt anyone will own up as to who some of these "harsher" mods are. Hence the silence, or tumbleweed, if you will.