At 8/23/12 11:33 AM, w33zl wrote:
Despite the strictness, the offending post will be reviewed by at least two moderators so as to clear any possibility of a misunderstanding rather than an actual offence.
I like that. It ensures "fairness" as much as possible without causing backup or lag in the system.
Chat bans are given the same way as BBS bans are.
I don't like that as much. Problem is, chat goes by much quicker than a BBS post. You should have to get a second opinion pretty quickly. I'd say short bans (hours, a day at max) by one moderator would be perfect for a chat.
If a banned user gives an appeal, the appeals must be spell-checked and give valid explanations for the post the user was banned for. At least two moderators will then look at the offending post alongside the appeal to see if the grammar, spelling and vocabulary match up. This is to see if the appeal was either written by somebody else or if the banned user looked up synonyms for 'wrong' on Google. Appeals that slag off the moderators will also be used as a reason to ban a user for longer than they were previously.
ehh... Even though i'm a bit of a grammar nazi, I don't like that. Nobody's perfect. Also, what offense do you take if someone else wrote the appeal? If it's giving valid, logical reasons it shouldn't matter who it comes from.
Okay, yeah, if you're using an appeal to shit-talk you deserve to be banned for a little longer. Seriously, who does that? It's a waste of everyone's time.
Users can be banned for PMs if the victim gives legitimate evidence to the moderator to ban the sender from using the PM system and forums for at least three days. If the evidence is found to be fake, the ban is transferred to the "victim" and doubled. The same multiple-offence rules apply afterwards.
at least three days? I think if you promote someone to "moderator" status, you should be able to trust them to make judgments for themselves.
I neither like nor dislike the second part (fake evidence)
Moderators are allowed to become friends with other users, but since most offences are reviewed by more than one moderator, any favouritism can be detected and the moderator responsible will be stripped of their position.
Again, everyone makes mistakes. It's impossible to be unbiased. Stripping of the position is too harsh. As long as the final judgement is fair, who cares?
Moderators who speak overtly of the people they have banned with regular users, will also be stripped of their position.
Speak of banned users between moderators is permitted because that's how moderators who give punishments more or less severe than the punishments stated by the rules, can be caught.
the "because" part was unnecessary.
Also, ehh... I can see why it's good to have some privacy on the bans, but at the same time if someone goes "why was this guy banned?" and you say "can't tell you, sorry" it's a bit of a put-off and creates more of a distance between users and moderators. Moderators should "fit in" with the users, that's what they're there for. To regulate and control, but also to be the closest administrative position to the users. If you put distance between the two groups, then look at how big the gap gets between the owner and the users.
Moderators are above the regular users in the hierarchy because they ought to be.
yes and no. Yes, there should be a "hierarchy" of permissions because let's face it: there's douchebags in the world.
Still doesn't mean one person is better than another.
opinions "good" and "bad" people are based upon respect.
In the event that a regular user tries to pull off a sirtom93, the moderators' only job is to give as much infomation to the admins as possible. No bans to the user's account should be given as there is a chance that the user may give some evidence and information that can be used against them in court.
a "sirtom93"? Something about threats and an arrested kid?
That's about all I got from google. Seems this news is pretty ancient and buried under legends and myths.