Consistent Moderation

[Blocky]

Hi Guys,

I've recently received two infractions - one of them I agree with, I probably crossed the line in terms of attacking the man and not the point. The other however, I said that a person was too consumed by their argument and too short sighted by current views to have their opinion changed.

PEWS said in a thread that attacking a point was fine, it was personal attacks that you were trying to cut out. I don't consider saying someone is too argumentative and too short sighted in relationship to points they've made (repeatedly) about a bowler. Spark moderated that and gave me an infraction.

In the meantime, you've had Hendrix call me a moron, Howsie spend most of the last three days attempting to antagonise me into responding to him, using insults and subverting racist tones in his posts and they've not received infractions.

You've got a case where a pack mentality of four or so people continues the "atmosphere degeneration" you talk about, I've purposefully held back responding to those that want to personally antagonise, but so far, I've not seen you deal with them consistently.

It would be nice to see a consistent approach to the style in which moderators operate, with one confirming that "attacking a persons point is fine, just don't attack the person" while the other throws out infractions for doing exactly that. Meanwhile a bunch of people posting insults are left to their own devices?

 

[Blocky]

I mean, if the whole "key" for you is "Let's find a way to ban Blocky and not make it seem like we just relented to pack mentality and bullying" then get it over with already, rather than attempt to pretend like there is an impartial moderation on each and every discussion, because that evidence would firmly dictate you're going to go at me if I say anything remotely close to being an insult while you're allowing others to continue with blatant attacks.

 

[Dan]

First of all, I'd like to refer you back to the post you made in the meta-thread a few days ago:

Don't take consensus decision making away, I think that allows you guys to remove yourself from the situation and also for more impartial "Well, I wasn't involved in the heat of the moment so what I see is...." reason. I also think ultimately if certain people continue to perpetuate arguments that have already died a natural death in threads, they need to have infractions put on them. That includes me, If I quote something out of context hours after the debate has been killed, please give me infractions for it. I think one of the major reasons we have thread derailment comes down to that, because any disagreement you have with an individual gets recriminated three to four hours later when someone else finds it, quotes it and starts it again.

The post in question was reported multiple times, and as per the very process you've supported in the above quotation, both moderators from within the thread and from outside of the thread were involved in coming to a consensus decision to infract you.

I'm not going to delve into specifics as to why we felt the post in question deserved an infraction; if you really want to have that discussion you can email us at moderators@cricketweb.net, rather that posting here. However rest assured that the posts you are concerned about are going through the exact same consensus decision-making moderation process that you yourself support, and will be dealt with as we see fit. It is not an instantaneous process.

 

[Blocky]

The post in question was reported multiple times, and as per the very process you've supported in the above quotation, both moderators from within the thread and from outside of the thread were involved in coming to a consensus decision to infract you.

I'm not going to delve into specifics as to why we felt the post in question deserved an infraction; if you really want to have that discussion you can email us at moderators@cricketweb.net, rather that posting here. However rest assured that the posts you are concerned about are going through the exact same consensus decision-making moderation process that you yourself support, and will be dealt with as we see fit. It is not an instantaneous process.

OK - fair enough, but I think having this type of thing out in the open and getting a clear firm understanding of what you're going to tolerate and what you're not going to tolerate would probably be beneficial, considering I've spent the last week turning the other cheek and not responding in my typical fashion of blasting them back - yet somehow, they're allowed to continue the crap and if I even go close to something that could be related to a personal attack, infraction time. I'll email the moderators.

 

[Dan]

I mean, if the whole "key" for you is "Let's find a way to ban Blocky and not make it seem like we just relented to pack mentality and bullying" then get it over with already, rather than attempt to pretend like there is an impartial moderation on each and every discussion, because that evidence would firmly dictate you're going to go at me if I say anything remotely close to being an insult while you're allowing others to continue with blatant attacks.

Considering that it is public knowledge that Phlegm, sledger and Howsie have received infractions related to their posting regarding this issue, I think that these allegations are baseless.