Why I Don't Comment Often

I stop by occasionally here and there but it is about time something has been said. There is not one iota of consistency when it comes to moderation on this site.

Recently, there has been one commenter on here insulting other people calling them "stupid," "nazis," and "idiots." Yet he goes on to make snarky remarks that people are brainwashed and he should be prepared for stupid explanations. Multiple times, was he warned once? No.

Yet a few months ago, one user insulted me and I retaliated. Yet I was warned for bullying when the opposing party started throwing insults around FIRST!!!! He even started making snarky snide remarks first. Yet Larz apparently, warned me to stop bullying once or I would get banned. The evidence is still there for those who wish to see it. Look at the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

RM was allowed to roam around this site and became the coach of everyone before Larz finally decided to ban him. Yet he was repeatedly hacking the site weeks before. He even had a group called "I Watched Porn Before I was 18" in which there were explicit photos(I know I joined lol).

I can go on offer more examples but these should suffice for my main point.All that I request, if there are rules on this site(which there are supposedly), enforce them the same for everyone. If there are three warnings, let it be three warnings. If it is one warning, then let it be one warning. But at least stay consistent!

True Capitalist Acolyte: I think that's reasonable to an extent. Sometimes I've found it kinda hard to judge stuff so maybe a moderation rubric could be worked out.

Just let me finish the community judging thing first though.

admin: Fair enough, I just want some consistency. I'm not going to deny it is hard to moderate because I do moderate elsewhere. Just try to formulate some orthodoxy that can be understood by all.

The places, I moderate we use "three strikes you're out" with the exception of spam.

True Capitalist Acolyte: Recently, there has been one commenter on here insulting other people calling them "stupid," "nazis," and "idiots." Yet he goes on to make snarky remarks that people are brainwashed and he should be prepared for stupid explanations. Multiple times, was he warned once? No.

It is covered under freedom of speech.

Bi0Hazard: This is a private site. You have no freedom of speech here.

I've got to say, I don't really mind the way this situation has been moderated.
I don't think Csareo has been very classy or respectful, or even constructive - but if nobody engages with him, there's less harm can be caused than if someone were to respond, therefore less moderation required. I think the big difference between this situation and Doc's one was that when you have more than one person responding, things escalate quickly. In THIS instance, Admin WAS the other person involved and he was not responding - therefore a more measured response was fine.
I suspect that had one of us reacted to defend Admin, he probably would have stepped in and ended it.

That being said, if this were anyone but the moderator that Csareo was attacking, I think it would reasonable to expect that the moderator would step in with a caution.
The tricky thing here was that he was attacking the moderator himself. I think it's understandable that the Moderator would have a slightly thicker skin; there's an extent where some flak does come with the role. If I were the moderator, I'm afraid I'd have probably reacted the same way.

I don't think it's right though. As a community, we SHOULD have some objective measure. I suspect Admin may have been concerned that by reacting with a moderation he may have been accused of being biased, but I don't think any of us would have seriously entertained that thought in this instance.

@Admin if there were ever a reason to get a separate moderator, this would be one of the good ones. Separation of power means no accusation of bias.

nzlockie: Fair enough and I understand that difference. However, imagine if someone saw his behavior and saw that he was allowed to go on.

What right would there be to moderate him for his behavior when he took his cues on what was acceptable from him? There has to an objective standard for everyone.

I don't think we disagree on this matter. We are just viewing it from different points.

True Capitalist Acolyte: You're right, we don't disagree.

I was saying that I understand where Admin may have been coming from, but the precedent set is not a good one. I 100% agree wth you, it's the message sent to onlookers that is the issue in this scenario.

I proposed a moderation rubric numerous times, and they would be shot down. I seriously wonder if I had proposed the same exact thing before tophatdoc posted this, whether admin would of said he was open to the idea.

Oh yeah, and as far as consistency goes, tophatdoc has had three accounts. I got scolded when I made my second.

Priest of Swag: At this point playing any sort of games about who's a worse offender or something is childish, so let's not get into that. It's about being constructive.

admin: It isn't a game. I am supporting the OP, you are inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes to members. Both of my posts are evidence of that.

Priest of Swag: I'll admit inconsistent but not hypocritical. The reason I'm inconsistent is that I strongly believe that rules should be interpreted as to their purpose more than their letter, and strict rubrics therefore would discourage me. I've been very consistent about showing a lot of leniency to ALL members, which naturally has meant an inconsistency in my interpretation of rules.

admin: I wont argue with you, because I'm not even totally sure what the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy is. I do know that if you take an established belief, and do something opposite of it, that is hypocrisy. I can't remember you ever doing something like that.