Alpha Centauri
Restricted
Originally posted by Storm
There is yet another factor, a member' s "record of offences". When a ban is issued, not only the violation itself is decisive but also previous warnings and bans are taken into account. An, at first sight, minor violation can cause a ban for a member with a history of warnings and/or previous bans, while a more severe violation can result in only a warning when the member has no history at all. That' s not bias, but the policy as set out by Raz.
That's exactly why it's crucial to stop mods operating on bias and working with inconsistency, because whether a ban is just or unjust, it shows up as a recorded ban. Many, MANY people here have at least one ban to their name that was absolutely unjustified.
The one put into play mostly is "You can't ignore a mod warning.", which is a fair point, but when some mods around here will warn you for simply countering their debate in a manner they dislike, or simply because they have an issue based on bias, how is anyone supposed to avoid that? Honestly?
It's like if something gets too hot for a mod, or they simply don't like you enough to resolve the situation privately, they use the "If you don't do as I say right now, you'll be warned or banned.", regardless of what it is. Not to mention that when mods enter a thread to "calm" or "settle" a heated situation, some of them tend to have a rather unnecessary air of "I have power, I can do whatever I want, regardless." about their actions and words. I have been criticised for being condescending more than once, but to do so because you feel the position of "power" allows it, that's bs.
If you aren't infallible, then you shouldn't suggest every decision be final. If a decision is made and enough contrary evidence is presented to suggest it was the wrong one, retractions should be optional, but they aren't.
It's all a mess of contradiction and agenda.
-AC