Moderation guidelines or consistency

[pyld]

So, I got infracted for this. To wit, poster A accused me of voting for Obama. Poster B said:

pyld​... please correct the record and say it ain't so...?

I then said:

Of course it's not. I'm simply not willing to play the game with a mental midget, that's all.

Got infracted. I didn't refer to anyone by name, nor name a game by name. The mod (who has a bit of a crush for me, anyway) said the Obama voter thing is okay, but a nonspecific insult directed at nobody in particular is not (an inference that mod had to draw in both cases). Fair enough. I'll take the medicine.

Keeping in mind the thread was about abortion:

In the very same thread, the following was posted:

All you piss-ant assholes who think that abortion is acceptable can fuck off.

So, I'm curious as to the rationale where, on a board which it's fair to say is universally against the President, it's okay to call someone an "X" voter without a scintilla of truth to it, it's not okay to make a passing reference to someone who would do that as playing a game with a mental midget, but it's okay to call about half the thread "piss-ant assholes?"

Do I have that right?

I sat on this for awhile. But I'm honestly curious if you the board staff has a take on this, because it sure as heck smells like what's good for some is out of reach for others (had I known, I'd have gone right to "I hope all you piss-ant assholes who think people are Obama voters can fuck off").

Thoughts? I'll offer the prebuttle of "I took the infraction already and have no problem with it" for those of you who will kvetch that I'm bitching about my situation rather than an alarming lack of moderation consistency..... I'm curious as to whether you guys who are mods have any kind of guidelines as to what's fair game or discuss actions taken, because at least this one example (and I'm betting I can dig up more--this is obviously top of mind for me) is pretty brutal.

[phillyd2]

A quote from my grandmother "go find the sob who told you that life was fair and punch them in the gut because that's the biggest lie anybody could tell"

Buck up brother.

[internet troll]

I obviously can't speak for mods, but I've read several times that they dont read all the threads or know about infractions unless they are pointed out/reported. It could be as simple as they did not see the post you are refering to or not worring about it because it was not reported.

Just speculation, I am sure some one will be along with facts soon.

[God's Country]

The mod (who has a bit of a crush for me, anyway) said the Obama voter thing is okay, but a nonspecific insult directed at nobody in particular is not (an inference that mod had to draw in both cases).

That's ridiculous......even for PAFOA.

[Noah_Zark]

So, I got infracted for this. To wit, poster A accused me of voting for Obama. Poster B said:



I then said:



Got infracted. I didn't refer to anyone by name, nor name a game by name. The mod (who has a bit of a crush for me, anyway) said the Obama voter thing is okay, but a nonspecific insult directed at nobody in particular is not (an inference that mod had to draw in both cases). Fair enough. I'll take the medicine.

Keeping in mind the thread was about abortion:

In the very same thread, the following was posted:



So, I'm curious as to the rationale where, on a board which it's fair to say is universally against the President, it's okay to call someone an "X" voter without a scintilla of truth to it, it's not okay to make a passing reference to someone who would do that as playing a game with a mental midget, but it's okay to call about half the thread "piss-ant assholes?"

Do I have that right?

I sat on this for awhile. But I'm honestly curious if you the board staff has a take on this, because it sure as heck smells like what's good for some is out of reach for others (had I known, I'd have gone right to "I hope all you piss-ant assholes who think people are Obama voters can fuck off").

Thoughts? I'll offer the prebuttle of "I took the infraction already and have no problem with it" for those of you who will kvetch that I'm bitching about my situation rather than an alarming lack of moderation consistency..... I'm curious as to whether you guys who are mods have any kind of guidelines as to what's fair game or discuss actions taken, because at least this one example (and I'm betting I can dig up more--this is obviously top of mind for me) is pretty brutal.

There ARE guidelines, Pyld. They are called the rules.

The issue is that not all mods are on the forums 24/7 reading every post. With just a handful of mods/admins vs the sheer number of posts, it's impossible to "catch" every possible infractionable post. How many speeders do the PSP miss every HOUR?

I know that I did not see the quoted post of your concern, and had I read it, the poster would have been infracted. I just now read it, and that member was just now infracted. Maybe the post was reported, maybe not. At any rate, end of issue; time to move on.

Noah

[bluetrane2028]

Yep, they got me too.

I do get why I got nicked, but that whole thread was a disaster.

[bogey1]

I saw a banning the other day (5118) that I couldn't find anything wrong with the post. But I'm not a mod.

[gummy jones]

my two dings came on posts that were obvious sarcasm

but i lived

battered and broken

but still alive

[pennlineman]

Ha! Somebody narc'd on ya. You know what they say, if you don't get one once in awhile you're just a wallflower.

[Justin///M]

Ha! Somebody narc'd on ya. You know what they say, if you don't get one once in awhile you're just a wallflower.

This. I bet someone reported you. I'd wager that some of the toughest taking whiners are quick to hit report. They like to brag about who is on their ignore list too.

Like knight said, they can't catch everything, they are usually tipped off by a report. I bet it's a handful of posters.