Moderation: Definitions and Guidelines

jadecyclist36 said:maybe it isn't a direct jab at the mods, but it's definitely a provocation in its own way.

I don't see the point. It’s like saying, "I'd say a whole lot more, but I don't want to get banned."

If you're already holding back, 🤷 what's the need to even mention it?

Okay, so? People provoke each other on this forum constantly. Similarly, we could call the moderators' intentional failure to answer questions on PZK a provocation. Now, you might tell me, "But how do you know they're doing it on purpose?" and I could easily flip that on you: "And how do you know someone is actually being provocative?"

Discussing whether there is a "need" for it is just trivial. There is no objective necessity for any of us to write anything on this board, is there? We could all just stay silent and kill the forum entirely. If someone feels the urge to write something like that, let them. It isn't commenting on the moderation, and it doesn't break any rules.

A statement like the one in the quote can't be penalized. It’s identical to saying, "I'd say more, but I don't want to go off-topic." People are simply signaling that they have things to say, but they assume they'll get a strike if they say them, so they stay quiet. It's perfectly legitimate. Users accept the rules and emphasize that, given those rules, they won't say what they really feel because it would violate policy and lead to a sanction. It’s like me saying I won't kill Michael, even though he's driving me crazy, because I'd end up in prison. Obviously, there is no legal equivalent to a forum rule, but the logic holds: it's a perfectly normal thing to say, and there is no basis for penalizing it.

lonebadger6 said:No, it isn't. They were sanctioned according to the rules of the forum. You can like those rules or not. You can think whatever you want about them. But the forum set the rules, and in accordance with them, that user was sanctioned.
If there was confusion about what constitutes commenting on moderation, that's why this PDF exists—to clear things up. It has. This is commenting on moderation.
I trust you understand that this isn't for you to decide (nor is it for brightpuma). Otompot opened a perfectly valid thread and asked a perfectly valid question. He got his answer. Do you really think it makes sense for us to act like children, arguing over "yeah it is" versus "no it isn't"? It does. That is commenting on moderation. There is no situation where you *have* to say this, so there's no problem.

He didn't get an answer. You didn't explain anything; you just stated that it counts as commenting on moderation. Explain to the guy clearly on what grounds this is considered commenting on moderation.

If you don't remember what you replied, I'll quote it for you:

lonebadger6
which, according to our court, is an indisputable violation involving unauthorized commentary on the moderation team.

Where’s the actual reasoning here?

Your entire argument on this thread just circles around how the forum works, listing out the rules, and pointing out that this is about critiquing the mods—only to wrap it all up with the conclusion that the post was sanctioned because of those specific points. You skipped the "why." There is no explanation for why this constitutes "commentary on moderation," mostly because it isn't actually doing that. The logic is off, and frankly, the strike for criticizing the mods doesn't hold water either.

lonebadger6 said:No, it isn't. They were sanctioned according to the site rules. You can like those rules or hate them. Think whatever you want about them. But the admins set the rules, and based on those rules, that user was sanctioned.
If there’s any confusion about what constitutes "arguing with moderation," that PDF is right there to clear things up. It's all laid out. This is arguing with moderation.
Look, I think you understand that this isn't your business (or brightpuma's either). Otompot started a perfectly valid thread and asked a legitimate question. He got his answer. Does it make sense for us to sit here acting like kids, saying "oh yeah?" or "no it isn't?" Not really. That's just arguing with the mods. There’s no situation where you actually need to say that, so there's no issue.

By that logic, can I demand a ban for your post because I feel like answers like yours insult my intelligence? 🤷

And it’s not just me—it’s everyone else on the board. You're trying to push this as "arguing with moderation" so transparently, even though that’s never how it’s been handled before. Just admit you made a mistake instead of trying so hard to defend the indefensible.

The guy got flagged just because he said he wouldn't repost content from another site that violates our rules... Seriously? How is that "arguing with moderation"? 🙄

redbear2 said:Fine, so what?

I asked: "What's the point?"
You could have just said: "To provoke people."
Sometimes less really is more, redbear2. 🙂

jadecyclist36 said:I asked: "What’s the point?"
You could have just said: "To stir the pot."
Sometimes less really is more, Aba. 🙂

Sure, it could be, but it doesn't *have* to be a provocation, so I won't assume that's the case. If you actually want to debate, address my entire post. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it if you just let me be.

I replied to your CIO post, I just didn't quote the whole thing. I rarely bother quoting long posts.

redbear2 said:It's possible, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a provocation, so I won't bother writing that.

This is much more concise. 👍

jadecyclist36 said:I was replying to your whole point, I just didn't bother quoting the entire thing. I almost never quote massive walls of text.

This version is much more to the point. 👍

I can't write like that if I want to avoid people twisting my words or setting up straw man arguments. That's why I lay everything out clearly.

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh in my last post. 😳 🕺

brightpuma said:I mean, they handed him a ban just because he mentioned that some other site has content that’s prohibited here, so he wouldn't repost it... Honestly, what kind of moderation is that... 🙄

🤦

You're trolling at this point.

Yeah. That’s exactly what criticizing the mods looks like. He made a remark about how this place is run, and that's against the rules, whether you agree with it or not...

If you actually expect someone to sit there and give you a lecture on why commenting on the moderators counts as "commenting on the moderators," you might want to think that through again...

lonebadger6 said:🤦

At this point, you're just trolling... honestly.

You guys have totally worn that word out until it doesn't even mean anything anymore—it’s kind of wild... It seems like whenever someone expresses an opinion you don't like, you just label it as "trolling" to shut it down. 🙄

lonebadger6 said:🤦

Now you're just trolling.

Yeah. That's commenting on the mods. He commented on the moderation. His post included a remark about how this forum is run. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not.

If you honestly expect someone to sit there and give you a lecture on why criticizing the mods counts as "commenting on moderation"—well, think again.

I'm more interested in why that specific comment is being labeled as "commenting on moderation."

Is it really a jab at the staff when someone who actually knows the rules says they won't post something because it violates them and would lead to a strike? Explain that.

lonebadger6 said:🤦

You're trolling already.

Yeah. It’s commenting on the mods. He commented on the moderation. His post included a remark about how this forum is moderated. That's against the rules, whether you like it or not.

If you honestly think someone is going to sit here and give you a detailed lecture on why commenting on the mods counts as "commenting on moderation," you might want to rethink that.

Well, once someone other than you comes along and gives a better explanation for why that counts as commenting on moderation, then maybe I'll think about it. Right now, it looks like none of the admins even bothered to look into this. Clearly, they couldn't care less... 🙄

Also, I'm with Morgan Rodriguez57 on this one. You've twisted the word "trolling" beyond recognition. Anything you don't like, you just call trolling and ban them. On the flip side, people who actually troll systematically (like on your USAisfreedom subforum) get away with it completely unpunished. If you look at the last few dozen posts from that user, it's obvious he's mocking every single thread he joins. But somehow, he isn't "trolling." 😍

So, no. I don't think you're qualified to judge what trolling is. Judging by this thread, you can't even tell the difference between actual trolling and commenting on the moderation. Why are you even a moderator? 🤔

...whenever they appoint some stickler who blindly follows the rulebook without actually getting the vibe, we end up with a total mess that everyone on the forums complains about, yet he still can't grasp what people are trying to tell him. 🤦

lonebadger6, let me tell you something—I was recently tearing into the moderation over on the politics board, and get this: I walked away without a single yellow card, red card, or even a slap on the wrist! 😲
Want to know why?! It's because one of those moderators actually gets the spirit of how people talk here; he doesn't just mindlessly enforce rules, he actually builds a space where you can just hang out and chat.
I also want to give a shout-out to Cuke because I felt totally fine when he warned me about posting links without context (which I took personally and edited immediately), and honestly, his mod response was just, "My bad, I forgot!"

First off, he could have easily slapped me with a ban for breaking subforum rules, and then hit me again for criticizing the mods. But he didn't. Stuff like that is exactly what keeps the atmosphere here chill and relaxed. You should probably take a page out of his book.

brightpuma said:You’ve completely redefined what "trolling" even means... basically, if you don't like something, you just slap a label on it and try to shut people down. Meanwhile, there are people who troll constantly—take that one user over on the USAisfreedom subforum, for instance—who get away with absolutely nothing. If you look at his last few dozen posts, it’s obvious he’s making fun of every single thread he touches. But he isn't trolling 😍

🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦

Not by any chance. He's just currently banned for trolling...

The rest of your post—and honestly, this one too—just shows you've reached that point where you can't actually hold a civilized, reasoned discussion anymore, so I'll just leave you at that 👋

Are we really circling back to this again? Look, let’s just lay it out plainly: any time someone brings up the moderation team, they’re essentially making a comment on the moderation itself. How much of that comes across as "wrapped up" or blunt really just depends on the individual user, but how we handle it depends entirely on the topic, the context, and what’s happening in the moment. We deal with situations all the time where people are clearly testing the fences, trying to skirt right up to the edge of the rules just enough to see if they can get away with something without actually getting banned—and honestly, that’s exactly why we have moderators, to spot those subtle moves. Sometimes it might seem harmless, but most of the time it isn't, which is another reason why our role exists. At the end of the day, as we've already mentioned, there’s generally no need to drag the moderation team into the middle of your discussions.