Why do the forum elites pretend to be unbiased?

So, over on the Women's Corner, this was posted:

JPK said:That’s probably the only area besides food and drink where the French have an edge over the Englishman—they weren't afraid to take heads off when necessary.
And this Powerlock guy is honestly a joke; I picture him as some incredibly pompous jerk who keeps himself so wound up he practically farts in ultrasonic frequencies.

And then they hand out a warning for breaking the rules, just like they did to me when I wrote this:

bluecyclist64 said:The guy is actually a moderator, waving warnings around if anyone dares characterize Britons as primitives.
It's a disaster.
For the nth time: bring back my friend Tito...

Everything would be fine if a certain Dow Chemical, who also happens to be a moderator, hadn't written this:

Dow Chemical said:Oh, looks like someone just discovered Powerlock 😍

and they're also incredibly pretentious; imagine a situation where a moderator on a US forum demands we don't insult the sovereignty of another nation 🤣 🤣 🤣 just because it's so important to the Britons.🤣

Just imagine if someone once had the idea to censor every insult directed at George W. Bush 😬 or maybe Kim Jong Il.

Luckily, the guy is only a moderator on a sub-forum that nobody visits anyway.😬

Interestingly enough, Dow Chemical didn't get a warning. I have nothing against her personally—I don't recall us ever having a disagreement—but I don't understand why everyone plays this game of supposed integrity when it's common knowledge that moderators almost never receive warnings.
Why not just be honest and say you don't want to do it because you're all looking out for one another, and it would be a nightmare to ban moderators—because then who would actually do the work?

And one more thing: it wasn't just Powerlock interpreting his moderator powers in his own unique way; this post from moderator velvettrucker52 appeared on the same thread:

velvettrucker52 said:This marks the second time I’ve had to issue a warning regarding users commenting on moderators and the moderation team in threads where that simply doesn't belong.
I won't be issuing a third warning; you all have been around this forum long enough to know better than to act this way.
There is the PZK section for those discussions, where you can vent to your heart's content.
As for the Women's Corner, I have no intention of wasting my breath on further warnings, nor will I bother handing out penalty points. Instead, I'll just hit you with a three-day cooling-off period.
Thanks for listening. 🙂

So, here it is: the individual in question intends to punish a thirty-point infraction with a three-day ban.

What is the administration's stance on this kind of moderator conduct? Do you honestly think, you forum power-trippers and agitators 😍, that this is acceptable?

I am offering this advice in good faith; lately, there has been an uptick in complaints regarding how moderators interact with the community. It is far easier to address these friction points while they are minor before they escalate into something larger. Of course, that assumes you actually want to resolve them rather than just brushing them off dismissively.

To wrap this up: perhaps a Briton might find this style of forum management tolerable, but I suspect Americans have had quite enough of various forms of self-appointed aristocracy by now.

bluecyclist64 said:And all of this would actually make sense if a certain user, Dow Chemical—who happens to be a moderator here—hadn't gone and posted this:

It is pretty interesting how Dow Chemical didn't end up getting a warning herself.

Actually, Dow Chemical did get flagged, it's just that velvettrucker52 doesn't have the authority to issue the warning, so she had to hunt down someone who was online and actually capable of doing it. And of course, she landed right on my doorstep. ☕

bluecyclist64 said:Look at this—this individual is planning to hand out a three-day ban for an infraction that’s currently worth 30 points.

Well, look, after giving you several warnings about the exact same thing in such a short span of time, she absolutely has the right to do that. Maybe if people actually tried respecting the moderator warnings and following the rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation?

JPK has been issued a warning for harassment.
You, on the other hand, received a strike for violating the rules.
I requested an admin intervention regarding Dow Chemical because I don't have the authority to issue strikes myself; once someone with the proper permissions arrives, they will be dealt with accordingly.

Regarding direct bans: yes, if warnings and strikes fail to change the behavior, I’ll move toward that option.
I have no intention of letting the lax attitude found in the Women's Corner dictate how we handle matters that strictly belong on the PZK.

EDIT: alright, rustydrifter10 has arrived. All posts that required removal have now been cleared out.

And could someone please enlighten me as to which specific rule I supposedly violated with my post?

A few days ago, I posted this warning right here, asking everyone to move any discussions regarding the moderation team over to the PZK.
It’s hard to believe you missed that, considering you were posting on this exact same thread—specifically, two posts after my warning, to be precise 😬.

Ignoring a moderator's warning is a direct violation of the rules.
Furthermore, venting about the mod team in random threads is also against the rules. There is a dedicated space for that on the PZK.
And honestly, given how long you've been around this forum, I'm sure you're well aware of all this.

I didn't actually comment on the moderators, if that’s what you’re implying, but it doesn't really matter; I have no interest in splitting hairs over something so trivial.

That said, if the post in question is sitting just two entries down from here—which it is—then I suppose I'll concede the point.