Is privilege actually a thing?

Is this really an acceptable way to communicate with fellow community members?
I am asking because I have noticed certain users getting banned for trivialities like "trolling in the chat," yet blatant insults seem to go completely unaddressed.
It is no secret that there is a certain level of closeness between the moderators and the individual in question.

Basically, one user made a comment during a heated debate, and then another user jumped back in. We've decided that these posts don't warrant a ban. If we’re being generous, both of them(it’s pretty funny how you only called her out and ignored the original post that started this whole mess—talk about bias!) should probably just get a warning for trolling, and that's that.

Besides, other people's posts and their bans aren't your business, so let's not start with "stupid stuff like trolling in the chat."

Of course, what you seem to consider "nepotism" might be acceptable in your eyes, but in any civilized society, it simply isn't.

I am requesting a response from a higher level of moderation.

Edit: - if unfair moderation is being practiced against others while I remain untouched, does that mean I have no right to report such behavior and expect a response just because it doesn't directly affect me?

I am also asking for a response to this specific question from senior moderation.

Casey Morris9 said:Sure, what you’re calling "family ties" might fly with you, but it’s definitely not how things work in a civilized society.

I'll let the higher-ups decide on this one.

If the mods want to step in, they're more than welcome to scrap both posts. I've already given my reasoning as to why they weren't removed in the first place.

At this rate, we'd either have to sanitize half the forum or treat ten quick-fire chat comments with the same weight as two blatant insults. 🙂 To put it simply—again—other people's bans and removals don't affect you; they only matter to the person who earned them. And the senior staff will back me up on that. 🙂 (And by that, I mean your buddy Joshua, who got booted for messing around in the chat)

A clear demonstration of how you interpret posts from "troublemakers," fueled by a bias that leads to the very arguments you manufacture just to justify handing out bans.

Edit: I don't know Joshua at all, let alone have any sort of friendship with him or the group you seem so intent on protecting.

Attempting to claim there is some sort of "family connection" between us doesn't work, nor does it do anything to mask the blatant bias shown by the moderation team.

Casey Morris9 said:That’s a pretty great summary of how you interpret posts from the "troublemakers," your obvious biases, and the way you stir up drama just so you have an excuse to hand out bans.

I feel like I've said this a million times already:

a) You don't comment on moderator actions within the threads; that's strictly for the Feedback Forum. The user I quoted was critiquing moderation in several different posts. Honestly, I could have handed him four or five strikes right then and there, but I didn't give him a single one—so much for that "bias" accusation. This whole rule about moderator conduct is clearly laid out in the US rules.

b) You aren't supposed to comment on warnings highlighted in a different color. That user actually got a strike for doing exactly that. Just one, instead of five.

On this forum, it is against the rules to play dumb like you are doing right now. That's Rule 15.

I will give you credit for one thing, though: you've got guts. Even though I didn't drop two strikes on you, you're sitting here accusing me of playing favorites, all while you're clearly looking out for a guy who's headed for a ban. You're watching the chat like a hawk to protect him. It's quite the performance. Maybe you should look into acting.

Once again, you are attempting to label my approach as some sort of "biased style." You need to understand that I simply reported a post where you were using that specific tactic of calling out anyone who dares to disagree with the group you are so clearly protecting.
There was absolutely nothing mentioned regarding Joshua, nor is he the subject of this discussion.

If your true intention had been to remain objective, you would have addressed and cited the posts from the very group you are shielding, rather than focusing solely on a single forum member who happens to disagree with them. Furthermore, your response to the original post lacked any actual substance; it felt less like a reasoned rebuttal and more like a mere display of moderator muscle intended to intimidate those who don't align with your preferred circle.

On top of all that, you have now personally insulted me by suggesting that I am being dense and questioning my integrity... honestly...

So, to conclude this, I have one final question regarding the standards of high-level moderation: does a moderator actually have the right to insult a forum member simply because they disagree with their methods of moderation?

Casey Morris9 said:If you actually wanted to be objective, you’d be citing posts from the very group you're supposedly protecting instead of just grabbing a random forum user who happens to disagree with them. Honestly, your response doesn't even address the actual post anymore; it just feels like you're flexing your moderator muscles to shut down anyone who doesn't fall in line with your crew.

And me, protecting them? Your "proof" that I'm playing favorites is based on two posts where, out of the four of us on the US moderation team, we decided not to issue a formal strike. That's it.😬

Casey Morris9 said:On top of all that, you’ve now gone and insulted me by claiming I’m being thick and have no integrity... John...

You're playing dumb for a very simple reason. In your third post in this thread, you linked to my red warning in the chat and tried to claim I was derailing the discussion into a fight. You conveniently ignored the fact that I didn't actually issue a formal strike to that user—I just gave them a red warning. My post was simply explaining that the chat isn't a place for bickering, so it won't be a space where people can just come in and start picking on others while everyone else is trying to have a peaceful conversation.

Casey Morris9 said:So, here's one more question regarding high-level moderation: does a moderator have the right to insult a user just because they don't agree with how things are being run?

According to Rule 15 of the forum:—playing dumb is prohibited.

I'm curious, what kind of "integrity" are you talking about when you accuse me of having some kind of family connection or favoritism just because I didn't issue a strike for two posts? You're claiming I'm shielding someone, yet I've laid out clear evidence showing that my moderation has been fair to pretty much every single user except one. I haven't been handing out passes left and right. Give me a break.🤦 (p.s. I didn't even issue a strike or ban that one specific person myself)

Once you've been banned on one profile, you aren't allowed to use any others. This account is getting a permanent ban, and the other one is being extended for another week...