Complaint about moderation on Psychology

I’ve been wondering why there is such blatant selective moderation on Psychology. Why is it that some people get banned or censored almost instantly, while others are just allowed to run wild and do whatever they want?

This mostly applies to the support chat and how Eric Gray2 handles things. She consistently lets certain users spam images of animated genitals and whatnot, or just straight-up flame everyone in sight. But the second someone else tries to give them a taste of their own medicine, boom—they get hit with a week-long ban.

Look, if you're going to enforce the rules, at least try to be consistent and impartial. Otherwise, you're just being hypocritical.

Here is just a snippet from the community guidelines regarding how to start a new thread

• Make sure your titles are clear about who you’re complaining about and why [PDF Name - Moderator Username - Issue]; this makes grievances much easier for the right people to spot, which means you’ll actually get a response sooner. In your opening post, you need to provide a specific reason along with an explanation, and don't forget to include links to the posts in question.

• Vague threads that don't clearly state what the issue is cannot be resolved and will likely just result in the thread being locked.

Casey Bennett said:here is just a snippet from the community guidelines regarding opening threads on this forum

• Format your titles so it is clear who you are complaining about and why [PDF name - moderator handle - the issue] because that makes complaints more visible to those meant to see them, ensuring a faster response. In your opening post, state the specific reason with an explanation and include links to the disputed posts.

• Vague threads where the problem isn't obvious cannot be resolved and are subject to being locked.

I can't edit the title anymore, and honestly, I don't see the point since I believe it describes the current issue perfectly. If you think it needs a rewrite, feel free to do it yourself.

Anyway, here are some small examples that clearly demonstrate biased and poor moderation, along with what has been tolerated lately in the customer support chat:

http://s5.postimg.org/4menw5qiv/forum1.jpg
http://s5.postimg.org/t46rk1t3b/forum2.jpg

Just to refresh your memory, I was lightning-fast—literally within a minute!—banned for 7 days for "gross insults." Why? Because I lost my cool with one user (who was basically stalking me across the forum, labeling me, making insinuations, calling me names, etc.) and in a moment of pure impulse, I told her to go f*** herself. Fine. Rules are rules, whether I like them or not, and I served my sentence without a fight. Nobody warned me. Nobody even asked how long of a ban I wanted or anything like that.

So, here is the question: why aren't the rules applied equally to everyone? Why are some people allowed to troll and provoke far beyond any reasonable limit, systematically destroying a thread that is supposed to be, I repeat, for "support"???

What’s the issue with the linked post?
Yes, my colleague included some incorrect information. I pointed out exactly where the error was and which rules actually apply here. Posts featuring explicit imagery, like certain anatomical caricatures or adult toys, result in a warning, and users have been banned for that before. If something like that slipped through, please just report it.

The chat is generally moderated a bit more loosely across most subforums. This includes not penalizing users who constantly troll others or cause collective irritation. And yes, I mentioned to the user that she could request a temporary timeout if she wanted; there's no need to push for a formal warning. Up until now, nothing but explicit photos has warranted a strike, but she was definitely heading in that direction. She has that option.

The topic isn't support chat as you've phrased it; the title specifically says support and chat. That changes the context quite a bit. Members can talk about whatever they want, provided they stay within the bounds of offering support. A little banter is fine, but it shouldn't be excessive. Not to repeat myself, but I believe I've explained everything above...

Michelle Evans said:The mods always play it soft on this chat, across almost all the subforums. That includes letting you get away with constantly brushing off other users and just being a general nuisance to everyone here.

Look, I’ve been banned twice before and I served my time properly. So, all these little hints that I’m getting special treatment? They don't hold any water. Besides, I’m not an animal. If I ever cross the line, a simple warning is enough to get me back in check.

And honestly, shifting the focus from the actual issue to attacking the person making the complaint? It's such a tired, pathetic tactic.

It would be nice if the rules were actually applied consistently. That's all I have to say.

silentpuma3 said:It’s a pretty lazy tactic to shift the focus away from the actual issue just to discredit the person making the complaint...

Yeah, obviously. That's the "tactic" now. It's definitely not about pointing out that you're doing the exact same things you didn't get sanctioned for—the same stuff you opened this thread about regarding others. So let's talk about tactics then... did you report any of your colleagues (and you aren't one of mine) for continuing to post on the same topics using different usernames?

I checked that 7-day ban and the 500-point deduction you mentioned. You didn't get hit because you told a forum member to get lost; you got hit because of what you wrote in the chat regarding the users there:

silentpuma3 said:I know this psychology chat is for hopeless cases and psychopaths, but shouldn't some people stop going so far with the insinuations and spreading hate in other sub-forums?

Daisy, if you have the guts, say it to my face. Or just walk away.

Twisting the facts like this isn't right...

I realize this thread is basically a psych-chat for hopeless cases and sociopaths, but does it really have to go this far? Some people are just out here making wild insinuations and spreading hate across other subforums.

Honestly, I haven't a clue who is spreading hate against silentpuma3... or where even that's happening.

Michelle Evans said:Yeah, obviously. That’s just a tactic now. It’s certainly not an admission that you’re doing the exact same things you aren't being penalized for—just like everyone else you opened this thread about to demand they get punished.

Pure nonsense. I have always been under scrutiny; that is all I am saying. I’ve had plenty of warnings.

So let's follow that logic—did you report any of your colleagues (because you certainly didn't report me) for continuing to post on the same threads using different usernames?

Did you really think I wouldn't comment on this?

I checked that 7-day ban or 500-point penalty mentioned above. You didn't get it because you told a user to screw off; you got it because of what you wrote in the chat regarding users who post in the chat...

It really isn't right to twist the facts like this.

Under the reason for the ban, it simply stated "harassment." That could mean anything, so this isn't twisting facts—it’s just my interpretation or assumption.

By the way, people have said all sorts of things to me publicly (that others are more valuable, that I'm no good, etc.) which is far worse than some abstract comment about "psychopaths and hopeless cases," because those were directed at me personally. And yet, nobody ever reacted. Not once.

silentpuma3 said:On top of that, people used to say all sorts of things to my face—telling me others were more valuable or that I was just a bad person and so on. Honestly, that feels way worse than some abstract comment about "psychopaths and hopeless cases," because those insults were aimed directly at who I am as a person. And yet, nobody ever stepped up to say anything. Not once.

Links? Examples? Actual proof?

Who did you report those controversial posts to?

Sophia Kern43 said:Links? Examples? Proof?

I have no clue where that went. We’re talking about some old versions of the psychoanalysis chat rooms.

You reported those controversial posts—to whom?

I used the little triangle icon. Where did it actually end up? I don't know that either.

It's just like when I reported "spam" after some guy acting like he was my boss tried to shut me down and tell me what to do a few posts up. The reaction? Absolutely nothing.

silentpuma3, I think you’re just fighting a losing battle against the wind. I wanted to slide into your DMs to tell you what happened to me, but since you’ve got your private messages locked down, I guess I'll just lay it out here.
Back then, what really got to me was how certain people would take every single one of my posts and turn them into these gross, low-brow sex jokes. It was brutal reading that stuff when I was already hitting rock bottom—this forum was pretty much my only outlet and my only support system. I tried being polite about it, asking them to leave me out of the jokes, but nothing changed. Once I started getting "edgy" (okay, fine, I became rude in a nasty way), they just started deleting my posts instead of actually dealing with the trolls. No one ever got sanctioned. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they handed out some "educational" disciplinary cards to everyone involved... I even got told to just get lost if the jokes bothered me so much. So, I did. I left.
I tried talking to the mods, the sub-mods, even the admins—but it was like shouting into a void.

restlesstiger49 said:Hold on a second. Making a general statement like that isn't an attack on any specific individual. 🤦

Drop the rhetoric. It doesn't suit you.

There is a massive difference between saying "there are idiots on this subway" and standing there in front of everyone calling out a specific passenger by their full name just to humiliate them. See the distinction?

I really hope you grasp where the issue lies here.

Elizabeth Davis said:silentpuma3, I think you're tilting at windmills. I would have sent you a DM explaining what happened in my case, but you've got your private messages turned off, so I'll just say it here.
What bothered me was how certain people turned every single one of my posts into some tasteless joke about sex. Do you have any idea how hard that was to read when I was feeling absolutely terrible? This forum was my only outlet, my only support system. I politely asked them multiple times to leave me out of those jokes, but once I started getting "edgy"—or rather, being rude in a nasty way—my posts started getting deleted, yet nobody actually faced any consequences. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we all got handed a collective "behavioral report"... I was told to just get lost if the jokes bothered me. So, I left.
I tried talking to the mods, the sub-mods, even the admins—it was like screaming into a void.

Exactly. That is precisely my point.

silentpuma3 said:Total nonsense. I've always been under sanctions, that's all I'm saying. I've certainly never lacked penalties...

Your profile stats show a massive pile of just two strikes. I don't see how you expect anything softer than this moderation. Maybe if the Dalai Lama were in charge...

Your always is just an impression. We deal with verifiable facts here. And those facts show that claiming you're always under sanction doesn't hold up...

Did you really think I wouldn't comment on this?

If I asked the question, then yes, of course I'm waiting for an answer. It's a matter of administration...

Under the reason for the ban, it just said "gross insult." That could mean anything, so it’s not about twisting things, just my own interpretation/assumption.

If you aren't sure what constituted a gross insult in a post, you ask a moderator. You can send a DM or ask here on the forum. There is even a specific thread for appealing strikes. But you didn't come forward with an assumption; you made a claim that you earned 500 points because of some "f-off" remark...
Common sense suggests that labeling people as "psychopaths" in a thread would be a somewhat heavier violation than saying "f-off." Or that calling someone a "psychopath" should also be recognized as a violation, rather than selectively picking out "f-off"...
Saying "f-off" is a violation, but they definitely wouldn't hit you with 500 points for it. Something like that doesn't warrant that many points...

By the way, people have said all sorts of things to me publicly (that others are worth more, that I'm no good, etc.) which is much worse than an abstract statement about "psychopaths and hopeless cases" because it was directed specifically at me as a person. And nobody ever reacted.

Please provide links to this. Otherwise, we can't respond. We need to follow the link to see how it unfolded, what led to it, and what was actually said on your end to make a judgment...

It isn't abstract at all, and that excuse won't fly. It's just as abstract as wearing a sign that says unknowns smell bad here around your neck in broad daylight in a minority neighborhood in NY...

Michelle Evans said:Your profile is just one giant pile of two bans. How exactly do you expect anything less than strict moderation from this? Maybe if the Dalai Lama were running things, you'd get a break.

Two bans and two strikes. Fine. But don't expect any mercy or leniency from me. What I expect is consistency when it comes to punishing everyone else. We’re all equal under the law, right? Or is it enough to just claim you have schizophrenia in every third post on the psychology board so you can verbally tear everyone apart without facing any consequences?

If I asked a question, then yes, of course I am waiting for an answer. It’s an administrative matter.

I don't even know how to respond to that.

Please provide links to this. Otherwise, we can't give an answer. We need to follow the thread to see how it unfolded, what led to it, and exactly what was said on your end to make a judgment.

How am I supposed to provide links to something that doesn't exist? Do old chat logs with 10,000 posts just ascend to heaven? I don't know. And frankly, I don't care anymore. I have zero faith in your "impartial" justice system.

It isn't abstract at all, and you aren't getting away with that.

Now, I could counter that by arguing there are definitely true psychopaths among those people, or that I've certainly noticed individuals whose reactions scream psychopathy. That's just my impression, obviously. But still, why is bringing up psychopathy in a psychology forum such a taboo? It's like being in an oncology ward and being told you aren't allowed to discuss who is actually going to die from cancer.

silentpuma3 said:Two warnings and two bans.

Those bans were automated; we didn't issue them manually. For severe insults, there’s a standard warning that triggers an automatic 500-point penalty and a 7-day ban. That was issued by my colleague. From my end, you received a discretionary 100-point warning covering multiple posts rather than individual ones for each instance (1, 2, 3, 4, 5—I'm listing these for the admin review; they can see everything), which leads directly to a three-day ban.

Fine, I'm not expecting any special treatment or leniency, but I do expect you all to be just as prompt when it comes to punishing others. We're all equal, right?

If someone called you a psychopath and wasn't sanctioned for it, please send me the link; we'll fix it and apologize for the oversight.
We aren't giving you any concessions, nor do we intend to; we moderate you exactly like everyone else. It just seems this specific point is where the issue lies...

Or is it enough on Psychology forums to mention having schizophrenia in every third post just so you can verbally tear everyone apart without any consequences?

No, mentioning a diagnosis doesn't give anyone a pass to lash out at people. Just like depression or any other condition isn't an excuse. Again, without links showing where this verbal abuse occurred, we can't determine if anything actually happened or if the other party went unsanctioned for doing the same thing. This entire appeal is being vague, which makes it feel quite absurd...

I have nothing left to say to this.

An answer that was either yes or no would have been perfectly fine...

How am I supposed to provide links to something that doesn't exist? Are old chat logs with 10,000 posts just gone into thin air? I don't know. And honestly, I don't care anymore, nor do I trust your "fair" judgment.

They exist. They aren't gone. Everything is archived in PDF. If it isn't important, then there's no need to appeal it...

I suppose I could counter that by saying there are definitely true psychopaths within any nation, or at least I've encountered people whose reactions feel undeniably psychopathic to me. That’s just my observation, though. Regardless, I don't see why linking psychopathy to psychology is such a taboo subject. It feels like discussing cancer in an oncology ward... you can't ignore the reality of who might be affected.

Please, get serious. This is getting ridiculous. You’re complaining about someone calling you a bad person without cause, yet you don't see the issue when people are being labeled as psychopaths. There are no links provided, just accusations, and this isn't going anywhere. If the admin wants to lock the thread and move the discussion elsewhere, fine, but for now, the moderators from Psychology have already spent far too much time on this...