#1 ·
This is primarily regarding the closure of a thread:
Based on an explanation that feels quite unfounded,
When I requested a review from the supermoderator, the moderator responded to my grievance— ...stating that while she can't be prohibited from doing so, one should certainly be allowed to reply to her response. However, for some inexplicable reason, my initial reply was flagged as spam (?!) and my second attempt, where I simply asked why it was being labeled as such, resulted in an unnecessary accumulation of penalty points. It seems the moderator either finds it problematic to explain the reasoning behind the "spam" label or perhaps simply doesn't know how to justify it—but I won't get bogged down in debating which of those two it might be. My posts have been deleted, and the moderator even edited her own post to include further snide remarks. I trust you can see the deleted content; if not, I am more than happy to send over screenshots of the posts.
The rules in the complaint book allow for a rebuttal to a moderator's decision— . If the moderator felt that we should wait for a senior admin, she ought to have stated that clearly rather than injecting personal opinions into the matter, all while simultaneously barring me from responding to those very statements. One cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner all at once when their own conduct is being called into question. In my view, this constitutes an overreach of authority.
Furthermore, her actions a few posts up in the same thread run contrary to the complaint book; she permitted casual chatting among users, even though the rules of that specific thread strictly forbid it or make it punishable. Yet, according to her own words, she allows for the "public clarification of reputation points"—which contradicts the rules, yet provides a convenient loophole for certain users, whereas toward me, she acts with extreme severity.
I have already provided my reasoning for why the thread shouldn't have been locked. I truly believe the discussion is necessary because it seems no one is paying attention to the need for actual dialogue; instead, almost every topic is just saturated with hostility and aggression.
It is perfectly clear that the site administrator will likely side with a member of their own staff... and please understand, I am not seeking a public apology nor am I looking to stage a public lynching of the moderator. Rather, I am asking that the moderator be privately guided to exercise her authority within reasonable bounds—bounds that shouldn't cross the line of good taste or be used to promote her own subjective ideals.
It is also obvious that the administrator holds absolute power here; it’s clear that supermoderators wield the most significant influence, and it’s understood that a moderator on a specific sub-forum will never be overruled unless there is a severe violation of the core community guidelines. But still, as a user, I maintain the right to express myself, to start discussions, and to communicate with others—rights which have been curtailed and restricted through this process. After all, a forum exists for its users, not to serve as a playground where moderators can simply exert dominance.
I would like to thank whoever takes the time to actually review the entirety of this situation.
If there are any follow-up questions, I remain entirely at your disposal.
Best regards,
Based on an explanation that feels quite unfounded,
When I requested a review from the supermoderator, the moderator responded to my grievance— ...stating that while she can't be prohibited from doing so, one should certainly be allowed to reply to her response. However, for some inexplicable reason, my initial reply was flagged as spam (?!) and my second attempt, where I simply asked why it was being labeled as such, resulted in an unnecessary accumulation of penalty points. It seems the moderator either finds it problematic to explain the reasoning behind the "spam" label or perhaps simply doesn't know how to justify it—but I won't get bogged down in debating which of those two it might be. My posts have been deleted, and the moderator even edited her own post to include further snide remarks. I trust you can see the deleted content; if not, I am more than happy to send over screenshots of the posts.
The rules in the complaint book allow for a rebuttal to a moderator's decision— . If the moderator felt that we should wait for a senior admin, she ought to have stated that clearly rather than injecting personal opinions into the matter, all while simultaneously barring me from responding to those very statements. One cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner all at once when their own conduct is being called into question. In my view, this constitutes an overreach of authority.
Furthermore, her actions a few posts up in the same thread run contrary to the complaint book; she permitted casual chatting among users, even though the rules of that specific thread strictly forbid it or make it punishable. Yet, according to her own words, she allows for the "public clarification of reputation points"—which contradicts the rules, yet provides a convenient loophole for certain users, whereas toward me, she acts with extreme severity.
I have already provided my reasoning for why the thread shouldn't have been locked. I truly believe the discussion is necessary because it seems no one is paying attention to the need for actual dialogue; instead, almost every topic is just saturated with hostility and aggression.
It is perfectly clear that the site administrator will likely side with a member of their own staff... and please understand, I am not seeking a public apology nor am I looking to stage a public lynching of the moderator. Rather, I am asking that the moderator be privately guided to exercise her authority within reasonable bounds—bounds that shouldn't cross the line of good taste or be used to promote her own subjective ideals.
It is also obvious that the administrator holds absolute power here; it’s clear that supermoderators wield the most significant influence, and it’s understood that a moderator on a specific sub-forum will never be overruled unless there is a severe violation of the core community guidelines. But still, as a user, I maintain the right to express myself, to start discussions, and to communicate with others—rights which have been curtailed and restricted through this process. After all, a forum exists for its users, not to serve as a playground where moderators can simply exert dominance.
I would like to thank whoever takes the time to actually review the entirety of this situation.
If there are any follow-up questions, I remain entirely at your disposal.
Best regards,