Why do the rules here apply to some and not others

[JSullivan]

I have noticed while going thru this site that while some people are being banned or receiving infractions for certain things, others are not. Is there a clause in the rules that I am not aware of? I received an infraction for drug related content (I posted a link awhile back) but 420Smiles avatar is a blatant drug reference of a smiley smoking pot. I have also seen people get the boot for avatars flippin' the bird but jagers avatar has that. These are only two examples of the MANY I have seen. It appears to me that the ECF Veteran status seems to be the common denominator regarding these "loopholes". I hope that this post actually gets posted and not "edited" or whatever you all call it. I think that this forum is a valuable source of information and just don't understand why people are not treated fairly and why what we say is only ok if the mods agree.

NOTE: This is my opinion and if I am banned or receive an infraction for it, it will only prove my point.

 

[River]

My completely unfounded guess which is an opinion unsupported by any evidence in any way is that a moderation position here is just unpaid volunteer work and some mods would be more strict and serious about upholding the forum conventions than others.

I have seen people make jokes about drugs and get warned about it and other times I have seen it and nothing was said.

It is most likely just the luck of the draw and who happens to be on at the time.

 

[mace bewley]

I have noticed quite a lot of the same thing! That is why I don't do a lot of posting anymore! Even as a veteran myself, I think all rules should be enforced fairly no matter what. Now as far as mods going back and giving people infractions for post from months ago..... That is taking your job a little to far! I mean this persons "title" show signs of a HUGE EGO, but to take it upon yourself to go dig stuff up out of the past???

All I am saying is be FAIR in your dealings!!!

 

[JerryRM]

My completely unfounded guess which is an opinion unsupported by any evidence in any way is that a moderation position here is just unpaid volunteer work and some mods would be more strict and serious about upholding the forum conventions than others.

I have seen people make jokes about drugs and get warned about it and other times I have seen it and nothing was said.

It is most likely just the luck of the draw and who happens to be on at the time.

River pretty much posted what I was going to say.

There are thousands of members and posts on this forum, some things slip through the cracks. Also, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. You may think that someone got in trouble or was banned for a minor infraction, when in reality they got in trouble for arguing with the moderators in private messages.

 

[BradSmith]

I love this site and it's a great place to find infomation and even debate in the "outside" However, there does seem to be at least a little bit of bias, or at least the appearance of bias.

One thing that I don't think helps, is moderators posting on heated threads. The moderator should be the judge and not the Defendent or plaintiff. Giving advice or helping people out is great. But, I don't see the need for them to be on political threads.

Even if they do manage to be completly impartial there is no way that everyone is going to believe it. So when you recieve a warning right after you were arguing your point it's hard for anyone to feel that it might not have been biased when you know that the moderator does not agree with you.

I honestly think the moderators should keep their political views to themselves, it's not always necessary for a moderator to have done something wrong it's the fact that even a hint of impropriety will turn many people away.

For a good debate to work it's not enough to have an even playing field, you need the people in the debate to believe that it's an even playing field.


Just my two cents.

 

[Katmar]

The mods are people, too. With opinions. If they follow the rules of not attacking a poster, then I feel they are very much entitled to participate. They are volunteers. Giving up their time to make this a great forum.
The rules state....attack the post, not the poster.....I think they do a great job when you consider the size of this place. Participating in threads helps keep them sane, imho.

 

[Elendil]

Jerry said it well. There are thousands of posts made here each day. There are less than 10 mods all told. There is simply no way to read every post every day.

We depend on the members to report anything they feel is worthy of review. However, just because something is reported doesn't mean it will automatically be removed. moderating is a judgment call plain and simple and it is a given that not every person will not agree with every decision made.

A member's "status" has nothing to do with receiving an infraction for a rules violation. But..........someone that has received infractions in the past, especially for the same rules violation will likely face a stiffer penalty if another rules violation occurs.
Sort of like a repeat offender. The penalties are more harsh as the repeated rule breakings pile up.

The problem is that most folks only get one side of the story. They do not see both sides or what happened "behind the scenes". People do not get banned for "no reason". To suggest that they do is completely silly.

The goal is to provide a site that is full of information where people can come, have fun, learn something, and feel as comfortable as possible. With a community of 30,000 plus members it is a challenge to achieve.

THis forum will never be the "wild west" where anything goes. There are places for that, and here is not one of them. If that is what you like, more power to you, but then this is probably not the place for you.

If you have a specific issue you are concerned about, you can send a PM to any moderator to have you concern addressed. As long as it is done in a polite manner, we would be happy to answer any question you have.

Have a great day!

 

[lordmage]

The mods are people, too. With opinions. If they follow the rules of not attacking a poster, then I feel they are very much entitled to participate. They are volunteers. Giving up their time to make this a great forum.
The rules state....attack the post, not the poster.....I think they do a great job when you consider the size of this place. Participating in threads helps keep them sane, imho.

yes it does coming from an ex-mod

 

[JerryRM]

Even if they do manage to be completly impartial there is no way that everyone is going to believe it. So when you recieve a warning right after you were arguing your point it's hard for anyone to feel that it might not have been biased when you know that the moderator does not agree with you.

Just my two cents.

Controversial subjects, like religion or politics, are bound to get a bit heated sometimes, I try to stay away from them. But like Katmar said, you can attack the post but not the poster. There is a fine line in a controversial or heated discussion.

 

[Katmar]

And just because a mod may not agree with your point of view, that is no reason to have them NOT participate. They know they must follow the rules, too. I have yet to see a mod attack a poster. Of course, I haven't read every single post in here, but I've been around a while and I haven't seen it, even in the controversial areas.

 

[ZambucaLu]

I have noticed while going thru this site that while some people are being banned or receiving infractions for certain things, others are not. Is there a clause in the rules that I am not aware of?

No. It's pretty obvious you don't know the history of some of these situations.

I received an infraction for drug related content (I posted a link awhile back) but 420Smiles avatar is a blatant drug reference of a smiley smoking pot.

No, he says it's a rollie and since it's animated, it could appear to be so.

I have also seen people get the boot for avatars flippin' the bird but jagers avatar has that.

Oh, c'mon. Been talking to jager, have you?

These are only two examples of the MANY I have seen. It appears to me that the ECF Veteran status seems to be the common denominator regarding these "loopholes".

Not true at all. That has nothing to do with it.

I hope that this post actually gets posted and not "edited" or whatever you all call it. I think that this forum is a valuable source of information and just don't understand why people are not treated fairly and why what we say is only ok if the mods agree.

NOTE: This is my opinion and if I am banned or receive an infraction for it, it will only prove my point.

Take your drama somewhere else. We don't need it here.

Lu

 

[rolygate]

Hmm. Just a quick FYI so people can perhaps appreciate the scale of the problem:

Last month we had 100,000 posts on ECF - and it's increasing every month.

Just think about that, please.