Double Standards on Rugby Forum

Aidric

Not for the first time I find double standards being employed by the Mods of the Rugby forum. Before anyone asks me if I went through the appropriate channels, I did and was roundly ignored, another course of action favoured by the Rugby mods when it come to dispute resolution. I sent a PM to each of the Rugby mods looking for the reason as to why they employed double standards on the Munster v Leinster thread. This was on Sunday last and none of them has decided to reply. Here is the PM in full:

Could someone from the mod team please explain to me the clear reason for double standards being employed in the Rugby forum? I won't go to a feedback thread just yet if you can clear it up for me.
The instruction on the Mun vs Lein thread was very clear, any abuse of a tv personality would result in a ban. The yellow and red card system was suspended and a 2 week minimum ban would be handed out as per Des/toomevara.
Yet we have Jackass call Neil Francis a 'tosser' and he gets issued with a card. This isn't the first time this poster has received favorable treatment when it's come to disciplinary issues. I had a previous exchange of pm's about a similar issue on this poster a few months back.
Can someone spell out for me the reason for the favorable treatment and the clear double standards?

As I said in the PM this isn't the first time this poster has got favourable treatment from the mods. I can reproduce a link to the other incident if you would like.

LoLth

having a chat with the mods now. However, I dont think a day or so delay in responding to a PM on a bank holiday weekend constitutes being "roundly ignored".

Aidric

LoLth wrote: »

having a chat with the mods now. However, I dont think a day or so delay in responding to a PM on a bank holiday weekend constitutes being "roundly ignored".

They have a history of ignoring pm's. Further, at least one of the mods has been logged in and posting over the period to which I referred.

LoLth

but that does not mean they have to answer you immediately. Maybe they are PMing one another about the issue and sorting it out amongst themselves first before giving you an answer? Just because they are mods doesnt mean they have to perform moddign duties every minute they are on boards.ie . maybe they just dropped in quickly to read up on a thread or two that they subscribe to?

As I said, I am talking to them about this now. I will update this thread when I have something to update it with. if thats not for a day or two, then you're not being "roundly ignored", there's just no update to be had.

LoLth

Righty, I've spoken to the mods and in this case I have to agree with their decision to use their discretion. [Jackass]'s comment was not strong enough to warrant the ban for partisan insults promised by the zero tolerance rule (his comments werent partisan or inciteful). However, he did make a comment on a tinderbox thread and was given a red card for doing so.

Would it have been easier for them to award the ban and say "you were warned. tough." yes it would have but then we would have complaints about modding being too strict. Mod discretion is why we have human mods for each forum and not just a pool of floating ticket-wardens enforcing policy from a height without consideration for the circumstance.

Mods acted correctly and wisely in this instance in my opinion.

Aidric

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to put up a prompt reply LoLth.

LoLth wrote: »

[Jackass]'s comment was not strong enough to warrant the ban for partisan insults promised by the zero tolerance rule (his comments werent partisan or inciteful).

I'm quoting directly from the thread here.

3. Do not abuse/insult commentators/pundits.

We are now in a total Zero Tolerance Lockdown situation.

Step out of line and you can expect at an absolute minimum a 2 Week Forum Ban.

The above seem patently clear to me but it has been stretched to suit an individual poster. It seems zero tolerance is only paying lip service really because it hasn't been followed through as guided by the mods.
I have absolutely no problem with mods using their digression, it is a good principle, however when it is abused to come to a favorable decision viz a viz certain posters then it's just nonsense.

LoLth

I dont think it is favouritism. I think it was a good call by the mods in this situation. Not everyone is going to be happy when an exception is made but then again, not everyone is going to be happy when the rules are applied too strictly.

this appears to be just one of those times.