Inconsistent application of the charter (moved from Feedback)

Aidric

Whilst this post isn't related to betting on the golf forum it is related to the moderation of said forum. I'd very much appreciate if an admin could clarify why it is that the rules of the forum are being selectively applied by greebo. I have tried to engage with this individual in a civil manner by pm, but as anyone who has tried this in the past will know, it will only be met by abrasiveness and obfuscation.

To explain I was warned for this post. I have no issue with the fact that I was warned for being uncivil and I am not attempting to dispute that. What I am seeking clarity on is the fact that this post was in direct reaction to being flamed in this post by another user, who has no action taken against them. It can also be construed as attacking the poster and a personal attack. Let me quote the golf charter on same:

Flaming
- Posts containing personal attacks on another user will be edited/deleted. Poster will be banned.
- Trolling or baiting another user or organisation is not acceptable.

Personal Abuse
- Don't attack the poster, attack the post.
posts will likely result in at least
an infraction, possibly a ban for the poster

When I presented these contraventions of the charter to the moderator his reply was "I have nothing further to say on the matter".
By ignoring the application of the charter for some users isn't a precedent being set here?

Spear

Moved from DRP since the warning isn't being disputed.

Beasty

To suggest no action was taken in connection with the other post is inaccurate - there is a clear in-thread warning here
I don't see any inconsistency at all - your statement

Still carrying a hard on for me I see

is more "offensive" than anything in the post you were responding to

The mods used their discretion, issuing an official warning in connection with your post and an in-thread one in connection with the wider issue and the general behaviour of various posters in the thread including the one you were responding to

Aidric

Beasty wrote: »

To suggest no action was taken in connection with the other post is inaccurate - there is a clear in-thread warning here
I don't see any inconsistency at all - your statement is more "offensive" than anything in the post you were responding to

The mods used their discretion, issuing an official warning in connection with your post and an in-thread one in connection with the wider issue and the general behaviour of various posters in the thread including the one you were responding to

Firstly, thanks for the reply.

Now, why are you referring to my post in the thread when I expressly stated in my OP that I am not disputing this? In fact that is not the reason for me starting this thread.

I am asking why are the rules being cherry picked for some users and not for others? I highlighted two contraventions of the forum charter by the other user yet he escapes without any warning/infraction.

To say that an on thread warning is dealing with this simply rings of washing your hands with this matter. Can users who break the charter in the manner done so by the other poster expect that an on thread warning will be the course of action taken with them in future?

GreeBo

1) I replied to you several times via pm, each time explaining that it's not your place to worry about other users.
when you persisted I advised that I had no more to add.
2) moderation is not black and white, you crossed the line, the other poster didn't.
it's really that simple.

moderation has levels, in thread warning, warning, infraction, ban, perma ban.

each poster and their posts are different and so treated differently, if another poster had posted your post they also would have at least received a warning, possibly an infraction or worse, depending on their history.

Beasty

You used your post to highlight a perceived inconsistency. I also referred to it simply because I do not believe there is any inconsistency displayed. The mods have discretion, and in exercising that they will take into account a number of factors, including for example gravity of the offence, a user's record etc (and to be clear I have not discussed this case with the local mods, so cannot comment on exactly what their thought process was)

They then have a variety of ways of dealing with something that breaches the charter - this could be a PM to the user, an in-thread warning, a yellow card, a red card or a ban, recognising the factors I provided examples of above

In this case it would appear to me that the local mods simply used the tools at their disposal to deal with a number of posts that went too far. A couple received yellow cards and others were subject to in-thread warnings. I really cannot see a problem here

Aidric

GreeBo wrote: »

you crossed the line, the other poster didn't.

Beasty wrote: »

I really cannot see a problem here

A poster breached the charter twice yet you don't see any problem. Ok, fair enough. Please close this thread as I'm simply banging my head off the wall trying to get anywhere with this.

Discretion is a great tool in the hands of the right person, yet when it's abused it simply stinks.