(Site is a graveyard - How can boards save itself?) Any update?

He has stated that he purposely ignores or has "on ignore" people who post like you do to circumnavigate being banned which is, in my opinion, a really good idea.

While people claim it results in an echo chamber, it does the opposite. It prevents him from being banned and allows him to still speak his mind.

There does seem to be a lot of people who go out of their way to shut down dissenting opinions by luring them into responding in a way that gets the poster threadbanned or the conversation shut completely, all the while "staying within the lines" of acceptable speech to moderation from people that agree with them.

Thats a true echo chamber.

That's the thing about perception, it often doesn't match reality.

You have the perception that moderators show bias and only sanction certain opinions or sanction them more frequently but by your own admission you are not being sanctioned for your opinions, you're being sanctioned for your actions and behaviours. So your perception doesn't match your own lived experience.

And I never said you wanted the rules changed, but because you brought it up you did suggest certain phrases be banned a lá the soccer forum which would be a rule change.

Again , you're ignoring what I said. Why?

I explained how I was banned unfairly, the mod themselves acknowledged that fact but refused to overturn the warnings they issued to me but offered to overturn the thread ban.

I went to Dispute Resolution on principle because the rules weren't being enforced properly. I was happy to accept one warning but refused to accept the second for the fact that the mod themselves acknowledged they were wrong for giving me that warning.

Then I get to the DR thread and find myself at the mercy of Ancapailldorcha, who had been abusive towards me in that thread, that's a conflict of interest.

So I'm not talking about perception in that case, I'm citing observable facts. I spoke about perception on a larger scale which is influenced by situations like the one I detailed for you.

You're ignoring the facts presented to you and telling me that my lived experience doesn't match my perceptions which is preposterous.

If its OK with the mod in question I'd happily share the PM exchange if you require proof.

We're all entitled to suggest rule changes in feedback, my suggestion about banning baiting phrases was intended to cut out petty arguments not censor people.

I'm not ignoring what you said but I'm not going to discuss specific moderator actions with you either, perhaps your willingness to flout the rules is more of an issue than your opinions?

And of course you can suggest rule changes, this is Feedback after all. I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in your comments.

You're creating your own narrative now.

You've ignored the content of what I laid out for you and are just pushing your opinion.

I have no issues with robust debate but the way the site operates currently allows it for one group of people while coming down hard on another for identical behaviour, that's the issue.

And that's the beauty of it.

You read it as exasperation, I read it as aggressive.

Because you agree with it, and I disagree with it.

You are the one who brought up the ignore list onto this thread.

Now you respond with: "Why my ignore list is of such interest to you puzzles me."

Whether it is 100+ or 50+ I don't know, but it is obviously a non trivial number involved or you wouldn't keep bringing it up. And you are alleging they are getting away with abuse and it is being facilitated by biased mods. That it is not a once off or isolated issue but repeated enough times for you to raise it here.

That is why it is being discussed.

I brought it up once when the ignore function was being discussed by someone else.

Others such as yourself are the ones who keep brining it up, treating it like a Trump card any time I say anything here "well you have X amount of people on ignore", as if using the ignore function invalidates anything I say.

This thread is specifically for feedback, I have had experiences where I have been sanctioned where others being abusive to me either haven't been sanctioned at all or were dealt with more leniently.

That is the reason I began using the ignore function, for years I had nobody on it, through experience I've learned that it's better for me to just ignore people than get into pointless petty arguments, kind of like this one ironically enough, although I'm only willing to discuss this type of thing here because it's a more open forum in terms of expression.

Would it possible to bring in a change to the way the dispute resolution works? Instead of getting a “free” appeal to an admin after a sanction has been upheld could the appeal come with the risk of doubling the punishment if not successful?

This would save a lot of, wasted, admin time dealing with, dreadful, “time sink” users.

Also, maybe updating forum charter/rules to provide clarification on what will be enforced. Like with this, very, forum where you’re supposed to have 100 posts and be a member for 3 months before you can post on here. If that’s no longer the case then it should be “amended”.

As most decisions are upheld in DR what you're proposing is to take away any potential for decisions to be questioned at all.

What you're proposing wouldn't have been out of place in East Germany tbh.

You may perceive it as posters being 'abusive' to you and you only 'defending' yourself, that does not make it true or convincing to 3rd parties. Mods may deal with actions differently depending on previous conduct on a thread, an informal zero point or on thread warning may be sufficient for some posters but if similar conduct continues then a pointed warning is applied. It does not necessarily mean any bias.

And I find your claims \ perceptions unconvincing, and have pointed out reasons for this, not only with reference to ignore list but also with reference to claims made in posts in this thread.

You are making the claims here therefore if you can make such claims it should be open to other posters to comment on them in a civil manner. Or neither type should be made.

I've also discussed some of the implications of large scale use of ignore in a general sense, your comments may have prompted that but it is not all about your use of it, but general implications of wider use and and how it could be abused (that doesn't mean you are abusing it in the ways considered).

I think everybody reading this thread at this stage has read sufficient of your posts expressing your view and of mine in response to it to form their own opinions in response to it.

I do not plan to "keep bringing it up" unless to challenge further points you have made. And to respond to e.g. general comments made about ignore function.

You are suggesting that if someone questions the moderation by a certain mod, that the mods can choose to further punish the poster for doing so?

How very Orwellian.

I don't support anyone in this thread attacking or discussing posters in an uncivil manner, whoever the poster is.
That seems a matter for mods and should be reported.

(That doesn't mean I accept the premise of your question either in regard to any specific instance)

That is a point that some posters here are pushing heavily as site feedback. It's not gospel.

It has been pointed out repeatedly at this stage that only certain views are coming regularly to the attention of moderators as you put it. There is some pretty disgraceful carryon from posters who espouse this point of view, posters whom you'd swear butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

If CA etc is to survive credibly on boards, there needs to be a total overhaul of moderator modus operandi and a fresh start.