Dispute with mod

Okay, I feel the need to say something here.

EmmetSpiceland, it's quite tedious how you keep repeating this mantra of yours that all posters need to do is change their posting style and all will be well. Because it's simply not true.

It's not a coincidence that the same complaints keep cropping up on these threads and its not always by the same poster(s). There are problems that need to be resolved, and there is most definitely fault on the part of posters AND fault on the part of moderators. Saying it is all one-sided does not resolve anything.

The mods are human too, and even BBOC can acknowledge that mistakes ARE made, and modding is not consistent.

So why can't you?

I would have agreed with you before the recent rule changes to CA. But now the rules really are not clear. I have posted on this thread defending the CA mods of bias but there is abundant evidence on this thread from long standing genuine posters that moderation is inconsistent and capricious and sporadic. Some of that is down to lack of mods, and of course we all recognise the trojan work put in by the too few mods covering it. But it is more than that going on.

The same action can result in different outcomes and not even with regard to previous record as before. Behaviour on CA which before would not have been sanctioned is now leading to unappealable sanctions which are permanent on your record in CA. It is a problem.

Either the CA sanctions should be subject to appeal or have an expiration date on them. Anything else is just a ratchet effect which will eventually lead to long standing CA posters being forum banned on dubious grounds. Posters which before now seldom if ever troubled the mods.

So, while in general I would agree with your points for the majority of forums I frequent but I think you have not spent much time in CA since the new rules to justify them there.

I was threatened with further warning for discussing my infraction on the thread. I think it's quite unfair that you can speak about it with others, yet I will face another warning for defending myself.

I was also subject to choice language via PM which was unacceptable for someone who is meant to moderate. It wasn't just stirring. I explained that I found it troubling because the way you phrased it could have been interpreted that Mods had access to identifying information. Once it was explained, it was no longer troubling. It was nothing but a misunderstanding and I explained that. I was told that you didn't believe me and called me a **** stirrer and I was lucky you didn't ban me.

Again, I deleted my post about this at your demand/warning. But I think it is only fair to defend myself now that you were discussing it with another poster.

My bad history was also brought up. Is it any wonder I have a "bad history" when I was hit with 4 warnings in the space of one afternoon two days after the posts were made?

It does give the mods an excuse to treat my posts with more severity because of the history that they have helped create.

I will and have shown I am willing to tone down my rhetoric when asked, all I asked is to be treated fairly when I do.

For clarity, since asked to delete my post, I have not contributed to the thread. I had no intention of bringing this up but feel that I have no choice when a discussion is about my posting style and I feel justified in defending myself against what I consider to be untrue.

It might be your opinion that I am a ****-stirrer but that is not true. And if I said that about any other poster, I would rightly receive a warning.

I remember your post and I was very surprised you were warned for it. I saw it as a genuine comment.

I think part of the issue is that on more contentious threads there are posters who want to talk about the issues and thrash it out. They may not necesarily be amenable to having their minds changed if they feel strongly about it but they are happy to take opposing views and argue against them/agree in part, and are genuine good faith posters. There are other posters, who really don't want certain topics discussed as they see it as giving a platform for these topics. They often post in bad faith, low level seemingly polite sea lioning, twisting people's words, repeating the same bad faith arguments ad naueseum . If someone finally snaps, the person who snaps posts are reported and sanctioned seemingly quite quickly.

I know the mod refrain is report, but I think most genuine posters don't want to report low level stuff, they'd rather get on with the thread. But then when their posts are reported in bad faith then it feels unfair and leads to mod complaints that other thread posts be sanctioned in retrospect. To be fair to mods I have seen the posters I'm alluding to banned from threads, but it seems to take a long while. Whether this is due to differing reporting trends or bias in what and who mods deem actionable I don't know, my suspicion is a combination of both. I think what most posters wanted from the previous thread was more active low level moderation, seeing what way the thread was going, and issuing on thread 'cop on' notices. I appreciate this is not possible for mods but I think blanket relieving all the CA bans with the change in mod policy just allowed all these troll posters free reign again, which is the exact opposite of what most CA posters wanted.

Won't reply as it's against mod

Here's a solution: Delete Current Affairs.

It's a cesspit anyway.

It’s good that we can say that now. When it was first set up any suggestion that it was a dung heap to attract a “certain type” was shutdown quick enough.

It would be an unmitigated disaster if that forum was closed.

Used to frequent After Hours years ago, had a look in there yesterday, it's changed too and not for the better