Very quiet in here

How can I link a post that was deleted and poster banned? I am sure I am not the only one here who saw it.

Glad to see you call it out though despite the caveat.

I'm getting my information on this from you.

I never saw the post nor was I aware it had been deleted.

I think it's a case that proves conclusively that EmmetSpiceland's position that boards is a cesspit filled with bigotry is an absolute fallacy.

So I suppose I really should thank you for proving my point.

Or maybe you missed a lot of posts like that and have no idea what is going on with the site?

In which case why bother posting in feedback?

They are reported and in most cases removed. But have to be reported we are told because mods don't see them otherwise if not on thread .

Some threads worse than others

that's ridiculous rule if you think about it. or should know gives the mods an excuse to ban anyone they want. along with no appeals until the 6th warning, who came up those rules.

Absolutely. But this is nothing new.

CA at least, has always been bafflingly lenient with posters who post utter nonsense in a civil way. Well-intended posters can post replies containing definitive proof that something is wrong, and it'll never be responded to in anyway. The poster will just carry as if nothing had happened.

It is utterly bad faith posting, the very opposite of what a discussion site is supposed to be, but nothing, and I mean nothing, ever, is done about it.

The problem is allowing people the platform surely?

If you ask:

What’s your most controversial opinion? 

why would you pretend to be surprised to get 'controversial opinions'?

The 'funny' thing is, I have seen numerous posts where posters just state absolute nonsense, with nothing to back up their posts whatsoever, but then I saw a poster that posted 2 links to back up their post. Which were then deleted by a mod, because one link was 6.5 years old.

Forum rules state, if you believe a poster is wrong or posting something wrong, point it out and move on. But yet, one posters links are deleted. It's just not a level playing field.

You acted surprised that a thread soliciting controversial opinions on a forum that religiously ignores mod instructions, got a controversial contribution.

FFS you were asking people ‘do you think that is ok?’

If the thread is soliciting controversial opinions don't be surprised if you get one moderation in the 1st thread or not.

You have my sympathy.

You were given a review that lasted a whole 12 minutes, an absolute kangaroo court.

What does banning a long time user for six months accomplish exactly?

If you had been abusing people and making a nuisance if yourself it would be understandable, but breaking a rule enforced on one thread shouldn't put a poster off of CA for half a year.

Is there a concerted effort to drive the site into the ground or something?

Things are working the way they are meant to work. This rule was brought in to make life easy for the mods. No appeals up to the 6 month ban, means that arbitrary warnings are given out. When it comes to the 6 month ban, it is the only one looked at. This isn't going to change. They want users to close their accounts, ie make life easy.

I had no visibility of that tbh.

I'm curious however as to how users that end up being issued a six month ban in CA should expect their dispute resolution to be dealt with.

I see ancapailldorcha oversaw the one Hamachi initiated and made a decision in 12 minutes. Is that sufficient time in which to make such a decision?

I'd also be if the opinion that ancapailldorcha is unlikely to ever overturn a decision made by a moderator in such cases as his own beliefs/opinions are very well understood by most regular users as is his own ability to engage in nasty behaviour himself.

Is this the individual that should be acting as judge jury and executioner is these situations? Or could someone with less bias be appointed for the sake of even appearing to be fair in such situations?

I can speak to this personally as I had a falling out with him on a thread last year and ended up thread banned and when I challenged the ban he was the one handling that dispute resolution which honestly wasn't a reasonable situation. I understand there isn't a wealth of people to carry out these roles but there should be some fairness also.

I'm not attempting to just have a go at ancapailldorcha here, surely it should be uncomfortable for him to be in that position also?