Very quiet in here

It explains why theres such wild inconsistencies in how people are moderated. Either a rule was broken and a warning correctly recieved or not.

Throwing out that politeness might lead to preferential treatment in appealing the unappealable is utterly bizarre.

Even when they are wrong?

And what about when a mod is giving the smart arse digs? No warnings or bans when reported. Ive witnessed Non polite/civil posts by mod/admins recently. Rules do not apply to them?

Mods are only fallible imperfect beings like the rest of us.

If you talk to them nicely, the chances are you will be given more credence than if you don't.

A huge amount of the issues in the conspiracy theories forum were caused by one user who spent close to two decades grandstanding and openly abusing people.

The same behaviour is present in some CA threads, I believe the Conspiracy forum user in question went on another platform and allegedly doxxed a user or users on this site (I'm open to correction here) which lead to their banning along with other issues surrounding their overall behaviour and attitude.

It was a valuable lesson in how it doesn't take much to make a forum an inhospitable place and that taking these types of users to task should likely be something that happens quicker before they destroy the place for everyone else.

That is pretty much the definition of backseat modding...

I somewhat get the rule. There's been a pretty common trend of manufacturing stories to provoke outrage, particularly around refugees. It's a lot harder to moderate such stories which will then get cited as evidence over and over.

You arent meant to be an arbiter of the truth. You are meant to facilitate conversation in your role as moderator. The many should suffer because of the actions of a few.

That does seem up to sum up the moderation. A conversation about a contentious topic will require people speaking about their experiences. It's a nonsense rule and does nothing except serial spammers discounting valid news reports and reporting people who have actual experiences.

As what was said earlier, there are people derailing threads with impunity and because they aren't technically breaking the rules, they are allowed away with it. While posters who respond to these posters are banned.

I think even anyone with the basic comprehension of how a debate or conversation works would realise that the problem lies with the rules in this case.

Not directed at you personally, because although I disagree with the ban I am still serving, you have previously been fair to me.

It's really not. It is asking a valid question.

It might read like backseat, but in grand scheme of things, I hardly think it warranted such a severe ban. I do understand that a couple of my other warnings were warranted, not all of them were, but I cant dispute them. So I had to suck up a 3 month ban for a very tame response to a very insulting post from a moderator to another poster.

I think it's this reason people will continue to get banned. Reacting to such "uncivil" comments like you have just posted.

If others had of said what you said, it would result in a ban and telling you to rethink your posting style.

That attitude absolutely stinks.

well that clears up everything. Its supposed to be a lottery system.

Thank lord that hasn't infected into other forums/area

Thank you. So to answer my question (which I was banned for) Mods are allowed post uncivil comments on a thread which would see others banned, because the rules about uncivility don't apply to you.

If you want to complain about it, you need to pm a mod about their immunity and see if they want to do anything about it.

In fairness, this absolutely is not what they're saying. Being blunt as an instruction in a moderator capacity is different to a moderator actively engaging in a discussion, same rules apply to them in the latter scenario.

I am not sure that is the correct way to look at it. It is not even on both sides. I have a large number of posters on my banned list, pretty much all from immigration thread, so i dont see and dont flag their posts, i found there was no point as clearly there was no action.

I am sure i am not the only one but you can see in the replied posts the consistent baiting and trolling particularily from "one side" (your words), and the only action I can see mods doing is applying bans to the ones who rose up and replied. I got a week long ban from CA from you for pointing out trolling and it was blindingly obvious but when i looked back, it had and still is merrily done by just a few posters.

I spend my time in the soccer forum which before the new site, was shocking for trolling. That has cleaned up by removing the trolls sonewhere around the changeover. If I am honest, I would be long gone out of here, primarily due to the modding, only for the soccer forum.

I like the idea above of warning for anedotes but leaving them visible as evidence of issue so we all know where the lines are. I would also ask that a post that has been actioned by the mod should not be able to be multi posted (replied) so the issue does not propagate but given the speed of some threads, I dont see how you action that without finding the copies and deleting but then you create issues with posts just disappearing without comment.