Very quiet in here

I never once tried to misinterpret necro. In fact I have been nothing but complimentary.

And my point stands. A poster is either being uncivil or not. And should be subject to the same standards. "Working" in a mod capacity, should not give them an ability to fall below the standards they demand from others.

No you see, even though the charter says you can't PM, you actually can PM and if you are nice about they might overturn the decision. Sometimes.

According to BBOC

So what is that sentence doing in the charter? Arse covering is it?

I seem to be the only "arsehole" who read the bloody charter.s

Sorry all.

I'll cop on and stop going by it.

This.

Great suggestion

I've read this whiole thread and first off, it's great that issues like this can be discussed openly and that the thread has continued. THis should be a sticky/default feature of this forum vs closing it after a period as ongoing feedback is invaluable and ultimately, both mods and (most!) users want the same thing - a healthy forum where discussion and debate can occur with as little friction as possible.

It strikes me though from the last page of posts that the charter needs some reworking if no-one is clear/agreed on what exactly is the expectation. Personally I think it's a positive that mods are replying to PMs regardless (excluding abuse which NO ONE should have to put up with!), but I see how this is confusing vs what's in the charter.

One thing I'll say though and it's one I've raised before…. ultimately this is just a forum. It's not life or death and we're not in a courtroom. It's random anonymous people posting their thoughts, rants, suggestions or ideas on a variety of things but that's all it is. With that in mind, so what if someone posts an anecdote (given the forum itself is titled IMHO as well), or so what if they go off-topic as the conversation evolves (as happens in real-life all the time!)

The second point I'll make is that on the topic of "problematic posters" it's again pretty easy to identify where the issues lie if someone looks at a thread objectively - someone badgering others for "proof", or replying to well-thought out posts with one line "smart" answers, or who just seems to be there to provoke others, isn't offering anything to the discussion or the forum.

Often these same posters carry their attitude across multiple threads and this is again very obvious, but because of "technicalities" where they consciously skirt but don't break a (possibly arbritary or misunderstood) rule, they're allowed to continue while others are banned for taking the bait.

We're taking 5/6 posters really and I'm sure 95% of people reading this post who also frequent CA could name at least some of them. If they can, the mods can and again it's just a forum - either ban them or don't but if you don't then it's hard to justifiably sanction others in response.

Personally I like the idea of what the new approach was to achieve - a more hands-off, let-it-flow approach that tackles obvious indisputable problems (like potential legal issues for the site) but otherwise let's posters get on with it - but unfortunately the same old approaches to moderation have diluted the effect to where no-one seems to know what is allowed/not, what will/won't be actioned, and what each mod may/may not deem inappropriate.

Inconsistency and a lack of clarity is the biggest issue but adding more "red tape" isn't the answer. Just clarifying some of the existing rules and EVERYONE taking a breath and step back and remembering that it is still only a forum at the end of the day.

As somebody who has criticised the lack of moderation of posts where there's just bad faith nonsense, let me say that the quick handling of the Vancouver car killings is good to see.

Thread bans were getting too difficult for mods to manage manually.

Would a 24 hour thread ban be something to consider for mods?

That might be more manageable.

Such a sanction shouldn't move the poster along the sequence of longer duration bans.