Can we talk about talking about politics?

This is the kind of bullshit we deal with.

First, as I posted above, if you have moderating concerns, this kind of passive-aggressive post accomplishes zero -- and in fact, is inflammatory. We don't have favorites. We don't have vendettas against anyone. Did you really need to add that to the thread? What is the point? You don't like the moderating on here? Fine. No one is forcing you to post here

If anyone has a specific issue with something posted on this board, we are ALWAYS here to listen, and we will ALWAYS step in when someone crosses a line -- no matter who the person is. Of course what we are getting here are vague assertions that we like some people and hate others and play favorites. Which is really odd, because not even all the moderators like the same people on here.

The kind of post I quoted, typically someone whose posting history is prone to an argumentative nature that rubs other posters wrong, and very often is someone who has come and gone with multiple user names being a pain in the ass with each one. I don't know if that is the case with Norrin Radd, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Even if I am wrong about that, what is the purpose of your vague assertion of favoritism? It basically boils down to you not understanding why we don't ban everyone you dislike (or have gotten into pissing matches with). Naturally, we play favorites, because we don't indulge your negative personality. So of course, it means we have a vendetta against certain people or a love others and don't treat everyone equally.

And that is absolute bullshit. We don't play favorites on here. There is no official or unofficial approved or unapproved list of posters. Yet, we hear that bullshit all the time. Certain people passive-aggressively post it every chance they get. I have gotten it twice since this thread was started.

The reality is that we have a bunch of disagreeable people on here who will never be happy with anything we do. As a moderating group we each have people on this board we personally get along with and some we personally don't. One thing I know we all do well is go out of our way to put aside any of that when it comes to enforcing a standard on the board. I personally go out of my way -- and this has included many people who are constant pains in the ass in general, and several who are downright nasty to me in particular -- to always argue "give him / her " a second chance before "disciplining" as you put it.

But I know there are always going to be the same people who don't believe that and see this giant conspiracy in which there is a moderating crew that doesn't "target" the right people. When our goal isn't to target anyone. It's to keep the board running smoothly. If you really don't believe me, perhaps its worth looking inward and questioning why you are so wrapped up in a message board that you are obsessing over who gets "disciplined." We're certainly not, and honestly would prefer not to have to ever suspend or ban anyone. When we do, it is because we have done everything we can to get through to the person and they have really left us no choice.

 

No, there really wouldn't be consensus. That is the problem. And all that is going to do is start the kind of shit we are trying to avoid, right?

Half the people we get complaining about others on here don't realize they are as big a part of the problem as the person they are complaining about.

And no matter how patiently you try to explain it, they will never see it.