Poll of the Day > attn mods: so mods don't even need to respond to disputes anymore?

(+) Yeah! (+)

i got a minor moderation that i disputed. no message back, no reasoning, just stayed upheld, ok?

also, i can't appeal to the lead anymore, ok?

is this just the way things are now? mods can do a shitty job and not have to respond or answer to anything in question?
---

Ain't there a board for this
---

It was changed so that they HAVE to comment on the initial moderation, but they no longer have to respond to the dispute
---

Lokarin posted...

It was changed so that they HAVE to comment on the initial moderation, but they no longer have to respond to the dispute

They barely do that. They say offensive, but not which part actually is offensive...
---

Mods are cowards with a magnifying glass and an ant-farm, with zero accountability to anyone who frequents this website.

OP, I wouldn't spend too much energy calling them out on their bullshit.
---

Joker_X_II posted...

Mods are cowards with a magnifying glass and an ant-farm, with zero accountability to anyone who frequents this website.

OP, I wouldn't spend too much energy calling them out on their bullshit.

I wouldn't generalize... Lan and gmo are cool
---

Lokarin posted...

Joker_X_II posted...

Mods are cowards with a magnifying glass and an ant-farm, with zero accountability to anyone who frequents this website.

OP, I wouldn't spend too much energy calling them out on their bullshit.

I wouldn't generalize... Lan and gmo are cool

But the generalization isn't without warrant though. Those guys might be the exception, but many more are the rule, even on other websites.
---

from my experiences, the moderators on this site are pretty awful at their job

Some mods are not exactly the brightest bulbs on the chandelier. I disputed a moderation where anyone with any basic grasp of syntax would realize the moderator just didn't know how to read. UPHELD!

And then you have our own resident, lovely mod who openly admitted that mods are openly biased to your moderation history instead of being unbiased as real moderators should. We will not go into details as to how openly politically and socially biased they are.
---

Aculo posted...

is this just the way things are now? mods can do a shitty job and not have to respond or answer to anything in question?

P much, ok?
---

Retroxgamer0 posted...

from my experiences, the moderators on this site are pretty awful at their job

From my experiences, the same is true of a lot of the users complaining about them.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

And then you have our own resident, lovely mod who openly admitted that mods are openly biased to your moderation history instead of being unbiased as real moderators should.

Yo a moderation history exists to demonstrate that a person has been made aware of the rules and what breaks them. Those notify without deletes are less harsh, posts used to be deleted and karma was almost always lost if there was a violation. Now it's a warning. Don't do it again.

Some people break the same rule over and over and over

It gets a harsher punishment when a user is well aware of breaking the same rules

I'd like to know how that's unreasonable

---

Retroxgamer0 posted...

from my experiences, the moderators on this site are pretty awful at their job

In their defense though, they're doing this voluntarily, so it's not really a job. You get what you "paid" for.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Retroxgamer0 posted...

from my experiences, the moderators on this site are pretty awful at their job

In their defense though, they're doing this voluntarily, so it's not really a job. You get what you "paid" for.

some people just want fake power
---

Considering the fact they have already been punished for breaking rules in the past and the past has been and gone I don't think moderation history should apply unless the user has broke the same rule over and over in a short space of time. Honestly I've forgot about my moderation history until a mod would bring something up from ages ago.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Considering the fact they have already been punished for breaking rules in the past and the past has been and gone I don't think moderation history should apply unless the user has broke the same rule over and over in a short space of time. Honestly I've forgot about my moderation history until a mod would bring something up from ages ago.

It doesn't last forever

But people don't seem to realize realize how frequently they break these rules

---

PO coming to defend the mods by calling everyone terrible posters again lol

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

And then you have our own resident, lovely mod who openly admitted that mods are openly biased to your moderation history instead of being unbiased as real moderators should.

Yo a moderation history exists to demonstrate that a person has been made aware of the rules and what breaks them. Those notify without deletes are less harsh, posts used to be deleted and karma was almost always lost if there was a violation. Now it's a warning. Don't do it again.

Some people break the same rule over and over and over

It gets a harsher punishment when a user is well aware of breaking the same rules

I'd like to know how that's unreasonable

More to the point, it's how this site has always dealt with moderations. Mod history was ALWAYS more likely to get you harsher penalties, up to and including user map axes that take out every account you have.

So he's basically blaming the current mods for something that isn't even up to them, and which has been a thing since before he even made an account here.

The people who whine about the mods today have no real memory of what the site used to be like, when CjayC would change the ToS or autoflag certain words just because he got his feelings hurt, or the entirety of LUE got banished into another dimension for being consistently terrible.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

And then you have our own resident, lovely mod who openly admitted that mods are openly biased to your moderation history instead of being unbiased as real moderators should.

Yo a moderation history exists to demonstrate that a person has been made aware of the rules and what breaks them. Those notify without deletes are less harsh, posts used to be deleted and karma was almost always lost if there was a violation. Now it's a warning. Don't do it again.

Some people break the same rule over and over and over

It gets a harsher punishment when a user is well aware of breaking the same rules

I'd like to know how that's unreasonable

Oh sure, answer him, but ignore the OP, ok?
---

The dispute system changed a while ago. That's how disputes have worked for months. There's no direct moderator message response to any appeal, instead your appeal is reviewed and voted on collectively

So if you moderation was upheld the agreement was it's a violation

---

I think PO blocked me.

What the fuck.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

The dispute system changed a while ago. That's how disputes have worked for months. There's no direct moderator message response to any appeal, instead your appeal is reviewed and voted on collectively

So if you moderation was upheld the agreement was it's a violation

Oh fucking wonderful. Are our disputes even read anymore?
---

Aculo posted...

Oh fucking wonderful. Are our disputes even read anymore?

Yes that's generally what reviewed entails

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

And then you have our own resident, lovely mod who openly admitted that mods are openly biased to your moderation history instead of being unbiased as real moderators should.

Yo a moderation history exists to demonstrate that a person has been made aware of the rules and what breaks them. Those notify without deletes are less harsh, posts used to be deleted and karma was almost always lost if there was a violation. Now it's a warning. Don't do it again.

Some people break the same rule over and over and over

It gets a harsher punishment when a user is well aware of breaking the same rules

I'd like to know how that's unreasonable

Whats unreasonable is when what you said literally breaks no rule at all, but since a mod doesnt like it, he/she just lazily says its offensive. Theres no objective standard, just the mods subjective feelings get hurt so they moderate you. It really is bs.

BeerOnTap posted...

Whats unreasonable is when what you said literally breaks no rule at all, but since a mod doesnt like it, he/she just lazily says its offensive. Theres no objective standard, just the mods subjective feelings get hurt so they moderate you. It really is bs.

I think the best part is when you DIRECTLY demonstrate that you did not break the rule and that the moderator suffered from a lack of basic reading comprehension, with very easy to understand examples, and the moderation is still upheld. I am SURE that has to do with the user history, right?
---

"it violates the spirit of the rules"
upheld!
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

"it violates the spirit of the rules"
upheld!

"Lol, a dumb bitch got arrested for breaking the law."

"VICTIM BLAMING! SEXISM! SUSPENDED!"

Apparently being a criminal also makes you a victim.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

"Lol, a dumb bitch got arrested for breaking the law."

"VICTIM BLAMING! SEXISM! SUSPENDED!"

Apparently being a criminal also makes you a victim.

If that's what you took from your post or the moderation and decided to condense it to, wew

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

If that's what you took from your post or the moderation and decided to condense it to, wew

How is anyone in that story a victim, Foxx?

I mean, after all, we all know you don't moderate, ever, you said so yourself, but do tell me how someone who is openly arrested for breaking the law a victim? Since that was the narrative that extremely intelligent mod, who is TOTALLY not you, was pushing? Or is it that it's actively true that some delusional people that actually believe that gender decides victimhood?
---

All I gotta say is yikes

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

All I gotta say is yikes

I suppose you should indeed stick to "yikes".
---

The_tall_midget posted...

I mean, after all, we all know you don't moderate, ever, you said so yourself

Its weird. I noticed that like all the mods say the same thing. That they never mod anyone. How are there so many moderations when none of the mods mod anything? Is there just one guy who actually does all the mods or something...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its weird. I noticed that like all the mods say the same thing. That they never mod anyone. How are there so many moderations when none of the mods mod anything? Is there just one guy who actually does all the mods or something...

I don't mod marked posts on PotD. There's very few on this board relatively speaking

I've been lazy and not modding much in general, trying to figure out the new rules before going through the queue

But with the number of mods out there we each only need to do a few a day each to action a heap of marks.

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

But people don't seem to realize realize how frequently they break these rules

True. I don't care enough to remember.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The people who whine about the mods today have no real memory of what the site used to be like, when CjayC would change the ToS or autoflag certain words just because he got his feelings hurt, or the entirety of LUE got banished into another dimension for being consistently terrible.

At the end of the day a piece of shit is still a piece of shit no matter how messy it used to be.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

If that's what you took from your post or the moderation and decided to condense it to, wew

How is anyone in that story a victim, Foxx?

I mean, after all, we all know you don't moderate, ever, you said so yourself, but do tell me how someone who is openly arrested for breaking the law a victim? Since that was the narrative that extremely intelligent mod, who is TOTALLY not you, was pushing? Or is it that it's actively true that there are some delusional people that actually believe that gender decides victimhood?

Every mod says they don't moderate. It's complete bullshit, ok?
---

I also noticed the report has changed.
---

Retroxgamer0 posted...

from my experiences, the moderators on this site are pretty awful at their job

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Yo a moderation history exists to demonstrate that a person has been made aware of the rules and what breaks them. Those notify without deletes are less harsh, posts used to be deleted and karma was almost always lost if there was a violation. Now it's a warning. Don't do it again.

Some people break the same rule over and over and over

It gets a harsher punishment when a user is well aware of breaking the same rules

I'd like to know how that's unreasonable

In any other situation intent needs to be proven. Ive had mods and suspensions where they literally made up what my intention was, and in one case, which post I was responding to which made a world of difference. I could say they honestly believed I was intentionally typing something that I knowingly would get a mod for, but that was the case - they were looking to mod me because I explained exactly what had happened and they just said, in other words Nope. Thats not what you meant. ...I would hate to see these guys go to court and try to argue that.

Last one I got was especially funny. Apparently I bypassed the censor by inserting an emote in place of a letter of a swear word, as is printed on the hat I was talking about, and they said typing it is censor bypassing but if I had posted a picture of the hat itself, that says the same thing, that would have been okay. More to that is that if I had typed the whole word out and let the system censor it with asterisks, that also would have been okay

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

That's how disputes have worked for months. There's no direct moderator message response to any appeal, instead your appeal is reviewed and voted on collectively

Except that's complete bullshit. I have two minors in my history that were directly responded to. Would you like a screen shot? Are all of you compulsive liars, or are you told to be by the lead?
---

I find it funny to read this thread given how the level of moderation and strictness of following the TOS have changed so much over the years. Admittedly I was guilty of being one of those who loved to mark for moderation or kick someone out of the GameFAQs IRC chat rooms but nevertheless its interesting to see how no matter what level of moderation there is, not everyone will be happy.
---

Aculo posted...

Except that's complete bullshit. I have two minors in my history that were directly responded to.

Psssst. Those weren't replies to a dispute. You didn't dispute those

You don't get a direct reply to a dispute any more and haven't for months

But by all means show me what I can't see

---

zebatov posted...

In any other situation intent needs to be proven

This may blow your mind but the three strike rule exists in American criminal law and will send you to jail for far harsher punishment for the same crime depending on how many times you've broken the law

That rule sucks and actually affects a person's life forever

This is gamefaqs. You get a lot more than three chances on a message board and yeah you openly admitted that you censor bypassed so I'm not sure what you're upset about. It happens. The only reason you can currently swear on the boards is because of the censor system and when you bypass it, yes, you will be moderated

Many other places you'd just end up banned for breaking the rules as often as people do.

---

Why does censor bypass matter if the word is still censored?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Why does censor bypass matter if the word is still censored?

I believe it was to just have a clear line on what is/isn't acceptable. It became too tricky with how much obfusication is needed, and how people might selectively censor characters/etc... just too much of a hassle for a family friendly site.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Why does censor bypass matter if the word is still censored?

Because the partially obstructed word does not get fully censored with a bypass and will not censor the word further for anyone with the language filters on.

Let's not complain about that because it was a long fucking time before any swearing was allowed. Shit, I was shocked when they did.

You have never been able to use partially censored profanity as post text. That has been a violation since I joined. If it was allowed before that I can't comment.

---

I just dont get why you get in trouble for censoring a word. Id understand if they censor bypassed to get a full swear word in. But when someone censor bypasses a word, its still censored. Just not censored the way they like. Seems like dumb rule, anyway... Especially if the word is still censored...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I just dont get why you get in trouble for censoring a word. Id understand if they censor bypassed to get a full swear word in. But when someone censor bypasses a word, its still censored. Just not censored the way they like. Seems like dumb rule, anyway...

Because they didn't censor a word. They obstructed a restricted word in a way that doesn't allow the word to be automatically censored. It's a censor bypass.

Again, not a new rule, you've always had to fully censor profanity. Partially censoring profanity has got you modded forevs.

I almost unintentionally did it by typing shit with a bunch of extra i characters. It stopped me from posting. The system itself will warn you for many of the bypasses before you can post. It may not give the same warning for emojis breaking up a word

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I just dont get why you get in trouble for censoring a word. Id understand if they censor bypassed to get a full swear word in. But when someone censor bypasses a word, its still censored. Just not censored the way they like. Seems like dumb rule, anyway...

Because they didn't censor a word. They obstructed a restricted word in a way that doesn't allow the word to be automatically censored. It's a censor bypass.

Again, not a new rule, you've always had to fully censor profanity. Partially censoring profanity has got you modded forevs.

I almost unintentionally did it by typing shit with a bunch of extra i characters. It stopped me from posting. The system itself will warn you for many of the bypasses before you can post. It may not give the same warning for emojis breaking up a word

Except its censored. Just not fully censored. I also never said it was new. I know its not new. I never said it was. I said its dumb rule. Which it is. Its censored, but not fully censored. So you get in trouble. Its fine. Follow the rules and whatever. Its just one of those stupid rules that dont make sense, is all. The word it still not viewable in its original form (like the full bad word)...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its censored, but not fully censored.

Hence... Censor bypass

Glad you get it

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Its censored, but not fully censored.

Hence... Censor bypass

Glad you get it

I dont. Bypassing what exactly. Its still censored. Thats why I dont understand it... Censoring the word shit by getting censoring the i, the hi, or the hit are all ways to censor the word. So, why is it wrong that its censored a different way?
---