Current Events > So the mods no longer have to give an explanation for upheld moderations?

(+) Yeah! (+)

When did this start?

Mods can say any old thing and it wouldnt matter.

As a mod in training Im just gonna say, easy cowboy

I'm assuming the shitposting alt's moderations don't need explanation in the first place.

Dont even read ur moderations. Dont give them the satisfaction. Treat it as the CE tax.

To keep your wifes name wouldnt you need to have already had it when you got married? Otherwise youd be taking your wifes name not keeping it

Post the name of your main account, TC.

MarcyWarcy posted...

To keep your wifes name wouldnt you need to have already had it when you got married? Otherwise youd be taking your wifes name not keeping it

pun on the will smith Oscar incident

@R1masher I lie to you not, im on a super smash bros board. I make a topic asking did the game debut on the snes or was the first smash bros on 64? I got modded for trolling.

Its been like that for around 2 years. It was announced when the system changed.

NES4EVER posted...

Its been like that for around 2 years. It was announced when the system changed.

thats horrible. Moderations that are appealed should have some type of commentary when upheld. It would help keep genuine posters from repeating a mistake.

Keepmywifename8 posted...

genuine posters

Well worry about yourself, not other people

Keepmywifename8 posted...

thats horrible. Moderations that are appealed should have some type of commentary when upheld. It would help keep genuine posters from repeating a mistake.

Kinda counts you out then.

Hey guise, thats subjective

Keepmywifename8 posted...

thats horrible. Moderations that are appealed should have some type of commentary when upheld. It would help keep genuine posters from repeating a mistake.

I do understand. However, in cases of an ambiguous moderation, the moderator should be leaving a note to the user explaining why it was deleted. I know that doesnt always happen though.

There are some cases i wish i could provide a response to a user, but that function no longer exists... And the new system is generally much quicker to reach resolution.

This is why they need tag the mod that took action on each moderation.

So the user can contact them directly to find out what the dealio is.

Mods just ignored my last contested moderation.

A 2 day warning wasn't the worst thing ever. But still pretty rude. It had been like a decade before that that I had even been modded for
anything. And the mod was BS. No uphold, overturn, reply, nothing. Just waited out the warning.

Priere posted...

This is why they need tag the mod that took action on each moderation.

So the user can contact them directly to find out what the dealio is.

on the one hand, that's a terrible idea because it would just lead to even more bannings (people would harass the mods directly)

but on the other hand, that's an excellent idea because it would just lead to even more bannings (people would harass the mods directly)

NES4EVER posted...

I do understand. However, in cases of an ambiguous moderation, the moderator should be leaving a note to the user explaining why it was deleted. I know that doesnt always happen though.

There are some cases i wish i could provide a response to a user, but that function no longer exists... And the new system is generally much quicker to reach resolution.

Hypothetically, if the message was indeed a violation but it was clear the user needed more explanation as to why (and that they were genuine), could a mod PM them to explain or similar? Or is even that not allowed now?