A few things

[Callum.]

well anything aimed at a specific mod, or to do with one or along those lines shouldn't be dealt with by that mod. they'd obviously see the worst side to it even if it wasn't meant to be seen that way.

[lick]

Maybe just get rid of the rule and replace it with "Fueling arguments" then the posts that are clearly trying to continue an argument can be seen and can be dealt with. Because most of the stuff that gets edited for posting to cause arguments is a joke / not really trying to cause one.

[iAdam]

Maybe just get rid of the rule and replace it with "Fueling arguments" then the posts that are clearly trying to continue an argument can be seen and can be dealt with. Because most of the stuff that gets edited for posting to cause arguments is a joke / not really trying to cause one.

That will always be said by the person who's been infracted, moderators arn't stupid 9 times out of 10, our judgement is good, and usually we can tell what's a joke and what's not. A major place where posting to cause arguments can be seen is the sports forum, one person insults anothers team, and it starts that way, I personally have always adopted that into other situations and looked whether the other person has reacted badly, thus finding out if the post caused an argument, then the post was there to cause an argument.

[lick]

That will always be said by the person who's been infracted, moderators arn't stupid 9 times out of 10, our judgement is good, and usually we can tell what's a joke and what's not. A major place where posting to cause arguments can be seen is the sports forum, one person insults anothers team, and it starts that way, I personally have always adopted that into other situations and looked whether the other person has reacted badly, thus finding out if the post caused an argument, then the post was there to cause an argument.

If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?

[iAdam]

If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?

Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.

[lick]

Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.

*Removed*

And no, i reported them because they were stupid? who said they were in spite? i never said it...

And they where proven to be stupid because Jin, who is not even a mod removed them

Penis Pump

LOL i got one for that

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please leave the moderating to to the moderators.
A13. Leave moderating to the moderators – If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with a brief description.

[Immenseman]

1) "Posting to cause an argument" rule. So so flawed. Anything can be seen to be posting to cause an argument, in spam quite a lot of things are yet only a few are actually edited. Example: I was infracted in a thread aimed at me and a few others, I was the one infracted for a post I made in there for "posting to cause arguments." The argument was already caused, my post wasn't rude/insulting at all and therefore shouldn't have been edited or punished at all. Think that was the one that was reversed but yeah this one realllllllllllllly needs sorted out.

Agreed to an extent. Throughout the forum there are numerous posts where if mods knew the real reasoning to why they were posted, more infractions would be given. However, they don't. You can't blame them for that. It's unfortunate they have to use their own judgement because obviously it leaves more room for error, there is no other option though.

What do you suggest? There is no other alternative. They have to continue to use their judgement and if in your case they get it wrong there are procedures you can go down to get it removed which you know full well.

2) Mods taking things personally. Example: One mod pming me to ask if I had a problem (PMING TO CAUSE ARGUMENTS - CLEARLY!), when I ask them to stop because I can't be done with it they carry on. They then act the victim, they gave me an infraction for saying "laughing at disabled people is disgusting" - apparently this looks like I'm calling another member, who was the one laughing at a disabled person in the first place, disabled. This mod then says they find it "suprising" I could say something like this (completely getting the wrong end of the stick). Why should mods be allowed to attack someone so personally, it's not their job to deal specifically with just one person and how they act, obviously they give out punishments but why should I be constantly pmed asking if I have a problem with the mods? Yes, I do with a few and that's up to me, I know others have had this too. I don't want Mods pming me calling me "suprising" and asking why I don't like you, then them acting like the victim.

You can't just generalise and say "mods" from what I gather you're acting on one example, which is one moderator. So you say you think the moderator is doing things they shouldn't be. Once again, you know how to make complaints about moderators - this isn't really for feedback because it's not all moderators that are like this, maybe one or two.

You can't attack the whole department for the actions of a few moderators in the department. Well you can but it's hardly a valid argument. How many mods have PM'd you and told you your actions are surprising? The whole department?

Another example of mods taking things personally. I abused the reporting system to make a point - not exactly the best way - and was told if I didn't stop I'd be cautioned. I stopped. Sent back a pming saying they were pming me to cause arguments. I was cautioned for being "rude". The whole point was to show that rule (go bk 2 da first paragraphzZ) was flawed and I end up getting cautioned for something I wasn't meant to and just for being "rude" to one mod, clearly not fair.:rolleyes:

Well you worked that one out for yourself. If you think the system is flawed you create a thread like this or you PM the people who deal with it which in this case would be the Forum Manager. When you abuse the system what on Earth do you expect?

So once you got told you were abusing the system, which you have admitted and got a PM telling you so, you sent a reply telling the moderator they were trying to argue with you when they are merely doing their job. You genuinely can't see what you did wrong there...?

3) Accusing people of lying. Yeah, it's fine to be infracted for accusing someone of hacking (HEY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TIES INTO POSTING TO CAUSE AN ARGUMENT ) but LYING? lol i think not. some mods don't like to be proved wrong obviously.

Depends in what context. Again, it's unfortunate it has to come down to personal judgement but that's the only thing that can be done. I don't see anything wrong with calling someone a liar, sure it's not a compliment but it's hardly an insult.

Apparently that rule has been removed anyway. Although, depending on what you said you could probably still have a negative sanction added to your account.

seriously just sort out the rules, give the right punishment for the right rule broken, don't infract with causing arguments which were already caused, if it was rude it would be accepted as valid but don't make people out to be starting arguments when they haven't.


maybe this should be in complaints but what the hell. sorry, did i just post to cause arguments?? damn.

On this forum if you contribute to an argument you will be given the infraction posting to cause arguments regardless of whether the argument has already started. For example say person A and person B have been arguing. They make 3 posts each and each one is given a warning/infraction for posting to cause arguments.

Technically that is correct because if one of them stopped posting, there wouldn't be an argument. Each time of them post they are continuing the argument thus they are posting to cause arguments.

It's not like real life, where disagreements and arguments flow. Often people don't reply for 10 minutes or so and then reply again, re-starting the argument.

The infraction that got me a caution was supposedly posting to cause arguments. I looked at it yesterday, two weeks on and realise it was unjust and it got removed. If it had never been handed out in the first place I wouldn't have been cautioned. I'm not going to sit here and blame the whole moderation department for a mistake. I waited patiently and didn't kick up a fuss and got it removed when I came back on.

The only thing that I think does need changing is consistency, I might make a thread on it later. This rule is up for debate. It's left to personal judgement and some peoples judgements are a lot harsher than others. However, HxF has managed to counter this by ensuring that any bad infractions can be removed.

[AgnesIO]

This is basically a thread complaining about being infracted, am I right?

[lick]

This is basically a thread complaining about being infracted, am I right?

No if you read you would see its about a rule and mods taking things personally.

The infraction she got was remove.. you would have seen that also if you read

[leah]

She could have done that if she wanted, but she wanted peoples opinions on it, she did not want someone telling her to PM a manager.

I wasn't telling her to not make the thread, thanks. I was giving my opinion which the feedback forum is for and I was also saying that if she has complaints in the future about a certain moderator the best thing to do would be to PM their manager...

lol. that's not my point. all my unfair infractions have been reversed as did my caution. my point is giving them out in the first place. i don't think they're targetting me at all, just some like to be personal when dealing with some members. please don't try to patronize me. you'd make a great mod in that aspect.

That's not patronizing, Jen. I was merely saying that if a mod is personal with you or doing something they shouldn't you should PM their manager so they're dealt with