I don't think it's very cool that when someone on this forum posts a vitriolic attack against another human being the mods determine that it is not their place to censor him, but when another person posts a sarcastic comment expressing disapproval over a fanboy bitch-fight about what the TRUE and PROPER name of a blockbuster movie franchise is they get deleted without a moment's hesitation or even the pretense of justification. Way to have your priorities straight, guys! At least be consistent!

>consistency
>EGF mod policy


[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/810/r14p.jpg/][/URL]


I'd like to know what you mean with first one though. Haven't seen any serious slamdowns lately

Who vitriolically attacked whom and what now? I guess you could elaborate about what the intent of your comment actually was, gatotsu, because I honestly couldn't tell. It read like flame fodder and that's why it got deleted.

Insert tired joke about sarcasm and Internet here.

My two cents: Mod policy isn't as inconsistent as you may think. I get that the forums aren't prefect, we all know that, but the context of posts are everything. In particular, sarcasm--especially when it causes thread derailment--really helps nobody.

Edit: Slight typo.

The forum administration is not a rigid organization that is able to catch everything immediately; hell, no police force in the world could boast that kind of efficiency, and that is their job. This is simply a hobby for us, and we do our best to keep things peaceful around here. For the most part, we do a great job at it, but it's not due to strict policing. It's due more to the trust we have that you, the members of the forum, won't start shit around every corner that would require our attention. When it does happen, you can bet that we'll be involved as soon as we catch it, but for the most part things are alright.

If your first example is what I think it is, then you're mistaken about the moderator's level of involvement in the situation. More goes on behind the scenes than what you might think, especially with delicate situations.

Xard wrote:I'd like to know what you mean with first one though. Haven't seen any serious slamdowns lately

I was referring to the AWL incident (dunno if you followed that), wherein one of the justifications I recall seeing bandied about for why Hal's blatantly offensive and inflammatory post to AWL - which included such pleasantries as direct personal insults, judgments of character, and wishing for her career to fail - was not deleted is that it is not the mods' place to censor the opinions of members. Meanwhile, today I post a comment on the "Rebuild vs. NME" thread expressing (through sarcasm/comedy) that I thought the basis of the debate was absurd and that both the aggression and air of self-proclaimed expertise in Reichu's comment directed at Warren Peace was laughable, and rather than an actual response or even a warning my post gets deleted outright, as well as the followup post in which I expressed (again, humorously) that I didn't think that was appropriate. It just seems awfully hypocritical to me, is all.

Since you previously said you believe nothing needs to be taken seriously, I don't see you should feel the need need to comment on that thread that you feel it is ludicrous as it only means you actually took the debate seriously.

It's so cute how you're gradually figuring out how to troll, symbv

Well, if you mean I was posting with no other purpose except to provoke negative emotional response and nothing else, I am sorry you think and feel that way. But I seriously think that you should not have felt a need to post there. Either you in fact took the debate seriously enough, or the sarcasm bug inside you just could not resist rearing its head. Besides, posting sarcastic comments while saying you don't take it seriously is usually just a way to hide a lack of desire to engage in constructive and substantial debate, rather than a lack of seriousness.

gatotsu911 wrote:I was referring to the AWL incident (dunno if you followed that), wherein one of the justifications I recall seeing bandied about for why Hal's blatantly offensive and inflammatory post to AWL - which included such pleasantries as direct personal insults, judgments of character, and wishing for her career to fail - was not deleted is that it is not the mods' place to censor the opinions of members.

Who said that? That's never been a reason, we'll remove posts if they break the rules no matter what members opinions may be. That post in particular (which has been long gone) was posted at a time of day when mods weren't around and the thread took on a lot of traffic before anyone could get to locking it. As opposed to simply sweeping pages of a thread under the rug immediately, we left it there until we decided what to do.

Meanwhile, today I post a comment on the "Rebuild vs. NME" thread expressing (through sarcasm/comedy) that I thought the basis of the debate was absurd and that both the aggression and air of self-proclaimed expertise in Reichu's comment directed at Warren Peace was laughable, and rather than an actual response or even a warning my post gets deleted outright, as well as the followup post in which I expressed (again, humorously) that I didn't think that was appropriate. It just seems awfully hypocritical to me, is all.

I saw that post, wasn't the one that deleted it, but it was complete gibberish. No clue what you were trying to get at. Didn't have time to do anything about it but when I got back to my comp, someone PMed me reporting that post but by then, it had already been deleted.

Sorry that thread doesn't meet your approval of "things that people are allowed to take seriously", but if you're going to complain about it, at least try to make it so other people know what you're going on about.

If there is one thing that I have learned from 15 years of posting in forums, it is this;

Mods do play favorites and do not distribute warnings/bans consistently. Some forums are better than others in this regard, but every single forum community has one or two moderators that misuse their position in order to silence opinions they personally don't agree with or as a shield to cover their asses for their own uncivil behavior.

This is just something that happens on forum boards. If you truly have a problem with it, then try contacting the admin(s) and pleading your case.

Then I guess we're lucky because we don't have anyone like that here.

Except for what powers they have, Mods and Admins are on a pretty equal playing field here and we make the big decisions for this site together.

Needless to say, if somebody is or would be caught playing favorites, they'd be reprimanded for it. As far as I remember, that hasn't been an issue, or not an issue in recent years since people learn their mistakes.

Now, not all the staff is online at all hours (we're spread across different Time Zones AND this is a high traffic website) which is going to make catching things (inappropriate posts, for instance) difficult or not something we immediately catch.

gatotsu911 wrote:I don't think it's very cool that when someone on this forum posts a vitriolic attack against another human being the mods determine that it is not their place to censor him

So I guess locking that shit and burying it in the graveyard isn't good enough, we need to delete it too?

It's not even in the graveyard.

Ornette wrote:It's not even in the graveyard.

I was referring to this actually:

http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/12580/How-I-feel-about-Sgt-Griffs-Questionable-Behavior/

The Eva Monkey wrote:So I guess locking that shit and burying it in the graveyard isn't good enough, we need to delete it too?

Just to be clear, you do know that the OP is three months old, right?

BobBQ wrote:Just to be clear, you do know that the OP is three months old, right?

Was going to ask this