My well-defined proposal
Originally Posted by mishkin
When I said you thought there might be a better way, I didn't say it was my way. Pann was just posting crap and misrepresenting your post. I'm sorry you felt I said you were of one mind with me, but I never said we agreed or were arguing for the same thing in that post. Hell, I never said what your argument was at all, just that it wasn't what pann said.
Originally Posted by PikeStance
Instead of judging people on guesses, accept the fact that we cannot know ferret's or Garb's true intentions and do not judge them on what you think might be their intention.
When I was following the discussion I noticed people who had a predisposition that Ferret was being persecuted believed Garb's post was the same, those who had a predisposition that Ferret was guilty didn't see a connection between Garb's post and Ferret's post. As I stated, I didn't know either one. Also, when I read Garb's post I innitially seen it as a mock of whomever were defending themselves in the tribunal (I didn't even know the name of the person). Its a gess, but I have conclude that most do not see a connection (or that the two posts as the same).
Really, the only conspiracy is the Staff's conspiracy theory that Ferrets is out to hurt random people's feelings.
I don't know about "most sites" but I do know a lot of sites have some form of ban appealing. Every time some one makes this argument I always bring up 4chan. If a site with possibly millions more users and organized groups actively trying to troll it into oblivion and anonymous posting can have a ban appeal system, then its not too impressive to have one here.
The delusion is that there is a conspiracy here. You are lucky to have a tribunal. You at least have an opportunity to appeal decisions mad by the moderators. Most sites do not have any formal appeal process. Back in the day, when I was a moderator for a different forum, the decisions by the moderator was final. If I made a poor decision, it still stood. I was just told behind scenes to change how I was moderating. In a nutshell, you should be grateful.
That said, the Tribunal is pretty awesome. Having this stuff in public is like having internet Judge Judy. Except you get to take part in it.
I try to respond to everyone in posting in my threads. That stuff was an example of pleb moderation.
As a rule, whenever someone post something that doesn't add anything to the discussion, I ignore them. You should do the same.
Was there any kind of follow up, or did it just fizzle out there?
Originally Posted by Garbarsardar
No, there is a grey area for us plebs. Ferrets can post one thing and get infracted, and Garb can post literally the exact same thing and not get infracted. The moderation's interpretation of our posting is a grey area for us. And, frankly, it seems the best way to curry favorable interpretations is to be your buddies. This disgusts me, and I will speak out against it as long as I can.
Originally Posted by Bolkonsky
Jesus Christ. No, we do not know ferrets' intention because it is ing impossible to know anyone's intentions on the internet. I doubt ferrets gives the slightest about anyone's feelings in the mudpit, either way. He won't often go out of his way to make friends with random mudpit posters, but he won't go out of his way to make them cry. That's just how he posts.
And yes, you could make the case of indirect insults, but I'd say two things to that.
1) It's not a grey area. You're either trying to insult someone, or you're not. In this example, we know Ferret's motive - to insult the person. He was trying to make them feel worse. End of story.
As I proved in this thread, Garb has a history of making a mockery the ToS to make his points. So, why does the staff not assume he is lying when he says he wasn't insulting ferrets, and in fact goes to some length to defend his behavior?
2) If you get nailed for something that wasn't meant for an insult, then you don't need to worry because if you have no record then it will just be a note or deleted post, and if you have a record, then you probably deserve it because you were probably trying to be insulting and are just lying about it. And if it's neither of those, oh well, nothings' perfect, but I seriously doubt anyone's gotten a multiple point infraction when they weren't trying to be insulting.
This is the internet. Everything is a big deal about nothing.
This is you, making a big deal about nothing, because you feel like it. End of story, you could hypnotize me, brainwash me, shower me with propaganda, and drug me, and I still wouldn't believe you're genuinely concerned about anything you're making a fuss out of.
I am offended by this nonsense that I don't genuinely care about this. You are making this site uncivil and unfriendly in a far more insidious way than ferrets and his acidity could ever hope to achieve. You aren't even ing debating with this statement. You are basically sticking your fingers in your ears squealing, "lalala i can't hear you". You have some stupid bias about my intentions and thus are going to discount everything I say. This attitude is retarded beyond belief and its a real ing shame that this seems to be the prevailing attitude among the moderation.
Edit (forgot about Gigantus)-
Obviously, its a work in progress idea. A proposal more concrete than "teh moderators suk lol" was asked for and that's what I came up with on the spot. It is unsurprising that there are kinks that would need to be worked out. Regarding how leaving an insult up for everyone to see and comment on further derail threads, you bring up a good point. What I'd do is this: treat it as a typical infraction, delete the comment and send your usual notification to the infracted party. However, also send a PM to the victim saying something like "So-and-so was infracted for insulting you here. If you would like you and So-and-so can discuss the matter between the two of you. If, after talking to So-and-so, you feel the infraction should be reversed, let us know and we will do so. If you do not feel it should be dropped, or do not wish to talk to So-and-so at all, the infraction will remain." If the victim never responds then the infraction would have to stay. Idk how long it would take to send one more PM per infraction, but once a working template is made, actually creating the PM would take mere seconds.
So basically, go about things as normal. Only act differently if the victim asks for it.