Moderator Decision Review Thread

[Dalton]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a clear and concise rationale for a moderator's administrative decisions during the course of their duty, if and only if there is question as to the reasons for the action. Any complaints lodged through the appropriate channels about a moderator's decisions will be addressed here and reviewed by an appropriately higher-ranked moderator or administrator.

To be clear, this is not open-season on moderators; if you have a legitimate grievance and go through the proper channels, it will be addressed here.

[Dalton]

6/23/2010

User: [anonymous]

Complaint: Mystikal banned unfairly by Dalton.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: Mystikal was banned for using words such as "fruity" and "gay" in a derogatory sense, a violation of PR7. Darth Wong agreed with the measure in the moderator forum.

Note: I am fully aware that I am indeed reviewing my own actions here, given Darth Wong's current absence from the board. Additional verification may be provided from other moderators if necessary.

[Dalton]

Oct. 27, 2010

Plaintiff: Kane Starkiller

Defendant: Thanas

Complaint: The Defendant's moderation of the Plaintiff in this thread, resulting in this thread, was unfairly harsh.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Evidence: The Defendant's decision was based on the Plaintiff's previous posting history, allegedly demonstrated here, here and here, as well as others' opinion of the Plaintiff here and here.

Verdict: The Defendant acted too rashly, but it seems justifiable given the Plaintiff's previous history. However, there was no proof that the Plaintiff would go down the same road. I have already discussed the issue with the Defendant and the matter is resolved.

Sentence: No punishment on either side, but I won't reverse the Defendant's decision. Case dismissed.

[Dalton]

Nov. 7, 2010

Plaintiff: [anonymous]

Defendant: Thanas, Edi

Complaint: The Defendants' moderation of ShadowDragon8685 in this thread was unfairly harsh.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Evidence: ShadowDragon8685's post was rebuked by Defendant Thanas and further reinforced by Defendant Edi for "tough-guy-ism", which while not necessarily against the rules, can be misinterpreted.

Verdict: The Plaintiff's claims hold very little water. Being a "tough guy", while not against policy, can be misinterpreted and considered an incitement or threat of violence against the parties involved and are thus discouraged, especially when the perpetrator is tagged as a VI.

Sentence: No punishment, but the warning stands.

[Lagmonster]

Dec. 17, 2010

Plaintiff: [various]

Defendant: Sea Skimmer

Complaint: Use of the term "Jewrael" in the following thread as a racial slur: (Link)

Staff Reviewer: Lagmonster

Evidence: See thread for discussion.

Verdict: Sea Skimmer was foolish for choosing to use the word instead of clearly explaining his point. However, the staff consensus is that it was clearly not a racial or bigoted slur, so no action will be taken beyond the HoSing. The staff considers these things on a case-by-case basis, taking context and intent into account rather than getting tied up over the meaning of individual words.

Sentence: No punishment, but that doesn't make the word okay. Use your head when you post.

[The Wookiee]

March 24, 2011

Plaintiff: [anonymous]

Defendant: MKSheppard, Bakustra

Complaint: Bakustra trolled Shep, Shep took the bait and ran

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Evidence: See thread for discussion.

Verdict: Shep was an ass for using derogatory language that may be perceived as sexist, as well as falling for Bakustra's goading. Bakustra in turn was an ass for trolling Shep.

Sentence: Shep was reprimanded both in the thread and privately by Dalton. He issued the below apology privately. Bakustra was also reprimanded in the thread and apologized privately to Dalton. No further action taken.

I am sorry for using the words silly woman in regards to Broomstick. I take full responsibility for that and apologize.

I am sorry for taking Bakustra's bait and mentioning the term 'hysterical woman' in regards to Broomstick. I take full responsibility for that and apologize.

[Dalton]

March 30, 2011

Plaintiff: [multiple]

Defendant: Dalton

Complaint: Stark posted something at Testingstan that could be taken as an admission to Trolling, Dalton titled and banned him for it

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: All decisions rescinded based on lack of evidence and hasty decision-making. Edit: Parting Shots thread moved to a private forum. Let this post remain as a testament to the incident.

[Dalton]

April 5, 2011

Plaintiffs: Alyeska, Mr. Coffee

Defendants: Alyeska, Mr. Coffee

Complaint: Alyeska posted a reminder regarding the IvP moratorium. Mr. Coffee then overreacted with an alcohol-fueled tirade.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: Alyeska was justified in reminding people about the IvP moratorium (To clarify: the moratorium dictates that discussing the history of the conflict is banned, since it leads to nothing but arguing in circles, but not discussing current events or news from the region. Nobody but Darth Wong has the authority to change this.). However, Alyeska needs to be a little clearer when doing so, as his reminder was rather vague.

Mr. Coffee admits to being drunk and acting like a dick and has apologized privately to Alyeska.

[Dalton]

May 26, 2011

Plaintiffs: Anonymous

Defendants: SCRawl

Complaint: This thread split into HoS was unnecessary and unjustified based on the content of the posts.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: Although several posters in the aforementioned split acted less than graciously (and quite frankly unleashed several unnecessary personal attacks), that in it of itself is not a reason to split a thread off into the Hall of Shame. The Staff, including SCRawl, is reminded that the HoS is strictly for the worst trolls and miscreants. In this particular case, since the posts contained valid points that furthered the discussion, a stern moderator warning in the original thread would have been sufficient.

Consequences: The policy on HoSing posts will be enforced as according to the original dictum.

This forum is for threads which were either:
Started by a troll, misanthrope, spammer, or idiot
Hijacked by a troll, misanthrope, spammer, or idiot
Intended to discuss the antics of a troll, misanthrope, spammer, or idiot

It is not necessary to mete out personal punishments in this case. Case closed.

[Dalton]

November 22, 2011

Plaintiffs: Samuel

Defendants: Vympel, N&P moderators

Complaint: Samuel claims unfair treatment from the moderators in this thread in the course of the discussion between himself and Vympel.

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: Although failure to respond to an argument is against policy, it's in the opinion of the reviewer that that rule applies to posters who post their own arguments instead of using copypasta written by other posters. Samuel therefore is advised, in the future, to formulate his own arguments or, like someone actually making an argument, reference the words of another and then expound or elaborate upon them.

The decision of the moderators involved will not be reversed and no further action will be taken.

[Dalton]

June 6, 2016

Plaintiffs: [anonymous] for now

Defendants: LadyTevar

Complaint: Plaintiff alleges that this thread was unjustly split from the 2016 Election thread, HoSed and locked, as well as objections regarding a warning for banned language

Staff Reviewer: Dalton

Verdict: The complaint indicated that the usage of the banned language was contextually appropriate:

This board was founded in 2002 and if someone had told me then; that young Republicans would carry into a theatre a right wing internet troll faggot so that he could champion conservative values like freedom of speech on their shoulders on a makeshift litter to the fucking theme song of Team America: World Police I would have called you fucking crazy.

Given the manner in which the post was made, I did not find the context to be immediately apparent. Furthermore, the series of posts along this line did little to advance any kind of constructive discussion and quite frankly reeked of trolling, as well as hijacking a thread that I specifically asked not to be hijacked. Therefore, I find the split and lock to be wholly justifiable.

The decision of the Defendant is upheld, but no further punitive action will be taken.