some thinking about the rules...

[esby]

Recently,
I have seen people apparently using the rules at their advantage versus other members of the forum.
I personnaly don't agree with that kind of method,
no matter who is practising it, and no matter who is right or wrong.

In my opinion,
there are two different types of rules:

- The ones helping setting up the discussion pattern.
- the ones preventing abuse of the forums.

I think the first ones, like rules 3 7 (4*) 8 or 9 should not result as a strike, unless excessing abuse of them, with multiples warning and multiples offenses.
the second ones, needs at the contrary immediate action, like spamming, talking warez, profaniting insults, of course, I use the word action, and not sanction, thoses rules usually being break down by new people, not completely aware of them (eg :typical warez content rule infrigment).

Two rules are particulary disturbing me:

Rule 4 and Rule 11.

For rule 4, when it comes to evident profanity, of course it must be santionned, but if it comes to interpretation of a wording as an insult, I think something is JUST WRONG.

For rule 11, of course some people might be tempted to increase their number of post, but still, blaming someone for that reason is a bit lame, and if we consider it can be interpreted, it is WRONG too.

esby

PS:
I don't want to know who is right, or wrong,
but showing this kind of attitude to the public is just not an appropriate comportment, especially when it involves self judging moderator versus regular user.
Of course, fights are unavoidable, but I think relationship problems between moderator A and member B should never be handled directly by moderator A, but by moderator C or by doom9, in the last ressort,
for the good of all.

[CruNcher]

For the case of insults a third person such as another Moderator or another Doom9 Member, but never a Moderator that is involved in the topic that is in discussion and point of insults or behaviour patterns that could be seen by the involved Moderator as such, should be allowed to take actions at will. I think that gives more clarity to the other users involved in such a situation. :)

[Doom9]

well.. I don't have the statistics right now, but as far as I know, most rules you mentioned and that you think should not result in strikes, often don't directly result in strikes most of the time, but rather warnings and only repeated offenders will be striked. Likewise, a first time offender might get off with a warning if he's still green behind the ears, whereas a long time member is expected to know how things work around here and can't expect the same kind of leniency. Same also goes for rule11. I'll have a look at the stats again but I think that rule is hardly ever enforced and just results in warnings. And rule11 does have a personal context.. we used to have a few members who were really good at posting for no good reason, and it's only used in such extreme cases.

However, rules along aren't enough if they can't be enforced, so I'd not feel good removing the possibility for strikes for offenders. Imagine not having police officers, courts and prisons to back up our legal system.. if minor offenses wouldn't result in punishment, nobody would bother sticking to the law in those areas anymore.

As far as personal insults go, it is often a question of interpretation and the language barrier certainly doesn't help (keep in mind that this is a very international place and the majority of members are from non English speaking countries). But somebody will have to judge it. Your suggestion of handing the matter over to a third moderator is a good one that I'll have to think about it (mostly about the feasability.. we'd need to institutionalize the process and automate is as good as possible.. any thoughts and ideas you might have on that subject are more than welcome).

Last but not least, there's always the possibility of a recourse. More than one person has had strikes removed when they went about it properly (that is don't complain in public, but argue your case intelligently in private in a PM to me), some people even were unsuspended as their strikes were removed. I hardly hand out strikes personally, so if you contest a strike, there'll always be a third party that has another angle on the whole subject (but now don't you use that as an excuse to waste my time.. that might hurt your chances in a future appeal process).

I think you should elaborate I have seen people apparently using the rules at their advantage versus other members of the forum. a bit, but it might be better if you did this in private (pm to me).

[stephanV]

One or two things i would like to add:

If a person is striked it would be only fair to let that person know who striked him. Also, a little clarification in the strike-message would be nice. Now all you get is: 'you violated rule # X' and a link to your post. It isn't mentioned at all that you can contest the strike, which would be the proper thing to do IMO.

[Doom9]

If a person is striked it would be only fair to let that person know who striked him. Actually, the people who need to know, know (meaning the one that handed out the strike and yours truly). I don't believe giving out that info would be good, in fact I think it would be counterproductive and lead to retaliations. The way we have it now, the moderation team presents a unified front, and if you have a problem with a strike, you can only take it up with me, which is what you should do anyway.

Also, a little clarification in the strike-message would be nice.I'll take that into consideration... I suppose we could add a text field to the strike dialogue where a comment could be written but I have to talk to the guy who wrote the strike system.

It isn't mentioned at all that you can contest the strike, which would be the proper thing to do IMO.But that's all parts of the rules you agreed to when you signed up ;) In real life if you get into trouble with the law, you have to find your legal recourse on your own as well..

[CruNcher]

Hmm maybe that sounds strange but what's with a button or option in the strike menu for the Moderator that can be used when he's thinking he was insulted.
This automatically alerts another Moderator via PM wich would get a message like "Moderator in thread xxx thinks he's been insulted please confirm" ? dunno how the strike system works but if the moderator is selecting that a personal insult against his person has been conducted such a message should be send out to another Moderator which then checks the situation and does the appropriate steps.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Doom9
But that's all parts of the rules you agreed to when you signed up ;) In real life if you get into trouble with the law, you have to find your legal recourse on your own as well..

But in the movies the police always reads the bad guy's rights when they arrest him ;).

In the real world we have people like lawyers to guide us to through the jurisdictional system. There's hardly anyone who can find his way on his own in that jungle. A reminder of the rules and the rights you have when being striked really wouldn't hurt IMO.

[avih]

Originally posted by stephanV
One or two things i would like to add:

If a person is striked it would be only fair to let that person know who striked him. Also, a little clarification in the strike-message would be nice. Now all you get is: 'you violated rule # X' and a link to your post. It isn't mentioned at all that you can contest the strike, which would be the proper thing to do IMO.

good points. the 2nd one should be easyly implementable. the 1st is welcome imho.

imho, strikes should be a last resort only, and given publicly when possible (there have been rare occasions where public strikes were problematic though).

generally, i think that the moderator's job is... moderation. calm things down, keep the threads focused, educate, etc. and if everything else fails, strike. i also don't think newbies should be striked, unless they post a very blatant post. however, as doom9 noted, if a seniour member asks a question without searching, or one that s/he knows has the potential for massive flame wars, then it's just not appropriate, and unfortunately, imho, requires a strike.

bottom line, this forum is about community, communication, helping other, and solving problems. this is what both members and moderators should uphold.

but, each of us is a different person, with different history, different oppinions and different nationality (yup, that counts too). we all make mistakes, it happens. the best we can do is try to be tolerant towards others, and not escalate the situation further of one slips.

cheers
avih

[esby]

I was not talking of a particular issue, althought i have seen one recently,
but i won't pm anyone about it, since I'm not involved,
and since my interest here is not to get the person rehabilited,
but more to avoid some stupid future situation(s),
that's why I made a public thread,
and of course if solving problem in private, discussing of general issues should be public...

esby

[Doom9]

But in the movies the police always reads the bad guy's rights when they arrest himCorrect, but they don't tell you how you can make an appeal, do they? And if there were a button to make objecting easy as pie, I'm afraid I'd have a lot more strike contests to deal with, most of which I'd just have to shoot down. As it is, I've only seen people who are willing to make an effort contest a strike, and they've gone through the trouble of laying out a good argument.. and in such a case even if the strike is upheld, it doesn't feel like a waste of my time. But if you can contest with a click of a button, then I think my time would often be wasted.. and as you know I'm not getting paid for any of this, so at some point I think it's my prerogative to ask for a little extra effort in exchange for my time.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Doom9
and as you know I'm not getting paid for any of this, so at some point I think it's my prerogative to ask for a little extra effort in exchange for my time.

That's fair enough, hadn't looked at it from that side yet. :rolleyes:

[Arachnotron]

I would like to second the idea of involving a second moderator when it comes to giving out strikes. For the average reader of a thread, the history leading up to a strike may not be known, leaving the impression of misuse of power where there is none. This becomes especially important if the moderator is already involved in the discussion himself.

I think it is vital a moderator not only is impartial but also appears to be so.
As CruNcher already suggested, perhaps a system whereby the moderator observing the infraction notifies another mod -for instance by PM- after which the second one gives out the strike while speaking for the both of them. This would enforce the impression the strike was given by the team as a whole for infractions of the rules instead of being passed out by a single mod for personal reasons. It would also have the benefit of protecting individual mods from the fall-out of nasty incidents. Of course, feasability depends on the number of strikes per day and the minimum number of on-line mods at a given time.

I realize this puts added strain on people already overstretched doing an underappreciated job. But I also think it would take away some unneccesary resentment and protect the mods.

[Doom9]

It would also have the benefit of protecting individual mods from the fall-out of nasty incidents.That's actually the idea behind strikes being anonymous.. as long as the mod doesn't publicly mention anything (and it depends on the mod if he/she does or not.. I try to never say anything in public so I'm a really sneaky bastard ;))

As I said, I'll consider the whole 3rd party thing but feasability is my main concern. Ideas are always good, but if they get to me, it's all about the feasability. Contrary to what you think, this already happens.. we have a private forum for moderators and a lot of the discussion that goes on there is about how to handle a situation and if strikes should be handed out (and to whom). It may still not happen in the majority of cases, but it does happen.

[jggimi]

Each moderator enforces the rules as best as he or she can. Granted, there are differences of opinion, and we are all human. We all approach the job slightly differently, but we try to do the best job we can.

I've had one of my strikes appealed by a member, and in another instance, I made the appeal to Doom9 to remove a strike I'd made. I try my best, but I'm still human.

There are a couple of things I'd like to point out about the current system, and then discuss them a little further: Strikes are only an official warning. They have no impact on the forum user unless 3 are collected within a 30 day period.

Strikes are entirely private, unless the affected forum member or moderator makes them public.I'll touch on point #2 first.

I'm sure you've seen threads where you've said to yourself, "That person deserves a strike! Why didn't I see any comment from a moderator?" It is quite possible that the user did get a strike, but as they are private, unless there is public comment about it, there is no way for you to know.

I'm sure you've also seen us politely remind someone of the rules, but again, without public comment about strikes, there is no way to tell if one has been issued or not.

Also, I'm sure you've seen us (and I include myself) chastise obstinate members for misbehavior. Sometimes our language is polite, other times ... we're human. But again, you don't necessarily know if there were any strikes issued.

And as I'm sure you've noticed, we're usually more lenient with new members, and that goes not just for how we respond publicly, but if we strike for a "first offense." I'm not the only moderator who looks at the length of membership and posting history when weighing infractions.

As Doom9 stated, when we come across something that has not been previously addressed, we discuss it among the moderation team, to arrive at a consensus. And yes, opinions differ! These discussions are usually about whether something new falls under an existing rule, or if a new situation calls for a rule modification, or further clarification. One example that came from the latter type of discussion is the explanatory announcement on Rule 6 in the Newbie forum.

But the average strike is anonymous. The choice to make a strike public, in my case, is a judgement call based on my interpretation of the severity of the infraction. I don't usually make it public. And I will state that I issue far more public "polite reminders" and even "chastisements" than I issue strikes. In some cases, I will PM the member in question, with further detail, if I feel it warranted.

Once in a while I get a PM from a member asking me if I was the source of a particular strike. If it wasn't me, I have no way of knowing who it was. But when I was the issuer (yeah, once, I think), I have provided additional detail as to why I made that judgement.

Now, to point #1.

The moderators have only three behavior modification tools available: Posting PMs StrikesPostings are public. Usually, public comment of some kind is useful, but sometimes not. PMs and strikes are private, the difference is that strikes are recorded and retained for 30 days and can possibly lead to suspensions. The choice between them, for the moderators, is a judgement call, and sometimes, even all three tools are needed.

[Arachnotron]

@avih, doom9 and jggimi

Thank you for taking the time to explain the procedures in such detail. It has been very illuminating and showed the current system is a balanced one with certain checks in place to protect both the mod volunteer and the forum members. It also made clear once again the amount of time you guys spend in keeping this place running smoothly. Believe me, it is very much appreciated!:thanks:

[Pyscrow]

The only issue I have with the current system is that some of the Mods have interpretations of some of the rules that seem to go a lot further than the original rules, which is ok if you are aware of the current "unwritten" policy's, but as most "control" is as stated through PM's or non public strikes, a bit hard to know unless you are the victim of such interpretations!

[Koepi]

Using the term victim in this context implies that still the user in question is only a harmless, nice guy, and we (the mods) are all evil rapers.

In cases where strikes get used, and used so often that the "poor, innocent victim" gets suspended (the only case where I can think of that someone (the victim i mean) cries out "power abuse!"), there was _always_ something going wrong very badly, and not usually caused by the mod. The users running into this trouble are more like little children which try to test their borders.

You should never forget that this forum isn't a public place, it's private, and thus has rules which are there for keeping a certain level of professionalism and not making this place as useless as other (unmoderated) boards, where you have million times the same questions about "how do I convert my downloaded movie to svcd?".

Many developers are around here, some of them even as moderators, and are trying to improve our beloved tools and software.

To get back to your initial problem with "interpretation of rules", just look around in real life. We wouldn't need a judge if the rules weren't to be interpreted - we would shoot everyone for the slightest crime.
Think about it this way: the moderators are like those guys running around in no-parking areas and hand out tickets for people who park there anyways. If we hand out three tickets, the person in question is looked at by a judge (Doom9) and gets into jail for 30 days in the hope that he gets rehabilitated. If a ticket was given for a wrong reason or was unjustified, he judge removes that ticket again and the person who had the trouble is still free to go.

I like to emphase that we aren't machines, and we're not the best board around because we're so pure evil and dickheads, but because we help the people as much as we can (this includes time constraints when I talk about "can". Most of us moderators have a real life, even a job, and can't spend the "demanded" 25 hours per day here to satisfy the user. Next to that, we're giving this service for _free_.)

This is something you should think about psycrow, when judging us with your eyes and your environmental experience. You have different interpretations of the world as I do (and as everyone else on this planet), that's just natural.

Regards
Koepi

[Doom9]

I can't promise you anything now but here's what I think we could do to improve things a bit:

An additional "explanation" field on the page where a moderator can hand out a strike. That way, you not only get the rule and the post in which the rule was violated, but also a bit more background info on why the strike was handed out. That'll also make the appeal process quicker since I already know the moderator's arguments. That should cut down on the "rules were interpreted too broadly" thing.

Then, as an addition, for personal insults I add a recommendation (I can't force it and I don't have the means to control it) that such a situation (if directed at a moderator) should be handed off to a 3rd party moderator. That way, personal feelings won't get into the way.

I'll discuss revealing the source of a strike internally, but you know my opinion on that already.. I believe it's a bad idea. If it is anonymous, you can only accuse the team and specifically myself and I can better handle that than if a specific moderator is being singled out and attacked. I believe that a good team leader takes care of his team and tries to take the brunt from a public attack and then handles things internally.

[Pyscrow]

Originally posted by Koepi
Using the term victim in this context implies that still the user in question is only a harmless, nice guy, and we (the mods) are all evil rapers.

In cases where strikes get used, and used so often that the "poor, innocent victim" gets suspended (the only case where I can think of that someone (the victim i mean) cries out "power abuse!"), there was _always_ something going wrong very badly, and not usually caused by the mod. The users running into this trouble are more like little children which try to test their borders.

You should never forget that this forum isn't a public place, it's private, and thus has rules which are there for keeping a certain level of professionalism and not making this place as useless as other (unmoderated) boards, where you have million times the same questions about "how do I convert my downloaded movie to svcd?".

Many developers are around here, some of them even as moderators, and are trying to improve our beloved tools and software.

To get back to your initial problem with "interpretation of rules", just look around in real life. We wouldn't need a judge if the rules weren't to be interpreted - we would shoot everyone for the slightest crime.


Yes but with a court / judge the process is transparent, and if one wishes one can read the interpretations etc, so one is aware of "rule changes" by interpretation - we are almost talking development of common law here I suppose!



Think about it this way: the moderators are like those guys running around in no-parking areas and hand out tickets for people who park there anyways. If we hand out three tickets, the person in question is looked at by a judge (Doom9) and gets into jail for 30 days in the hope that he gets rehabilitated. If a ticket was given for a wrong reason or was unjustified, he judge removes that ticket again and the person who had the trouble is still free to go.

I like to emphase that we aren't machines, and we're not the best board around because we're so pure evil and dickheads, but because we help the people as much as we can (this includes time constraints when I talk about "can". Most of us moderators have a real life, even a job, and can't spend the "demanded" 25 hours per day here to satisfy the user. Next to that, we're giving this service for _free_.)

This is something you should think about psycrow, when judging us with your eyes and your environmental experience. You have different interpretations of the world as I do (and as everyone else on this planet), that's just natural.

Regards
Koepi [/B]

I certainly did not mean to sound like I was "judging" It certainly was not how I was thinking at the time!

I was just trying to point out that as rules broaden / change with use, and the original rules are not rewritten to reflect it (ie development of common law as indicated above) if judgments are not public, it is hard to know when the boundaries move!

I feel I was caught in such a case a while ago, but was probably lucky in the fact that I "gobbed off" at the mod whom then patiently and respectfully (to me despite my "abuse") reiterated his interpretation, which was certainly a change from the rule as written as far as I was concerned, but I immediately accepted it, (having cooled down) considered myself lucky to not cop another strike for my original reply, and apologised.

I certainly do not attempt to interpret the "rules" as written now, but have a look around at what other people are doing, before going any where near a contenious subject! My way of soaking up the "common law" as such!

What Doom9 has proposed will certainly relieve most of the concerns I was trying to raise, but if others can see publically why decisions were made it would be even better! Hopefully it will make your jobs as a Mod easier I hope, (and maybe not cop a knee jerk blast from hot head bush lawyers like myself!)

regards


Pyscrow

[Doom9]

but if others can see publically why decisions were made it would be even better!We've had a poll regarding making strikes public and a 88% majority of the moderators said no. But, we'll get the explanation field to the strike page, so the strikee can directly be given an explanation why the strike was given. It is still up to the moderators to make a public statement.

As for the judging process (besides that explanation field) that usually involves PMs, which makes it impossible to share that info for legal reasons.. as with Emails, it's not really okay to share them with the whole wide world unless everybody agrees to do so. And then, such PMs might not only contain information pertinent to the case..

[virus]

Originally posted by Doom9
We've had a poll regarding making strikes public and a 88% majority of the moderators said no.
Frankly speaking, I disagree on that method. The moderators are of course important and their work valuable, but they're just a very little part of this community (~30-35 ppl out of 54800 members). Maybe the regular posters are just 1-2000 or so, but still, the mods are simply too few IMHO.
I know that making a forum-wide poll is probably not even technically feasible, but anyway, here's my opinion: asking the entire community would be better. I think the results can be very different from 88-12.

Personally, I'd prefer to know the striker's name. Not publicly on the forum, but privately in the notification. Why? The mods have a private forum where they can discuss about you (the user) and your behaviour. The users know nothing about this whole process, not even who the striker actually is. I think this is unfair.

Moderators are just regular users with the right to "keep the discussion on track" when needed. Let's not make the gap mod/user too large, please. Every day we make decisions based on self-responsibility. But if you take the responsibility of saying "you're striked/banned", you should also accept the responsibility of putting your name under that. A judge always signs his sentences. Hiding under the "mod team flag" is unpleasant, from the average user's point of view (at least, that's what I think).

So, I'd prefer to have the right to know which the actual striker is. At least this allows me, if I want, to avoid any threads where this mod partecipates, so to avoid further problems. It's my right, no?
Or maybe this notification can be an implicit warning for me: "hey, the mod X has a strict interpretation of the rules and strikes easy. Better watch out next time". Depending on the situation, this may be useful (sadly, I've seen different mods acting in very different ways when facing the same problem).

Anyway: "the law is the law". I disagree on this point, but nonetheless I will continue enjoying my experience here without any problem, anger or whatsoever. This has been an interesting thread so far, so I just wanted to show my point of view.

BTW: about the "moderator A vs. user B"-thing. I think it would be better to trash any strike from moderator A in that case, and only allow strikes from moderators C, D, E and so on. I've seen cases of overmoderation which could have been handled better in this way.

cheers
virus

[Doom9]

I know that making a forum-wide poll is probably not even technically feasible, but anyway, here's my opinion: asking the entire community would be better. I think the results can be very different from 88-12.I bet they would.. however, the moderation team also has to think about self-preservation. In an ideal world, informing the strikee of the striker would be feasible, however we do not live in an ideal world. Rather, we get members starting out on a vengeance trip if only they suspect a certain moderator has striked them. That can be avoided if strikes are anonymous. Furthermore, it is an implicit encouragement for people to go the ways about strikes that we've forseen: that is a private complaint to myself. That is akin to asking for a superior when you're not happy with a person you're dealing with in a business.

Or maybe this notification can be an implicit warning for me: "hey, the mod X has a strict interpretation of the rules and strikes easy. Better watch out next time".Let me spin this a bit further for you: this mod is an asshole and I'll make it my life's purpose to hurt him one way or another. And that I can't have.

BTW: about the "moderator A vs. user B"-thing. I think it would be better to trash any strike from moderator A in that case, and only allow strikes from moderators C, D, E and so on. I've seen cases of overmoderation which could have been handled better in this way.This is technically impossible since the forum software cannot know if a strike was handed out by the moderator that was insulted (the forum software doesn't know about insults in the first place). However, since it's part of the mod rules (well.. will be, I havn't gotten around to rewriting them), should that rule not have been followed, you might stand a better chance in an appeal because I know who handed out the strike.

Oh, and there are almost 60 users in the moderator and admin user classes, not 30 ;)

[virus]

Originally posted by Doom9
Let me spin this a bit further for you: this mod is an asshole and I'll make it my life's purpose to hurt him one way or another. And that I can't have.No, frankly what I've said is completely different. You're putting words in my mouth here ;)

But I'd like to ask a question. What if one of the mods thinks: "this user is an asshole and I'll make it my life's purpose to ban him one way or another". In such a situation the user may find useful to know the striker's name. Maybe you can avoid further complications in some cases (and this has nothing in common with the "asshole, I'll shoot ya" reaction which I condemn as much as you - that's just a kiddish reaction, isn't it?).

If the striked user starts with a "vengeance trip" then you can simply apply the rules. There's nothing that can stop him from such a reaction anyway, not even the anonymous strikes. He will be up against all the modteam instead of a single mod, and that's all.

Here I'm not really complaining, just trying to show you the situation from a different angle (note that I've said "different" and not "opposite"). And I must note that, in my opinion, there are no problems with the mods' work in _almost_ all cases.

This is technically impossible since the forum software cannot know if a strike was handed out by the moderator that was insulted ... should that rule not have been followed, you might stand a better chance in an appeal because I know who handed out the strike.This sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for explaining better how the system actually works. I didn't realize it was fully automatic (I thought there was the chance for manual overrides by the other mods and/or you even without an appeal).

Oh, and there are almost 60 users in the moderator and admin user classes, not 30 ;) OK, and still 54800 members... but I think I know what you mean ;)


thank you very much for your answers
virus

[Doom9]

No, frankly what I've said is completely different. You're putting words in my mouth hereWell, I didn't claim that's what you said, but that's how a few people react around here. Since we don't like dealing with such unpleasant things we try to avoid them, and the current strike system makes that possible. By now it's even possible to add a personal though anonymous message to a strike, thus allowing the moderator handing out the strike to outline his/her reasons for a strike.

But I'd like to ask a question. What if one of the mods thinks: "this user is an asshole and I'll make it my life's purpose to ban him one way or another". In such a situation the user may find useful to know the striker's name.That's of course not supposed to happen but let's assume for a moment it does happen. The only way you can forfeit your rights to an appeal is if you publicly complain. Other than that, the appeal process is wide open and I can actually read as well and it doesn't take much to find out if a strike is appropriate or not. I'm not sure if I like this negative attitude, but rest assured that (I don't have any hard stats.. that's just a gut feeling) about every third appeal actually gets through and people have even been unsuspended as a result of a properly conducted appeal. You don't get to see those, but they happen. It has gone even further than that but I'd rather not open old wounds now. You're not automatically at a disadvantage unless you put yourself in that position.

If the striked user starts with a "vengeance trip" then you can simply apply the rules. There's nothing that can stop him from such a reaction anyway, not even the anonymous strikes. He will be up against all the modteam instead of a single mod, and that's all.A one on one is doable, a one on 60, especially against some other mod team members that the hypothetical member actually still respects, and the admin against whom you better not speak up to much, that are odds I like much better from the position I'm standing. It is much harder to run a crusade against an individual you can single out, than against a large group of people.

[esby]

I don't think doing public warning / blame / sanction is a good idea,
that's sounds more public execution / reality tv to me than anything else.
Of course, the info that the user has been disabled must be accessible somewhere, at least for the the one who have pm with him or waiting for response from him... (I think that's already the case if any user check an account status?)

For the name of the one striking, I think it's not really needed too,
basically the user being warned / striked will always know who striked him or might have an idea of who did that, and it won't change anything, except maybe adding the problems doom9 already talked of.

The only point i was interested was not about handling the decision to ban / repeat warn an user to a single (same!) moderator. Or a rule is clearly enforced, and it should be striked no matter who the moderator is , or it can be interpreted, and in this case, relaying on two advises should be better, to me.

And public justice for the sake of entertainement should be avoided...

esby