Conversation

Notices

  1. Toksyuryel Toksyuryel

    Things that bother me: when community sites have a "the mods can take action against you for any reason including no reason" clause, there will always be at least one mod who treats the whole thing like it's /b/. This is especially problematic in combination with the equally popular "no debating of moderator decisions" clause, though that's basically optional since they're just as likely to take action for it anyway.

    Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:31:47 UTC from web
    1. Bit Shift Bit Shift

      @toksyuryel The best approach to that, imo, is "the mods can't ban you for no reason, but they are not necessarily _required_ to tell you what the reason is".

      Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:34:20 UTC from web
      1. Toksyuryel Toksyuryel

        @bitshift Reasons should always be required, in my opinion. In your scenario they can simply claim to have one even when they don't.

        Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:37:28 UTC from web
        1. Seth Edwards Seth Edwards

          @toksyuryel @bronyalex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JAAsJl1uas You should see Scorches as well

          Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:38:17 UTC from web
          1. Brony Sketch Brony Sketch

            @noirbatch EGADS

            Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:39:25 UTC from web
            1. Seth Edwards Seth Edwards

              @bronyalex Hahaha That's what I said lol

              Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:40:13 UTC from web
        2. Bit Shift Bit Shift

          @toksyuryel Not unless the entire mod team is dishonest, in which case you have bigger problems anyway. The implication of the wording is meant to be that the banned user doesn't have to be told (though doing so would still be courteous), but the moderator _should_ explain their reason to other moderators.

          Saturday, 21-Apr-12 00:41:01 UTC from IdentiCurse