- Garrux
- |
- Honorable Member
Posted by: Butane123
You basically got it right with interpretation. We're free to moderate as individuals and are more concerned with being consistant with ourselves than attempt to try to conform to each other.
At the same time, the same moderator might not see the similar thread if it was created a bit later. It might not even be seen at all. I know at times when I get on the flood and look around, there can be almost two pages of recent threads. At that volume, its just not possible for me to see everything.And I get that. However if a rule is misleading and/or not specific, I just don't see how it's fair to be punished because of an honest misunderstanding. I wish a warning didn't always come with a lock, which it always does for me it seems. I feel like if the poster in question clearly had good intentions and misunderstood there should be some wiggle room. Meaning instead of a Bnet system warning affecting trust rating, a simple PM saying "you may have misunderstood this rule just don't do it again" sort of thing.
Posted by: Thrasher Fan
Posted by: Butane123
You basically got it right with interpretation. We're free to moderate as individuals and are more concerned with being consistant with ourselves than attempt to try to conform to each other.
Personally, that's what bugs me. Some mods are more lax and others are more strict. When creating a thread it's like rolling the dice and why I don't create threads anymore.This is also how I feel. If the rule outright says "Don't do this" and you do it, yeah a warning/ban makes sense. But when a rule says "Don't do this" and you make a thread that may or may not be interpreted as being similar, I don't feel that it's right. I feel like the rule needs to be more specific. Because at that point it feel like a mod is almost bending a rule how he/she sees fit.
[Edited on 03.22.2012 12:56 AM PDT]