:. I don't like doing this..., but it's kind of neccessary

In the Warn and Ban Appeals forum, a poster by the name of "Bumpy" posted appeal thread. However, he did not follow the rules required for appeal, and even appealed two warnings. Irrespective of this, a moderator granted his appeals, and locked the topic. Now, in my, and most others dealings, if you don't follow the guidelines spelled out at the top of the forum, you get told "No" and the thread is locked without a second thought.

This contradiction in policy does not in any way help the mods work or goal to make everything equal and fair. By showing special considerations and favors to players (for whatever the reason) discriminates against both those who have appealed correctly in effort to follow the rules, as well as those who did not appeal correctly and were denied.

I am not looking to get either the poster or the mod in trouble, but I would like the moderation team to try and address this so to keep the application of board rules uniform.

The appeal in question: http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...showtopic=82253

Thanks for reading, and hopefully some adjustment can be made so to make sure that the rules are universally adhered to, by both moderation and regular poster alike.

Is this really that big of a deal? Mods are human just like us. They make mistakes. <sadno>

Oh please. That's not just a mistake. When you can clearly see everyone else following the rules and guidelines being rewarded, and then you can see everyone else who doesn't not being rewarded, which is especially easy with regards to our forums very own Warn and Ban Appeals (go ahead and review the first several pages. There is no way this can be chalked up to a mistake), and then you see this blatant violation, you can't help but feel that the rules are being applied unfairly.

He was stating why he had been warned. He only appealed one warning.

Please, ma'am/sir, re-read the thread:

[emphasis mine]

He was clearly appealing two warns. Couple this with the fact that he did not use the format specified in the required reading thread, which is usually enough to be denied or have your thread locked, and we can clearly see this is a case of unfairly applying (or not applying) the rules.

This post has been edited by Jesse, Bad Boy on Aug 31 2007, 10:57 AM

The point Vivi made is that, regardless of how many warns he/she appealed, only one was granted. I just appealed two myself and was given 1 warn reduction.

There are multiple cases of improperly posted appeals going through without a hitch. I believe the "tone" you use matters a bit more than the actual format, though as someone else said, mods are human, and might make a slip up here and there.

Again:

It's a guideline, not a law of nature. Cut 'em some slack lol, mods are people too :D

Excuse the hell out of me. <doh>

One reduction was granted.

Perhaps I failed to follow a formula; the initial error was therefor mine.

Some of you people slay me; if a mod is to rigid you complain, too lenient? you complain. Too friendly? complaints. To aloof? Complaints.

These people volunteer for a thankless job and get endless grief from Monday morning quarterbacks. Give it a rest.

How about tending your own garden?

I wasn't commenting on your lack of form, I was commenting on the lack of consistency. And considering that this is PART of their JOB as a moderator (the excuse that they are doing a thankless job is irrelevant. I am never thanked at my job, but that doesn't mean I have the room for error), one would think they would do well enough to adhere to their job.

If you whine this much at your job, no wonder you don't get thanked. And you probably get paid for it, too, which the mods do not. Lay off.

Being that you already had one unsolicited warning level reduction within the past few days I think you have just about no leg to stand on. I'm going to lock this thread. Only post another one on this topic when you have something to actually complain about.


Oh, and thanks for doing your job, whatever that may be.