How this could have been handled by a decent Mod, thus saving the spitelikes.
[PM to Victoar] Vic, this point is tired. How about you change your posting style in this regard and edit this post to make it less combative. Your compliance would be appreciated.
I prefer to enumerate the powers that mods have at their disposal and leave it up to them as to how they use those powers. If they use those powers poorly, then we can vote on demodding them. You can refuse to vote for mods who won’t pledge to do things in the OP.
I didnt ban you. I literally banned some random new poster with the name “shitlib” spelled backwards sarcastically liking posts that blah blah blah blah.
Doesnt matter. Wasnt you. Just doing a good dead and stomping a troll.
OK. But I have not seen Shitlib’s offending post, can’t decide whether this is an ‘RM style’ ban and no link in the ‘mod’s action’ thread to assess whether this ban, from an ex-mod, is legit - yeah, I know I don’t really count - but that’s half the issue, I’d imagine i.e. no transparency (handle doesn’t bode well though)
It’s not just a matter of “it annoys me,” it’s that the constant nitpicking and bad-faith litigating of every single mod action is obnoxious and makes this community worse. An obvious troll gimmick catches an easy ban and now the Captains are demanding a long-form essay to explain why. Just stop with this, please.
Since we have 3 days to discuss, maybe it would be helpful to go point by point?
Mods need to talk to problem posters before banning. Most posters here are reasonable and will tone things down when requested. Bans should only be issued after requests are ignored.
Anyone have issues? Wording changes? Other comments?