Nah, it's simply them being lazy. They don't do crap, at all. Sure, a sanction here, and there. And that's goddamn it. Rather pick out the o-so-prudent signatures instead of caring about serious things.
' Wrote:yeah, so here's the story in a nutshell: We gave being lenient a shot, but as per usual, when an inch is given, a mile is taken to the point of becoming a problem. So now, we have clamp down on the sigs again.
Sigs like korny's helped make it happen. So what's with all the piss & wind?
Want to be taken seriously? Then don't post angry & try again
Marburg, my good pal, I think you have missed the point so succinctly made by Aerelm 13 minutes before you. There is a relatively low visible workload for mods and admins, with evidence being shutdown SRP, some inactive admins, etc, and the major source of administrative work, sanctions, has been slowed down considerably by bureaucratic inefficiency. Meanwhile, as Aerelm said, very obvious trolls and flamers have been running rampant across various boards here in the community.
Now, you claim that leniency was tried, and in a way it was. But before you tried to clamp down on signatures, which are admittedly harmless, shouldn't actual on-forum behavior which is damaging to the community be looked at? There's a lot of behavior on the forums that it certainly questionable, and some on the server likewise. Wouldn't that take priority over signatures? There's very little visible action being taken on the part of the mods to actually combat the asshats, especially in the context of how visible moderators are at combating victimless crimes like posting non-flood threads in flood, or deleting signatures.
Priorities, priorities.
"Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. They will, in fact, calm up."
Subtle difference between a joke in someone signature containing a single swearword to enhance the effect and someone stating in an angry, hostile and insulting manner that you fornicate with goats whilst engaging in incestual thoughts about your grandmother.
Ingame is different than on the boards.
Hostile insults are different than jokes.
Applying the same rule evenly across things that aren't the same will always cause these type of issues.
I think that you missed the point. I would argue that the issue is more than censorship, it's selective moderation in general. Specifically, censorship can be debated back and forth forever, but what can't be argued is that moderation in recent times has been very selective in which policies it applies. Some have been very apt at striking down signatures they find to be disquieting, or locking threads that were placed in the wrong location, but actually dealing with malcontents and trolls, who loudly and aggressively state their intentions to pursue vendettas "for lulz?"
If you're wondering about examples, just look around. There are griefsquads aplenty.
"Things will not calm down, Daniel Jackson. They will, in fact, calm up."