Rules are not clear and moderation is applied inconsistently

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Suggestions / Ideas > Topic Details

This topic has been locked

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Rules are not clear and moderation is applied inconsistently

I understand that there is always going to be some level of interpretation and that rules are not going to be overly rigidly defined, to avoid "rules lawyering," so let me just preempt that argument now. With that said, rules are still too vague and moderation seems to be based more on the mood of the individual moderator or perhaps by throwing darts rather than any attempt at consistently applying said rules and in turn enforcing them.

As an example, I find it rather curious that you can sometimes bring up someone's post history, and that is totally fine, but other times you will get hit with a banned for being "inflammatory" or "accusing other users of bad behavior." Which is interesting because I am constantly accused of bad behavior yet that seems to be okay because I have never seen anyone get banned for saying that to me - and yes I do report posts that I believe are breaking the rules. "Accusing" someone of "bad behavior" isn't even explicitly mentioned as being against the rules so I am not sure where that one comes from unless it's being counted as "public accusations towards others" in which case again I say have been on the receiving end of this many times.

The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Click here to jump to that post.

Originally posted by MonkehMaster:

never surprising, but always amazing, same people, same stories, but this instance is the proof in the pudding.

OP makes a post about public accusations and how bad moderation is.

same people join the thread (as usual), as they do in almost all threads, no matter what the content is about.

then the thread is filled with baiting, arguments, public accusations, bit of name calling and all round rude and insulting comments, all rules and all being violated.

but if we read the OP, it was a generalization of context and wasnt even about the person (the OP), but about the context itself.

but... ofc it was made into something about the OP, like usual, with all manner of rule violations slung at and made against the OP.

then we have the "interpretation of "rules" from moderation, that only apply to whomever they want, while allowing certain individuals, free reign to break them 24/7 (with a rare ban here or there), but others do "similar things", or use their exact wordage and poof you get banned, while they dont.

again OP, you arent alone in seeing how horribly run these forums are, the inconsistent and lopsided moderation, is blatant for all to see, even support sees this.

the rules, used to be held to definition, they used to be rigid/strict, but also context was a thing (while still had issues, volunteer moderation was 100x better), but not anymore now that we have paid outsourced moderation, who cant read context (or bother reading reported content), if it was held 2 inches from their faces and has notes with circles and arrows in bright colored crayons.... pointing it out for them.

wont even bother speculating, on why some are allowed to break "multiple on top of multiples" of rules 24/7 and seemingly get off scott free, while others are punished for "doing similar" things.

im sure support wonders this as well... or maybe they dont wonder and know exactly why its happening, who knows...

side note: i went ahead and reported all comments breaking rules, i wonder who wont get punished and at best the thread locked, or the reports are cleared, or simply ignored, but we all know the answers, its just more blatant, when someone points it out and/or knows what will happen.

"shrugs"

good luck out there OP and have a nice day

< >

Showing 1-15 of 191 comments

AmsterdamHeavy 20 hours ago

Just accept your apparent fate as a victim. Lay back, let it happen and remember to breathe.

Nx Machina 20 hours ago

Post history is public for a reason and has relevance to the discussion.

HikariLight 20 hours ago

The rules are left vague to prevent users from trying to toe the line.

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Nx Machina:
Post history is public for a reason and has relevance to the discussion.

Your point? Did you read the full post?

This isn't about post history being public. This is about the inconsistency of moderation. I used the mention of user post history as a point of inconsistency, because sometimes you can get away with mentioning it, and other times you cannot.

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Originally posted by HikariLight:
The rules are left vague to prevent users from trying to toe the line.

Next time go ahead and actually read the body of the post instead of only the title so we can avoid this awkwardness.

Last edited by Sex Alarm; 20 hours ago

HikariLight 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
Originally posted by HikariLight:
The rules are left vague to prevent users from trying to toe the line.
Next time go ahead and actually read the body of the post instead of the title so we can avoid this awkwardness.

No one cares about your wall of text.
Stop breaking the rules and you won't have any issues.

You are not the victim you think you are.

Nx Machina 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
Your point? Did you read the full post?

This isn't about post history being public. This is about the inconsistency of moderation. I used the mention of user post history as a point of inconsistency, because sometimes you can get away with mentioning it, and other times you cannot.

Not about post history?

Did you forget you wrote:

Therefore post history has relevance to the discussion.

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
As an example, I find it rather curious that you can sometimes bring up someone's post history,

Last edited by Nx Machina; 20 hours ago

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Nx Machina:
Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
Your point? Did you read the full post?

This isn't about post history being public. This is about the inconsistency of moderation. I used the mention of user post history as a point of inconsistency, because sometimes you can get away with mentioning it, and other times you cannot.

Not about post history?

Did you forget you wrote:

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
As an example, I find it rather curious that you can sometimes bring up someone's post history,

Therefore post history has relevance to the discussion.

Alright, since you want to be pedantic, let me word my statement differently.

I am not complaining about post history being public and this is not a suggestion to change anything about post history being viewable by other users. I am saying that it is not clear to me when you are allowed to mention a user's post history and when you are not allowed to.

liosalpha 20 hours ago

Because most mods in the game forums are just the dev or someone working for them.
Each forum has its own sub culture basicly.

Nx Machina 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
Alright, since you want to be pedantic, let me word my statement differently.

I am not complaining about post history being public and this is not a suggestion to change anything about post history being viewable by other users. I am saying that it is not clear to me when you are allowed to mention a user's post history and when you are not allowed to.

Pedantic?

You raised the issue of post history therefore you will receive a response based on that choice of words and relevance to the discussion.

Last edited by Nx Machina; 20 hours ago

#10

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Nx Machina:
Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
Alright, since you want to be pedantic, let me word my statement differently.

I am not complaining about post history being public and this is not a suggestion to change anything about post history being viewable by other users. I am saying that it is not clear to me when you are allowed to mention a user's post history and when you are not allowed to.

Pedantic?

You raised the issue of post history therefore you will receive a response based on that choice of words and relevance to the discussion.

I did indeed mention post history, but again, I am not suggesting that its ability to be viewed publicly should be altered. I am also not suggesting that it is never relevant to discussions.

#11

Sex Alarm 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Nx Machina:
You have previously not wanted post history to be public.

Yes, well, I have changed my mind - or at the least, I have accepted that it will not change at this point.

#12

Nx Machina 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
I did indeed mention post history, but again, I am not suggesting that its ability to be viewed publicly should be altered. I am also not suggesting that it is never relevant to discussions.

You have previously stated the use of post history as not being relevant to a discussion.

https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/discussions/forum/10/532101539722989650/

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
4. Bringing up people's post histories or "rap sheets" (aka ban history, which is NOT public to begin with), also needs to stop being tolerated. It's irrelevant, and a users bans are between them and Steam Support/the moderators, NOT regular users. Stop letting this slide.

Last edited by Nx Machina; 20 hours ago

#13

C²C^Guyver |NZB| 20 hours ago

How 'bout those gaps?

#14

rawWwRrr 20 hours ago

Originally posted by Sex Alarm:
I understand

Apparently you don't. Perhaps the Steam community forums are not for you. You don't appear to get much enjoyment out of them. It might be about time to accept that unfortunate truth and move on to somewhere that is more aligned with your specific set of ideals.

#15

< >

Showing 1-15 of 191 comments

Per page: 1530 50

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Suggestions / Ideas > Topic Details

Date Posted: 12 Jul @ 8:25am

Posts: 191

Start a New Discussion