Thread:Jackmockrock/@comment-26397550-20180814131551/@comment-26397550-20180822134353

By our policies, we do have the authority to hand out warnings if a rule is broken or an insistent guideline is not followed. If you wonder why we don't wait until things are "too far" to moderate, remember: If we wait until people get unruly, then it brings chaos. Why wait to moderate until severe repeat offense? Remind early so they have the knowledge that what they're doing is not correct. If they've read it, they might stop, and it helps them improve as an editor. If they don't read it, or do read but don't listen, it's possibly a troll or just someone to cause a fuss, and we block them. Simple method, effective result.

Mini-modding is attempting to take moderation concerns into your own hands, in any shape or form of what usually consists of attempting to give out your own warnings. This includes the "necrobumped" replies to necrobumped threads. We don't allow it because editors often don't understand our policies correctly and can't properly make worthwhile reminders or warnings within guidelines - plus everything has a bit more authority to it if an admin or mod is doing it. We are having a large problem with mini-modding right now, and so we are even more insistent to instantly remind or warn for any offense of it. Due to your typing I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about in regards to thread closing, but posting "this was necrobumped" is not really any way to go about it. As with most reports...inform the admin with a link to the issue, and leave it to us to manage. It's our job because we know the policies - we manage it for a reason, to prevent misinformation and drama.

We may not instantly warn for flamebait threads, as if not super intentional we assume you won't post it again or at least attempt modifying it for attempt 2 - but since minimodding can cause a lot more problems for us, we instantly go to warning or reminding. We didn't feel you were ill-intentioned with the thread too much, and expected that if it's removed you'd try to fix it, so we didn't say anything just yet. Though if you posted the barely-modified rant again I was going to likely ask you to cease posting it or severely cut out the problematic parts. Any sort of editorial-like thread that stirs controversy or directly targets a person or group of people, or may contain misinformation or painted bias, may be removed to prevent having to moderate a thread where everyone is just going to be arguing or calling out inaccuracies. We also don't want to hold any sets with loads of opinions presented as fact or general misinfo, as we don't really want to be shown as responsible for any issues that might arise. Offensive threads are often just taken down for being offensive or inappropriate, so it's not much to do with the matter.

Why we might not instantly close necro'd threads or remove flamebait-y threads, you ask? Because most of us patrol recent changes, and only maybe see it when someone posts on it. I sometimes look at the forums and such directly, but when I'm only doing a peek every now and then to clean up and then go, I've little time to check directly. Plus it then saves our often-limited time by only managing what's been actively contributed to, and therefore noticed enough to warrant action.

We don't feel a need to block you right now, obviously - you've not broken enough of any policies to do so, but pushing PA towards the matter and demanding we moderate in your method when it's not what our guidelines have outlined (of which such is for a reason) is an alternate form of asking for one. We may come off as strict and such, but that's possibly just because unlike a lot of society nowadays, we actually enforce our policies and rules of our community.

Things are only strict when rules are broken. If you follow them, you'll find no issue.