Mod discrimination

Admins and Moderators, I would like to show you how harsh the moderators really are. Their true side. In this thread, http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=581845 the user, "Spunjungle", requested Music Moderator in the music section. It is against the rules because it clearly states in the"do not suggest list" that you may not request for new ranks. The infraction of ce user is indeed discrimination

And he reported a scammer with fake vouches. http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=581663 60 views and no replies? Or lock? Thats ridiculous. Maybe thats because he is a Guru? Is that why you lazy mods don't infract him?

 

You already posted this and it was locked because its rediculous, they are doing theyre job, you ought to be infracted for spamming as this is clearly not the first time youve posted this

 

OK! Lets play the learn how SuF moderates game!

I tend to lock threads and post warning instead of infracting people... If they already have infractions or warnings, I will be more likely to infract them since they have already been warned... Some times mods think someone needs an infraction for a broken rule, other times they just lock it and say this is not allowed... Its not discrimination... Its moderation style... Some mods are more infraction happy than others... Deal with it.

 

That... discrimination?
Thats a fucking joke.

 

Your a Guru how would you know?

 

Whats harsh about it? One person has multiple infractions the other doesn't.

Also replied on that thread.

 

Guru's aren't treated any higher than someone with less postcount.
If a Guru posts something stupid enough to get locked, it will get locked.
If a Guru gets reported, it is treated with the same priority as a leecher.
Reports can be missed, or mods could still be deciding on the outcome of the report.

 

A lot of times people do the report and just archive it... >_>

How is that discriminating against a guru..?

 

Although this thread is stupid, I will agree that it's funny how Cfrey said he would talk to Magic about it, whereas if it were anyone else he would have just simply deleted them / infracted.

I know he was trying to be funny with the Sigex one but the others are questionable.

Also realized there's no rule on official rule list about fake vouches >_>.

 

If you know how I moderate I always try to contact the person with "fake vouches" first if they are questionable. I don't go ban happy, and that's why you hardly see any disputes about the people I have banned in the dispute forum.

 

That's good then

But again, with the lack of it being stated in the rules...

Has it been simply overlooked or is it not an infractable offense?

 

And those "fake" vouches could be real.... Just because he did not give a link to them does not make them instantly fake....

Mods here work hard..... Of course we treat someone that we know and like differently from some random leacher... If shredder was accused of scamming with decent proof, would be ban him right away??? No....... we would talk to him and shit... and look deeper... for other people its not a big deal to just ban them since they are not well known... if they want to dispute they can... if you want to call that discrimination... go right ahead... i call it good moderating.

 

this thread is a joke


Some mods are just have less tolerance than others. what if he banned kid for fake vouches but yet the kid didn't have fake vouches? does that seem fair?. its not easy being a mod so i give mods respectt =]

 

This is ridicouslos they do there job protecting sythe.
And you're giving them a personal attack.

 

Wtf is this? Lol

 

It has been dealt with. We're generally pretty quick in dealing with this stuff, but clearly a certain degree of patience is appreciated.

This is not discriminatory in any way, shape or form, additionally. Locked.