its a good system,
It's still pretty hard to get banned unless you are determined to get banned on purpose.
So it not so harsh, it just sorts the trouble makers from the members.
Printable View
its a good system,
It's still pretty hard to get banned unless you are determined to get banned on purpose.
So it not so harsh, it just sorts the trouble makers from the members.
You're too quick to be judgmental...
The point I was making, and i'll spell it out for you, is that if this is a SET OF RULES, does it apply to all the forum subsections, and if so, does it apply to the moderators forums.
By default, moderators are required to be members.
These rules apply to members.
It is then a Tautology that these rules apply to moderators.
If this is a system that will apply to all, including mods as you point out above, then I guess it has substance. Otherwise, its fundamentally flawed.
Thats my view.
Well that's all sorted. ;)
It's a good system!
we should have a poll every 3 months and nominate OH members to get banned. its quite humorous.
super moderators y0~!!!l
cool so this system makes it easier and more consistant for the mods when it comes to banning people.
now what about if a mod went through each of the sections they controlled and gave out good points where they are deserved i meen out of my PQ points a minimal amount are from mods.
you are referring to the Ozhonda reputation system.
We are talking about the Ozhonda infractions system.
BTW with the member to mod ratio of about 1000 to 1 , i think its justified that Mods dish out a small amount of rep power compared to the rest of you.
In general though , we do browse all forums and have a quick look at everything we can :)