zoom wrote:Who wrote the message in the OP? Who will be making moderating decisions, given the pretense that they do not exist?
I think it is important to ESOC, at this time, to ensure a lack of bias & personal investment in moderating decisions. Moderating on this website continues to frustrate community members, it seems. I would suggest—yet again—that every single moderating decision come with a short text on how to appeal a decision perceived as mishandled. Especially important, is that banning users must be done only when absolutely necessary, by agreement of all staff leadership.
I emphasize, finally, my appreciation for the entirity of ESOC staff, and my acknowledgement of theirs being a sometimes difficult task.
The moderating does indeed 'frustrate' community members, but not due to the reasons you mentioned. It frustrates community members because being frustrated and throwing a tantrum will eventually get you unbanned. The best thing to do when you get banned is create smurf accounts, then stop for a tiny but until you are unbanned. If it doesn't work the first time repeat it a week or two later.
Although your concern and frustration is certainly valid—you would know better than myself—your post gives me the feeling you are also having a hard time understanding the outside perspective. At least that seems the case to me, if you actually believe there is no legitimate community concern with the issue(s). Regardless, I believe that's missing the point, on which I am sure we can all agree:
1. ESOC has room for improvement in the community's standing.
2. Antagonizing and banning community members is the direct opposite to ESOC's interest.
3. There is an alarmingly common perception of ESOC moderating being unfair in consistency and severity. It is a controversial issue.
4. ESOC should try its best to improve the above, fundamentally important areas, independently of anyone else.