Looks like it's hopeless to expect the Appropriate Language rule to be enforced. Sigh.

To be fair, I'm highly skeptical of the possibility of a balanced, unbiased moderation being ever perceived as balanced and unbiased.

If there was any real consensus on balance and fairness, moderation wouldn't be required in the first place.

???
If he got tempbanned for anything, it's probably naughty words.
Appropriate Language, as Fables clarified, refers to making an effort to write in English / French / German / etc and not in gently caressing ROT13 in the corresponding General Discussion boards.

It wasn't about you at all actually :D I'm open to a mortal duel of pazaak however :D

...KotOR?

I don't get this returning "thick skin" argument, as if surviving in a hostile environment of trolls, threats and vitriol is some right of passage and test of true manhood, and if you don't enjoy or easily ignore being called a "fuckface" or people advocating murder and ethnic cleansing you have less of a right to be here. Do you really want to rather get rid of the nice, calm people who don't have "thick skin" rather than the thick skinned and thick skulled trolls who bully them? Do you really think a hatefull bully spreading the message of "kill the faggot" has greater right to be here than a gay person who isn't confident and thick skinned enough to put up with it? Because one way or the other you arem aking that choice, even if you think you're not.

And I really do not for the life of me understand why people see ignoring such things as some sign of strenght or maturity. There is nothing good about about ignoring rampant hate, discrimination, propaganda and calls to violence. Just because you ignore them and move on to another thread doesn't mean they don't have any consequence. Such acquiescence is in itself terribly harmfull. It allows such extrimists to spread their hate further and further. It does have real world impact. Every bit of it eventually adds up. And this has become a serious problem on this forum. The most serious one in fact. It's not like the moderation happened to this forum as it was four years ago, like it suddenly descended upon a peacefull realm of civil discussion to enforce the oh so very dreaded political correctness.

I am absolutely aware of the fact, that political correctness can also be, and often is nowadays taken to an extreme and can be a huge problem. But allowing the fear of that to make us the hostages of the other, very real and already present extreme is in my opinion simply unnecceptable, and should be so for any decent person.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and find someone to help me get off this high horse.

Yep. I've spent more time playing pazaak in that game then I did on some other entire RPGs :D

Oh, then Fairfox is at risk lol

Very well put, +1.

Having the freedom to express ourselves rather openly is nice to have. It is however a privilege and not a right, which many people online get confused about. It only takes a very small number of extremely toxic people to turn an otherwise civil community into a toxic environment of hate and endless verbal violence. In the end such people end up taking over online communities by force simply by continuing to sprout toxicity as long as they're permitted to do so, and in doing so they scare away anyone who merely wants to engage in civil discourse or are relatively neutral. Most normal people when bullied by someone toxic/hateful/etc. will back down and walk away or otherwise avoid conflict, and that's what happens. Then all that is left is a toxic shell of any community completely devoid of the remotest glimpse of civility.

We don't need laws or rules in society to force civil people to be civil, they do so of their own free will. But we do need law and order of some sort in society because people who are toxic and have no respect for others generally are unwilling to change their behaviour for the greater good of the whole. That's why we have police departments in real life, and why we have the equivalent of forum moderators in a place like this. It's because it only takes a small number of people with no self control and no respect for others to destroy something that exists for everyone - not just them.

I don't remember if I already pointed that out but it would be nice if the webdev team could implement a "banned" (or "temporarly banned") status on the forum public profile of the banned user (the "profile" as it's displayed in forum discussions) so at least we know that this user can't temporarly (or forever) publicly respond.

Can I ask why?

I think that would end up acting more as a model for public shaming of people than anything, and as a badge on them to make others happy that they are banned. It might even be better to not know, because it probably helps discourage negative interactions with people in the form of teasing/bullying/shaming if they don't know.

If it would take web development to implement such a thing, I wager it's right out as an option though. :P

From the FAQ:
"Should you proceed to break any of the rules again, you will be banned from posting on the forum"

Thus from a reader point of view, if a topic gets "stopped in its track", you know why (banned user). And for more implicated users, they know they can still reach the person through chat if they want to further the discussions (privately thus).

Exactly why I asked (why).