In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
In response to S5's comment:
It's very well moderated and civil because the TOS are very simple "No bashing or general negativity will be allowed", and the mod enforces it. I find that to be a bit restricting in that it prevents the normal good-natured back and forth that can occur, but at the same time it avoids the slippery slope of trying to decide what's good-natured and what's mean-spirited.
That is what my main concern has been all along. When things are left to the discretion of the mods, personal bias becomes a factor. You can't deny that.
You either have a rule and enforce it the same for everyone, or you don't have the rule. Why are some people allowed to call others names and get away with it, and other posters aren't? Why are some posters allowed to flame with not so much as a warning, and others aren't?
Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating for stricter moderation or for anyone to be banned. I am just looking for some consistency in moderating, which I have not seen yet.
Kimmi, with all due respect, this is a naive opinion. Moderation is not black and white job. Someone has to decide which posts are over the top and need to be blocked; someone needs to decide which posters are more offensive than others and need correction. No law here (or in society either-that is why we have judges to differentiate) covers all possibilities unless you are a digital being. Much of it is subjective. There is no way to eliminate bias completely. I believe that what you mean is that bias is not OK if it does not align with your own personal bias. Hence, your "hypocrite" and "biased" accusations. Despite your dissatisfaction I will keep doing the best I can here, as will Mod 1 I am sure. You will never be satisfied with it, and I accept that.