I'm just trying to understand the system itself. I'm sure we can all agree that a method for double checking reports is a good thing. Yet it's far too easy to question the actual validity of the system itself when (as will be discussed) the system is highly subjective to an unpunishable abuse of moderation power.

A recent example (leaving names out to protect privacy) would be where a user received a violation and it was upheld through an appeal. The user in question then threw a bitchfit on the forum, quite clearly for the purpose of causing drama (as seen by the way they tried to publicize the issue, as well as presenting the issue in a manner that was not even the slightest way impartial, and threatening to leave the website), where a third mod stepped in and also confirmed that they would have handed out a vio as well. Finally, a fourth unnamed mod (who is quite slow, worthless, albeit somewhat brotherly) literally claimed to: 1. not read the game, 2. not read any of the discussion, 3. read ONLY the bitchfitter's posts, step in and singlehandedly overturn the ruling upheld by three separate mods on three separate occasions.

The aforementioned incident begs the question: what is the point of the appeals system? Why have this system itself in place when:
1. Anyone literally needs a single mod on their side to get an overturned ruling, regardless of how many mods support/oppose it.
2. There is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the aforementioned abuse of mod power (among other abuses).
3. The aforementioned abuse clearly and directly undermines the validity of the appeals system itself, and also shows a lack of uniformed enforcement of the rules.
4. Let's not forget that the legitimacy of the mods is directly given from the system which they frequently undermine.
5. How/why are we supposed to take the mods, the system, and the rules seriously if its authority figures undermine the source of their authority?

Let's be clear - this isn't a question about whether or not the ruling was correct or incorrect. This is a question about whether or not this type of mod abuse practice is acceptable, as well as questioning the point of the appeals system in the first place. What's the point of having a supreme court when a single dissenting justice can singlehandedly overturn the entire system's decision with no reviewing or punishment mechanism?

Should we have maybe another system where mods can get together and review cases that are very polarizing? Absolutely. However the current situation between the community and the mods can be described as strained, at best. These types of incidents need to be dealt with both systematically and transparently, or it just makes the mods and their rules enforcement a bigger joke than it already is (if that's even possible).

W A L R U S