I would say in this case it would have been easier (IMO) to simply edit out that line, but as general policy we try to avoid snipping out pieces from posts unless absolutely necessary. As far as the moderation of the OP of that post I think that calling an approach to RP "bullshit" is quite clearly not constructive. Judging by Mata's response that perception isn't just limited to the moderators.
The important point is that I cannot see a plausible justification to bin the whole post. On the question of confusion, moderation should not cater to the lowest IQ - the post is not confusing even in the absence of the posts that came immediately prior to it.
This complaint isn't just about a disagreement with a moderator decision. Time and time again the moderators are unnecessarily heavy-handed in using their power. In this example, my post was condemned at the drop of a hat, despite not containing any objectionable material. An single allusion to a post that was moderated is not grounds to destroy a whole post.
This kind of moderating behaviour is not 'moderate', and furthermore is disrespectful of a contributor to a discussion. It is third-world policing; snap reactions with batons and teargas instead of a dignified bobby politely asking someone to alter their behaviour if needed.
If there is something that is objectionable in a person's post that does not appear malicious, a modicum of politesse would include contacting the poster about it. When moderation is done in this way it has been done here, it alienates and angers posters and makes them feel wronged.
Moderators should not moderate because they personally disagree with the views of a poster. Moderators should not be a vehicle for destroying discussions. If Laerise had been contacted and asked to modify his tone, we could have had a discussion about what he meant by 'cuddle me', which is a term I still do not understand in context.
The moderation on this forum is bereft of visible checks and balances. I am becoming aware of an increasing number of posters who are dissatisfied with the way moderation is undertaken here. Someone who thinks he or she is unimpeachable may well come here and say 'if you don't like it, leave', but that takes the same steps that was seen with Chatsubo and is a CCPesque quality reply.
During the design phase of these forums I suggested that moderators have a 'term' of office, or if concerns were raised about them they could be reviewed / elected. There are no such measures in place to give the options for the community to express their wishes. I think moderators should be rotated at intervals so that the rubbish ones don't have to be embarrassingly voted/complained out, or cause too much damage to the community here.
I am getting tired of seeing moderation occuring on the most drawn-out interpretations of the rules. Please can this grievance be addressed.
