I'd like to talk about the process of Moderation, its typical methods, and some things you as users can do to help us out.
First of all, let's set some terms for this conversation. There are two broad categories for moderation, Warnings and Actions.
Warnings can be public warnings either IC or OOC, and they can be private chat warnings. Public Warnings should be considered a gentle nudge in the right direction OOC (even if the warning is serious IC). Private Warnings are more serious, and if you've received one, it is typically your last chance to cease whatever the warning was about. IC warnings are typically handled IC, as you might expect. There really is little difference there.
Actions are used when warnings were either ineffective, or would be insufficient to stop the disruptive behavior. Actions consists of Mutes, Kicks, and Bans. A mute silences your participation in the channel, and usually lasts less than an hour. If you've been muted, the proper response is to calm down. There is no appeal for being muted. Just wait it out and relax. Kicks and Bans are, respectively, temporary and permanent. You can appeal both. Both of those deserve their own thread, so I won't get into detail here. Whether IC or OOC, all actions are subject to the same process of appeals (or lack thereof).
As most of you are aware, the moderation team of the Summit is perfectly willing to issue moderation on our own against users who we feel openly and obviously violate the rules or spirit of the channel. We often step in quickly for particularly egregious cases, but we tend to be much slower in doing so for the more mild cases. In many cases we may issue private warnings, or simply make a note of it for later and not do anything at all yet.
This sometimes leads to the perception of favoritism or selective moderation. Such perception is not entirely unfounded, but it sometimes ignores an important part of the reason for inconsistent moderation of mild disruptions/trolling: Lack of User Reports. We as moderators strongly rely on user reports to determine how disruptive behavior is. If somebody is being a jerkwad on the Summit IC and nobody reports it, we have no way to know if everybody is secretly upset about it. We tend to assume the not-accused troll is considered legit and avoid interfering.
Speaking as myself (Katrina), I can say that I avoid interfering in mild cases unless I get reports, because I'm wary of the common perception that the mod team is an oppressive Orwellian police force. In short, I try to be more libertarian with my moderation and only action when necessary. Other moderators might be far more willing to slap a mute or kick on someone for being a suspected troll.
If you want the mod team to notice and do something about a character/user or situation, FILE A REPORT. We can only act according to our own perception of the problem until reports start showing up and giving us certain reason to suspect foul (role)play.
It is important to note here that we may not always agree with a report. We may strongly disagree, and reports should not be assumed to guarantee moderation. On the other hand, it should not be considered a guarantee of immunity. Depending on what we see in the logs, we may issue moderation against more than just the reported person (up to and including the person who made the report).
I'll wrap this up here for now by restating the concept that The Summit and OOC are not moderated based on a constitution of rules and laws. It is moderated based on the perceptions of the community and the moderation team on certain guidelines of behavior that are open for discussion and negotiation via the proper channels. Some things have been beaten to death, like slaves on camera (no pun intended). Others are more flexible to interpretation, like playing an unsavory or foul-mouthed villain.
In all cases though, we do not rely on the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of the law. If you feel such moderation is not being done to your satisfaction, we encourage you to step up your game in assisting us using reports.