02-18-2017, 02:33 PM
Hmm...well first of all, if you're banned like that (at initial example) you still get the reason for the ban via email, as far as I know.
As for IRL, if you killed someone, the "cop" doesn't send you to jail, a judge and a justice system does after you're found guilty. Arbitrary powers to cops have been frowned upon entirely, being "judge-and-jury" because it was always aware that cops are people too.
On the warning side, I do believe there are laws in which shooting someone, criminal or not, must only come after a warning, first verbal, then a warning shot, before excessive force is used.
So yes, of course everybody understands warnings are given. The issue is when they're not, as that seems discretionary and it's not allowing the specific user to comprehend the likeliness of a ban.
According to the Terms of Service, article 1. "You will not harass, bully, intimidate, threaten or stalk any member or make rude comments about a member". Nowhere does it say Moderators are not to be questioned or talk to in contradiction. If a Moderator can't handle being questioned, it doesn't show much "moderation" in my own personal opinion.
Furthermore, article 5. says "We have volunteers and staff participants who are authorized by us to moderate activities in MNF Club...and they may take appropriate action when they see TOS violations". Where is the TOS violation of politely trying to reason with a Moderator after a perceived unjustified ban?
The people that enforce the law are not above it.
In all criminal systems, the people who are entrusted with those attributes are those that are held to a higher accountability than any simple person.
As for IRL, if you killed someone, the "cop" doesn't send you to jail, a judge and a justice system does after you're found guilty. Arbitrary powers to cops have been frowned upon entirely, being "judge-and-jury" because it was always aware that cops are people too.
On the warning side, I do believe there are laws in which shooting someone, criminal or not, must only come after a warning, first verbal, then a warning shot, before excessive force is used.
So yes, of course everybody understands warnings are given. The issue is when they're not, as that seems discretionary and it's not allowing the specific user to comprehend the likeliness of a ban.
According to the Terms of Service, article 1. "You will not harass, bully, intimidate, threaten or stalk any member or make rude comments about a member". Nowhere does it say Moderators are not to be questioned or talk to in contradiction. If a Moderator can't handle being questioned, it doesn't show much "moderation" in my own personal opinion.
Furthermore, article 5. says "We have volunteers and staff participants who are authorized by us to moderate activities in MNF Club...and they may take appropriate action when they see TOS violations". Where is the TOS violation of politely trying to reason with a Moderator after a perceived unjustified ban?
The people that enforce the law are not above it.
In all criminal systems, the people who are entrusted with those attributes are those that are held to a higher accountability than any simple person.