RIZZASTERBan Appeals Process
/archive/donations/plugins/ · last edited 18 Sep 2019 · Moderation
On 14th February, a 12-year-old user appealed a 3-day ban for using a racial slur in a chat channel. The user had been previously warned by another moderator for similar behavior, but the warning had not been reported to the senior mods. The original ban was issued due to the severity of the offense, but the user claimed they didn't remember what they said and were sorry. The moderator who initially issued the ban argued that the user's lack of remorse was a sign of a pattern of behavior.
The incident review is as follows: the moderator who appealed the ban was correct in pointing out that the user's remorse was not sufficient, as the warning had not been reported. However, the original ban was overly harsh and the user's punishment was not fair. The moderator who appealed the ban should have instead suggested a 1-day ban and a requirement for the user to apologize to the channel members. This would have taught the user a lesson without punishing them too severely. The user was eventually reinstated with a 1-day ban and a warning.
This incident highlights the importance of consistency and fairness in moderation. The original ban was a good idea, but the execution was flawed. The moderators need to work together to ensure that punishments are fair and consistent, rather than relying on individual judgment. The user's behavior is a concern and needs to be addressed, but the moderation team needs to be more consistent in their application of rules.