In Response to Recent Concerns

Monday morning, Jason had a conversation with a user (@mogalas/ u/sharingeas), whose post over the weekend brought together a few concerns members of our community have. @mogalas was very open and laid out a list of the issues, and the Choice of Games staff is very appreciative of the work he put in to talk with us.

As we understand it, here are some of the concerns that @mogalas expressed—both in the conversation and in his original post—and the remedies we have undertaken:

  • More Moderators - We have added three new moderators to the team. Please welcome @ramidel, @achubbyblackcat, and @hannahps to the team. In addition, we have promoted @redroses to be a Leader.
    • There may be a few other appointments to come.
  • 1,000 Year Bans - When we click the “permanent” ban button in Discourse, Discourse tells the banned user that they’re banned for 1,000 years exactly: “You are suspended until May 4, 3021.” We agree that this is a very silly thing to say and we’ve filed it as a bug with the Discourse team. The Discourse team has agreed that this is a problem and are adjusting the UI to address it.
  • General Moderation - We are working with Mods to adjust the style of moderation to one that will be more fair and helpful to all users.
    • Mods and Staff will not lead with “Bans will be handed out for [X behavior]” on any posts. We understand this can feel excessive and stifle discourse.
    • Mods and Staff should treat all users equally. We understand that there have been instances of Mods and Staff letting behavior slide from some users while banning other users for substantially similar conduct. This has been discussed internally and should not be happening. This applies to ban-worthy or rule-breaking behavior, not the nuanced conversations that can arise from having a vibrant and diverse community. Axes of privilege and minority status will still be respected, and the Choice of Games values about equity and respect still stand.
  • Mod Tag-Out System - We are advising Mods to start using a tag-out system that will hopefully help with communication and transparency. In practice this will appear as a Mod stepping away when they feel they are not resolving an issue to their satisfaction and another Mod will “tag in” to monitor the situation.
    • If a moderation decision necessitates a larger address to the community, someone else—likely Staff—will initiate any necessary threads.
    • Tagging-out of mods will involve tagging Jason or @KaiDeleon in more frequently.

During Jason and @mogalas 's conversation, @mogalas articulated several concerns that already have solutions, but which may not be clear to all users.

  • Blocking Users - Unfortunately, Discourse software does not have a block feature, and per the developers there are no plans to ever add such a function. However, there is an “Ignore” feature that allows users to limit what they are seeing from another user. Here is how you utilize that feature.
  • Dedicated Appeal Form - Users are welcome to email CoG Staff ( any time they feel Moderators are out of line or that there is great concern for events occurring in our online community.

Another request that @mogalas brought up was the desire for an audit log of Moderator actions. This is not currently a feature of the forum software, but we actually feel that it would be counterproductive. If there were an audit log, then any post that is “deleted” would effectively exist forever in that log. Additionally this is a functionality that Discourse would have to make for us, and we believe it is not a function they would implement.

One of the reasons that users have been upset—and perhaps a reason that the idea of a Mod Audit Log seems appealing—is the flagging and deletion of content on the forum. We stand by the claim that moderating and deleting comments is healthy for a community. However, just because we delete some things—especially ones that are delivered in an inflammatory or hyperbolic way, or that repeat blatant misinformation—doesn’t mean we’re not listening for genuine constructive criticism.

Thus, this thread is an opportunity to discuss the points raised above and to give you the opportunity to tell us if we missed something salient in the original post. This thread will be using Slow Mode indefinitely to make sure that we hear all the voices that want to participate. We look forward to a respectful and productive discussion.

-Choice of Games Staff


I’d like to thank all of the team for the work you do to keep this forum a nice place to be, :hugs: and for listening to users’ concerns and taking such decisive action. Congratulations to the new additions to the mod team — I’m sure you all will do a splendid job! :heart:


I like the ideas and have only a short question, will it be possible for the involved user to ask the mod for a tag-out if they are feeling that another mod might be better suited to react to the issue?


This is all nice and all, but you’re trying to solve the problems without admitting your faults and while I do appreciate that you finally decided to adress the issues, it is far from what people that were affected wanted to hear. Where is the apology to the people that were banned unfairly, and their posts wiped clean? They cannot even show that they were banned unfairly because everything was sweeped under the rug. And what about those banned because you were policing tumblr? Not even a “we’re sorry to those that were affected by misjudged actions of our mods.” How many times have you deleted any type of constructive criticism on tumblr/reddit or even on your own forum? Wheres the acknowledging of that? If not for the other person speaking about the post being deleted on reddit you would have never addressed even the bare minimum that you did. But congrats for talking about audit logs, because that surely was super important :clap:t2:


Hopefully the changes expressed here are noticable. Well, I noticed the new mods earlier, but that’s pretty obvious for regulars. But other stuff, like enforcement, it will take time to tell. I really hope this helps others, including myself, feel less aggressively stifled and like discussions and disagreements can be had without mod intervention (deletion, editing, banning). Maybe I’m expecting too much. The content here is pretty unique and the software is way more suited than Tumblr (as an obvious example) for discussion, so I want that to be able to thrive without the adults regularly stepping in. I just want this place to be pleasant, like I assume everyone else does, and hopefully this helps.


As DinkyWink said already, this doesn’t address most of the issues and sounds more like a “we’re sorry you feel that way” without even so much as a sorry or any kind of apology for that matter included. It feels like the bare minimum if even that, like an attempt to save face without properly taking into account many of the concerns that mogalas spoke about in his post. Concerns that a lot of other people have brought up before for that matter, for a quite some time now, only to be silenced and banned for daring to have an opinion and trying to make the forum a better place. You even deleted mogalas post off of here and reddit before even thinking about addressing it in an attempt to silence him. It’s ridiculous and this post isn’t satisfactory to me and I’m sure a lot of other people as well


Well done team. Welcome to the new mods. I hope this damps down the fires a bit and that we’re able to get back to what this forum is for.


Bad job team. You hired new mods ig. I hope this stirs up the fires a bit more and we are able to continue this discussion in this forum.


I’m happy this post has been made. There have been a lot of concerns raised from multiple sources and it’s nice to see a response, and a willingness to change how things are run.

There are still a few concerns I have though. Users have been unfairly (in my opinion, and others) banned from the platform. Will these users be reviewed and given back access to their accounts? These banned users were and are fans of cogs, and it’s a shame to see them gone permanently for very vague, and often times unreasonable reasons. I’ve seen moderators get heated, debate and make “jokes” in similar ways that users have been banned for.

The way in which mods on this platform delete posts is also concerning to me. I have seen instances of times where mods have misinterpreted the intent behind a users post and have deleted it of their own accord. I’d like to think that mods attempt to clarify posts before they go and delete them, and tell a user ahead of time that they’re going to do so. Open discussion is very important.

Like other users above have said I feel like this post is glossing over a few instances of behavior from mods that weren’t great. Users have been hurt by these actions and may feel uncomfortable participating on this forum in the future. I hope that all sides are willing to admit wrongdoings when they happen.

Anyways, I’m hopeful for changes in the future that benefit the community at large. Thanks for starting this thread so we can have an open discussion.


I’m glad to see that some of the concerns shared by the community over the past while are being addressed, but I have two issues with your current post. Keep in mind that I only know what I’ve personally observed and what has been shared with me with users — since visibility is usually greater on the side of users than of moderation. I acknowledge that I might not have all the facts, but I still think the point stands.

I really doubt that the issue people had with those bans was the explicit wording or ‘1000-year’ aspect of the suspension. Changing the phrasing doesn’t change the fact that this is functionally removing people from the forums forever, which is what the issue is with. I’ve seen 1000-year bans for “baiting moderators”, “questioning moderation” and other behaviours that — while very unpleasant to deal with — are localized incidents that are usually in response to larger situations that are usually ignored. Sure, emotions run high and users get snappy, but is that really worth a permanent lifetime ban from the forums?

This is a great statement but it is also the only bullet point with no actionable items listed. How will you be enforcing this? How are you guaranteeing users that what has repeatedly happened in the past will not happen again? At this point there needs to be an acknowledgment that there was a breach of trust and an explicit, public plan on how that trust will be regained. Some of the people who were banned or suspended were very active participants who’ve poured hundreds of hours into their own IF works and into the community.

I, personally, am not comfortable with sharing my upcoming interactive fiction work on the forum due to the atmosphere that has been created by some users and enforced by mods. I continuously see users make demands of authors, share comments that are more attacks on the author’s story or style than constructive criticism, and be openly racist, homophobic and transphobic about characters or game options, and there seldom is any action taken. I’ve flagged posts in the past, and have tried educating about transphobia in particular, but there seems to be a prevalent willingness to overlook those behaviours, especially if the users are favoured by the mods. I understand that we all have different thresholds for what we’re willing to tolerate, but there are some people sharing rhetoric that is actively harmful to marginalized communities and that are still posting on this website.

All in all, I’ll still be browsing the forums because it’s an useful place to discover WIPs, but I am weary about involving myself in this community until tangible changes have been enacted and observed. Best of luck going forward.


I feel like I’m missing something here.

This thread appears to have been made in response to a single post made by @Mogalas (presumably on reddit, though I gather from @carawen’s post that they also posted on the forum?) From what I can see, this person isn’t an active member of this forum or on reddit - not that this means they can’t have legitimate concerns or be allowed to raise them, of course. But it does beg some questions…

Considering that there were two entire threads of discussion held here on the forum in which many forum members participated in earnest, and in good faith - it seems strange to me for this thread to be so focused on that one-shot post made by one person?

Why does this one person get a personal audience with Jason within which to speak for the entire community and form the basis of change? Surely the two threads provided all the material needed (and more)?

It comes across as if these issues were entirely unknown until Mogalas posted about them, when in fact they were all lain out in those two threads (which CoG staff participated in). It also runs the risk of missing some of the other prevalent concerns of the community which were raised in those two threads (and are being raised above in this thread), as Mogalas didn’t put them in their thread - which is the basis of the changes being discussion in the OP.

On a similar vein, it appears that Mogalas’ reddit post was deleted by moderators (and if there was a post on this forum, that too has gone). To then base this thread and these changes off of that deleted thread, in which you a) acknowledge Mogalas as compiling these issues and b) that CoG staff are appeciative of this. Why were the threads deleted then? I am really struggling to get my head around this one.

Overall, it does feel a little contradictory to say ‘This user, who posted some ideas in a thread we deleted, has posted a really good thread that we’re going to listen to, and speak directly to them about. You can’t see what they said because they thread is deleted (for breaking the rules?), but here are the changes we’ve made on the basis of what they said’.

Apologies if this comes off as aggressive, or overly negative, in any way. You’ll see from my previous participation in these discussions that I have tried to help bridge a gap between users and mods/Cog. But when I read this, I was just left with a lot of questions as it feels like there’s a gap in the middle here somewhere.


First of all—please link to mogalas’ post in the original thread. I feel like it’s important that people who have not seen it, do so they can participate in this discussion with an informed opinion, as well as to have access to compare the concerns you addressed in your post vs. to the points that he made.

Hi! I’m going to have to disagree here. While I definitely do think that deleting posts on serious topics that are either completely off-topic or blatantly inflammatory is understandably grounds for deletion of posts, what I’ve witnessed is not that.


While the mod team claim to be listening for constructive criticism, what I’ve seen from other posts (such as the one about moderating norms and shameposting) have not demonstrated such behavior. Users who bring up clearly good points have had their posts flagged. Moderators clearly do not know the difference between what is “inflammatory” and “shameposting”, and simply calling it what it is. If I say I do not disagree with a mod, that constitutes as “questioning the mods,” and would stifle proper open discussion. If I point out something about what someone else said that is clearly wrong, it could constitute “shame posting,” and I could be banned. Again, that would stifle discourse. Do you see the issue?

Before the point is made that we must once again privately message mods or staff if we have a concern regarding their decision—again, no. I don’t see why it should be kept private if it is a relevant topic of conversation that other people should be a part of, and be able to voice their own opinions, as well if it’s discussed civilly.

I’m often of the opinion that, yes, I think if you have an issue with something, you should discuss it with someone first before you bring it to the attention of people. However, this issue has become far too widespread and has affected the forum as a whole, so we should be able to use the forum itself to discuss it—not sweep it under the rug, which is the sense that I’m getting here.

“Inflammatory posts”

The issue isn’t the fact that mods delete posts in general. Obviously, that comes with the role, and it comes with facilitating meaningful discussion. The real concern is the ambiguity of what constitutes as shameposting, mod questioning, or a violation of the guidelines in general.


As Mogalas addressed in his post, only Gower has been very transparent about his process of moderating. There is no standard way of moderating, which leads to the inconsistencies you’ve described in that the conduct of one member could have them banned, while similar behavior of another could allow them to pass.

Here is what Mogalas said in their original post:

In a comment Gower made regarding the code of conduct that the mods use when applying their use of power, they made a point to state that the thread they work with “Moderation and Forum Norms” are to represent their own personal rulings on moderating. A code they use themselves, but not a binding code by which all mods should be held accountable. This is really striking to me as it implies that the mods are going on their own for their actions, rather than convening to discuss when and what action should be taken in cases of infractions to the rules of the forums by users. If the forums are to remain a place of order, I sincerely urge the necessity of two new ratified codes of conduct: one for users, and another for mods. Just as users can be banned for flagranting the rules of the forums, so too should the mods be punished when they do not abide by the rules they subscribed to when taking on the unpaid role of moderating.

Even if you acknowledge that all users should be treated equally, I do not see a solution to this other than you’ve spoken and agreed it’s wrong. It’s like agreeing that crime is illegal, yet it doesn’t actually mean that crimes will be stopped, even knowing that it is.

What we’re calling for is clarity in the forum guidelines. As I see it, the ambiguity of what is bannable behavior, and what isn’t is weaponized against the forum users. As it appears (though not saying that it is intentional), the guidelines are just vague enough that it can fit the rationale of whatever moderators create. Even now, as I’m trying to speak as calmly as I can, I am worried that moderators will see this as “rude” and “extremely angry.” Please understand that the only reason why I even make an effort to write this post isn’t to vent—it’s to better this community. I want a safe, open and communicative forum space. You guys want to have a space for the community of your platform. These goals should be coinciding with one another. And yet.

Moreover, Mogalas called for a standardization in moderation. While you obviously trust the judgment of all your moderators, please know that they will incidentally represent the platform and your company. Even if you’ve made a statement that they do not, people will not see it that way just because you said so. This is why you need more consistency in your moderation.

As Mogalas pointed out:

For my last comment on the topic, I wish to address the likely inevitable rebuttal of the fact that mods are not a legal representation of CoG. You are correct there, and while mods are unpaid, they ultimately still fall under the purview of CoG staff. Whilst legally, mods are not listed as staff, they are proxies that use the power given to them to, in an ideal scenario, facilitate the growth of the community. This ideal seems to have gotten lost and I sincerely hope that the forums can be a proud place to be once more.

Of course, topics have nuance, and there is no way to predict everything that could happen. However, there are still common violations that you can be more consistent. If I recall the traffic laws in the United States (or at least in my state), there is a point system, and having a certain number of points constitutes a certain punishment. Depending on the type of violation, it could be worth a lot of points, or not so much. It doesn’t have to be that complex—Gower has been transparent in what he deletes or flags, and his system for suspension and ban (an official warning → suspension). However, if each moderator will be having their own method, I would like them to be transparent with their procedure or method as well. Even if it’s clearly more work, the visibility and transparency in their moderating policies would ensure that they keep consistent with their values and the rules they set upon themselves. It would also better inform users exactly the type of behavior and posts that would get them in trouble.

Here is something positive that I do want to say— the tag-out system. I agree with another user on this post that I like this system, though I also agree that I would also like it if users are allowed to ask to speak to another moderator if they feel unheard from the moderator they are speaking to.

I have to agree with Sinnie here, it feels like the staff only truly acknowledged the issues that exist within the forum from this one post that Mogalas made. I feel that the reason for this is because he moved the discussion where CoG cannot moderate it (Tumblr, which is the only platform this is on because automod deleted the thread he made here, and his was deleted on Reddit, going against the point of listening for constructive criticism) and presented actual solutions. I’m not going to say that the staff is pretending to be ignorant to the issues, I’m just saying that it comes across that way.

I used to admire this community, and the platform so very much. In fact, I still do enjoy the platform—just not the management behind it. I don’t want it to color my opinion of the games, but the way a company and the mods interact with their community is telling of how much they value their fanbase and the concerns they raise.


Welcome to the new mods.


Hello @Sinnie,

Apologies in advance for any formatting or other errors, I’m replying from mobile.

I hope you don’t mind my replying. As for why Jason chose to fully discuss with me about the post I’d attempted to make here (which was hidden by automod) and a post on Reddit that was deleted too, I can not give you anything about that. When I saw Jason comment on a post on Reddit about why my initial post had been deleted, I thought to try DM through there to see if he’d seen my post and to ask for some sort of response. I’ll be honest, I didn’t expect he’d reply, I thought I’d be brushed off. That being said, I’m glad Jason took the time to correct some of my false facts in the post, and that we were able to clarify ideas shared there.

All the time during the conversation, I would have liked to have seen it being discussed publicly, but I didn’t want to violate the privacy that should be reserved for people, no matter if they’re the big boss like Jason or not. If I were to guess why they did so, they may have felt that angers would still be flared up high from events earlier in the week. That is just a guess so can’t say for certain.

I apologise that it became myself becoming a de facto spokesperson in the situation. It was never my intention to be the sole person to talk, but to be a relatively outside opinion to formulate a complaint with less heated emotions. I do not think any or all suggestions I made were to be the golden standard, but as it became on Reddit, it was always intended to start a conversation for the community to suggest ideas that they would want.

My post sought to collate issues from both threads of Thursday 29th April, and to attempt to pull issues myself and my friends (who do frequent the forums often) had seen. It was never my intention to make it sound like I made a groundbreaking revelation of the issues, so I apologise it’s come across that way. I definitely do think more discussions should be had, but I won’t delude myself in saying that I am the right person to have those.

I hope I addressed your complaints from my end. Obviously I couldn’t answer more about the reasonings of their decisions, but I’m open to talk more about it in DMs if you’d like, seeing as this post is in slow mode. Note: that’s not to silence your concerns, but just maybe I can clarify anything I may have not been clear on.

Thanks for reading this all and hope I was able to articulate the situation from my end.


I appreciate this comment very much! This lays out a few points that the CoG team would love to discuss.

If users who have been banned or who have had content deleted would like for us to review their situation, they are more than welcome to DM me or email with the relevant thread or link. This was pointed out in the post: we welcome any member that wants to have moderator action reviewed to email us! (Or DM me as it stands)

My previous statement goes for posts and comments as well :smiley:

I had hoped this post would not come across as glossing over anything, and I do apologize if any user who was participating in good faith feels we have ignored or slighted them. This post is intended to start a process that (I hope) results in those users feeling welcomed and safe on our forum and in our community. Our moderators do their best with the support they have, and we have seen over the last week that perhaps we need to support them more.

That being said, we have reviewed some specific comments and posts that have been brought up and it appears that concerns about deletion of comments/threads and bans do not stem from one moderator consistently making rash decisions, nor do they stem from all of the moderators taking rushed action. In actuality it seems that actions that do get reviewed are each unique and cannot be remedied with a blanket treatment. This is a major part of why we included the tag-out system.

I know this puts the onus on users that have been banned or had content deleted, but we’re not going to blanket unsuspend users or undelete content. A check on the power of the moderators is that all users can reach out to CoG directly and ask for decisions to be reviewed, so I do hope those that have been hurt reach out to me so we can do the actionable things that will make them feel welcome in the community again.

I also appreciate everyone’s patience. We are reading all of your comments and drafting these replies as a team, so this may be slower going than usual to get these comments posted :smiley:


Rome wasn’t built in a day. It’s much easier to voice dissent than to create change. I’m impressed with the way the forum has taken action. I take that action as a good-faith gesture that they will continue to address other ongoing issues which are more difficult to both root out and solve.

Congrats to the new mods. Thanks for taking action and not just saying things in a time of relative upheaval. Growing pains are inevitable, but they indicate growth. So, a net positive, I’d say.


This was my thought, too. A lot of us voiced concerns, and it would be nice to have our concerns directly addressed. I’ve never even seen that user’s name before, which begs the question of exactly how active they are or are not.

I agree.

I wanted to quote @chocolatemix’s post, but I actually agree with every single thing said to the letter. There’s nothing I can add.

It just seems very shallow. One of the biggest concerns has been moderator accountability, in every possible way. A standard set of rules/regulations that moderators should have to follow- directions for how to handle common situations, and a system of checks and balances, when those rules aren’t followed. An audit of some sort, or a three strike system, would be ideal.

In addition, where are the apologies for aggrieved parties? People who were banned irrationally being reinstated? People whose comments and threads were erroneously deleted apologized to?

This all seems very much “what’s the bare minimum we can give to keep people from rioting in the streets”.

Accountability should not be done in half-measures.

All this said, congrats to the new mods. I know you’re coming in at a volatile time, but all of us genuinely just want the best for the forum.


We are definitely open to the idea that people have been banned from the forum in error, which is why we have a policy that users can submit their ban for review. That being said it has seemed to be a prevailing concern recently that the “1000-year” part of the ban seemed an egregious and intentional slight against users, which is why that was included in this post.

If the concern is that permanent bans exist, we have to agree to disagree. Permanent bans are a necessary tool for us to guide and protect the community.

If the issue is that permanent bans are used too liberally, then—as previously stated—we invite the banned person to appeal the moderator’s decision to Choice of Games.

As in my previous comment we have reviewed some of the instances that have been recently pointed out by users as moderator oversight and we have concluded that there is no single solution that neatly wraps up this concern. Our moderators have done their job with the best intentions, and if there seems to be a trend we are not seeing I would sincerely appreciate that being shared. As much as I would like to outline specific and concrete action we are taking to give more guidance to our moderation team there isn’t a single rule that can be applied in all situations.

CoG as a company, and I personally, take this very seriously. Please DM me where this has happened as we do not tolerate discrimination on this forum. As for making demands of authors or otherwise giving unnecessary critique we do our best to prevent this type of behavior, but then we are in an awkward corner. Should we delete those comments asking so much of WIP authors? When users refuse to give an author breathing room or are consistently giving feedback that could be deemed “too much” should they be banned? Most of the posts in this thread and in similar threads are claiming that we suspend people too liberally, but you seem to be saying that we’re not suspending people enough. I sincerely would like to know what kind of response the community would like to see that is both substantial and modest.

To begin, we believe in the adage of praising in public and punishing in private. This means that it is more respectful to deal with problematic behavior, from users and moderators alike, in private rather than for it to be debated in an open forum.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the heart of your statement seems to be that you do not trust the moderation decisions that are being made by the mods and staff. The point of disagreement here seems to be that we do not (or, try not to) discuss moderation decisions publicly and/or with third parties; discussion of moderation decisions only happens between the user and the mods/staff.

This thread—and our general approach—is not intended to “sweep things under the rug.” This thread is about trying to regain some of your trust in our moderation judgment. However, while we can work to regain your trust—and make some internal changes to emphasize or highlight the equity of the system—it’s ultimately up to you to decide if you’re going to trust us or not.

We agree this wording does not fully convey the action we are taking to remedy the concerns our users have, but as I said above there is not a simple, sweeping statement I could make that would encompass the wide variety of situations our moderators deal with. As for a forum guideline we have our forum rules which are included in the FAQ. That document outlines our expectations on user decorum and is the basis for moderation. However, moderation is an art, not a science or a legal code. Moderation is about taking the totality of the situation into consideration and trying to find solutions that do not consist of discipline as often as possible.

This point has been brought up a few times in the thread. Truthfully, it is not only due to Mogalas’ post, certainly it is not due only to the conversation he had with Jason, that we are addressing this issue. But, the key point here is that Mogalas reached out privately to Jason to discuss his concerns, which is exactly what we’ve been asking users to do.

Because Mogalas and Jason were able to discuss Mogalas’s post privately, they were able to cut through the hyperbole and jump to the four points that Mogalas said were the core grievances as he saw them: the need for more moderators, an ignore function, moderation audit logs, and an appeals process. Besides what he identified as the four core grievances, we identified a few other criticisms and addressed them in our post.

On a broader note, I do hope it is clear that this post is not the only action we are taking to curate our community better. This is certainly going to be a process, and all we can ask is for y’all to have some patience while we work through it.


This post was originally written by @DinkyWink so all credit goes to them, but since new users are only allowed to post one reply in the same topic I offered to post it in their stead since I agree with all of their points:

The users should do everything around here, what are the mods for then if I may ask? Users should do this do that, but when it comes to expressing their opinions - “questioning moderation” or “Baiting moderation” is always the two very handy tools, not only that, the mods won’t and don’t even want to acknowledge that they harmed this community with their actions, they instead hide behind the actual cog staff to sort out their mess.

Because surely - like, for sure sure you would have otherwise addressed it. Im sorry but I doubt many will believe that.

There were more, but you chose to ignore them as always.

Some of us have have lifespans of 2000 years so don’t worry take your time.

If moderation is art then I assume the mods see themselves as Picasso trying to draw a cat blindfolded :slight_smile: we’re all here today because you allow your moderators to be Walmart 5€ section da vinci’s that have shown favoritism - rudeness and big ego behavior while knowing that many of us can’t do anything about it, only to email your support that will probably take years to respond and most likely a simple user do not thinks about screenshoting the instance in which they’ve been handled with injustice, what’s there to do then? That’s right nothing, because moderation is art.

This is not going to happen UNLESS you actually say what your plan is, the vague “we’re going to work on it” doesn’t tell us much sadly. At least link @mogalas’s post for starters, it don’t take that long.