Thread Closed
The issue is not explicitly about the use of image macros. That's missing the bigger picture. The only reason that the moderators felt that this was something that needed to be enforced was because it had become a bit of an issue at the time where numerous posts consisting of little, if not nothing other than a meme image, were being posted and cluttering up topics with irrelevant trash. Overlooking that, meme images can quite easily be perceived as a quick and easy method of making a snarky or passive-aggressive remark without actually contributing anything to the topic itself - all while floating under the guise of a post that holds mild relevance to the ongoing discussion.
With the newly-released rule set, the goal was to heighten consistency among moderator actions and reduce the extent to which each moderator had to make an independent judgement call - something which can vary quite a bit, even should most of us share similar sentiments and opinions at the best of times. As such, macro images were decidedly treated as a warnable offence in situations where it was deemed as non-content, and for the sake of remaining neutral on all levels, were likely moderated a little more mercilessly than any one of us would have particularly favoured.
It might also be worth mentioning that any, one warning issued by a moderator can quite easily be an action which they had really wished to avoid entirely. It's not simply an issue of "Was this inappropriate/breaching the rules?". Nine times out of ten, posts that get warned are lingering in a grey area where one person might consider something that was said as a harsh but ultimately harmless voicing of opinion, while another might see it as something that is heedlessly careless and something to be made an example out of... to make a point of the matter that such inconsiderate behaviour, which repeatedly tends to toe the line of what's tolerable and what isn't, is simply not something that should be enabled.
And just as a reminder, warnings and even bans can be appealed if you feel that it was not a justified call or if the moderator in question is missing some important detail that could potentially change their perspective of the matter. I don't believe that any one of us are too proud to admit when we've made a mistake nor to revoke a decision if hindsight proves to reveal a wiser course of action. We don't claim to know best for every single situation, we can only work towards being as fair and reasonable as possible for each of them.
The rules are in place to try and keep the forum civil and a place where users, both existing and those yet to join, can happily be a part of - not to spoil anyone's fun or keep the place under an arbitrarily, strict rule. Anyone and everyone is very welcome to have an open dialogue with us about matters that they find concerning. As has been stated, it's not our goal to make things difficult or unpleasant for anyone - be it through strict enforcement of certain rules or excessive leniency with people whom push the boundaries of reputable, social conduct.
Now, with all of that said, I don't like the nature in which this topic was created because it directly violated the first draft of a specific rule before it had been amended to be worded differently, but because it has become something of a legitimate topic I will go along and contribute all the same, but you are being warned now to not abuse the opportunity and come out with snarky or passive-aggressive remarks as it is in some peoples' tendencies.
If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.
With the newly-released rule set, the goal was to heighten consistency among moderator actions and reduce the extent to which each moderator had to make an independent judgement call - something which can vary quite a bit, even should most of us share similar sentiments and opinions at the best of times. As such, macro images were decidedly treated as a warnable offence in situations where it was deemed as non-content, and for the sake of remaining neutral on all levels, were likely moderated a little more mercilessly than any one of us would have particularly favoured.
It might also be worth mentioning that any, one warning issued by a moderator can quite easily be an action which they had really wished to avoid entirely. It's not simply an issue of "Was this inappropriate/breaching the rules?". Nine times out of ten, posts that get warned are lingering in a grey area where one person might consider something that was said as a harsh but ultimately harmless voicing of opinion, while another might see it as something that is heedlessly careless and something to be made an example out of... to make a point of the matter that such inconsiderate behaviour, which repeatedly tends to toe the line of what's tolerable and what isn't, is simply not something that should be enabled.
And just as a reminder, warnings and even bans can be appealed if you feel that it was not a justified call or if the moderator in question is missing some important detail that could potentially change their perspective of the matter. I don't believe that any one of us are too proud to admit when we've made a mistake nor to revoke a decision if hindsight proves to reveal a wiser course of action. We don't claim to know best for every single situation, we can only work towards being as fair and reasonable as possible for each of them.
The rules are in place to try and keep the forum civil and a place where users, both existing and those yet to join, can happily be a part of - not to spoil anyone's fun or keep the place under an arbitrarily, strict rule. Anyone and everyone is very welcome to have an open dialogue with us about matters that they find concerning. As has been stated, it's not our goal to make things difficult or unpleasant for anyone - be it through strict enforcement of certain rules or excessive leniency with people whom push the boundaries of reputable, social conduct.
Now, with all of that said, I don't like the nature in which this topic was created because it directly violated the first draft of a specific rule before it had been amended to be worded differently, but because it has become something of a legitimate topic I will go along and contribute all the same, but you are being warned now to not abuse the opportunity and come out with snarky or passive-aggressive remarks as it is in some peoples' tendencies.
If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.
![[Image: ecec20e41f.png]](https://puu.sh/xvMxb/ecec20e41f.png)
Characters: Andre Winter (Hy'ur) / K'nahli Yohko (Miqo'te)