Hi all,
First I'd like to thank the community for the overwhelming response I've received here, especially as a new user. I'll try to address as many of your comments as I can--and please bring it to my attention if I've missed you--but first I'd like to address the rule that seems to be in question here.

Assuming meta-discussion isn't frowned upon in the same way as meta-gaming, do any of you have thoughts on this section of the rule: "if you don't reply it will be assumed you have something to hide, and your account may be closed." It seems to me that this lends itself to a witchhunt mentality amongst moderators, if not to outright abuse of moderation power. Hypothetically, if I were asked to reveal by whom I'd been referred to this website, I'd be compelled by this rule to answer. This could then subject the member(s) who had referred me to undue scrutiny and interrogation. Is that really the best way to treat members of a community who go out of their way to facilitate its expansion and enrichment? Food for thought.

"Alderian": I appreciate your input, through I disagree with your implication that the two courses of action to which you refer are mutually exclusive. I'm maintaining an open dialogue with the moderator in question in the service of "finding out what they want," while simultaneously facilitating public discussion to encourage transparency and accountability, two values that I hold very dear.

"Al Swearengen": Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad to hear that your experience with the authorities here has been largely positive. Keep in mind, though, that I'm broaching this topic in the hopes that all rule-abiding users in the community can expect to enjoy a moderation experience of the kind you've described.

"Ava2790": Thank you for your enduring interest in my thread. I'd be interested to hear what you think is so noteworthy about my post history, and in relation to what other aspect of my account? As for your second question, I'd love to play a game with you. At the moment, however, I'm still in the processes of reviewing the rules and mechanics of this online incarnation, and it will likely be some time on top of that before I become (re)acquainted with the nuances of Diplomacy in this format. As such, I fear I might not provide much of a challenge for you and your peers at this juncture.

"Jamiet99uk": As I explained to the moderator, I've been a long time lurker on this site. I do hope that my reference to Jimbozig didn't open any old wounds.

"Philcore": I appreciate your candour and I'm sorry to hear of your suspicions. I'd be happy to discuss this issue further, and I apologize that you seem to have been reprimanded in some sort of unsolicited defence of my account's honour for voicing your concerns.

Yeah, but for all intents and purposes that seems kinda silly. At least in this context. Not that I really care but, well, it's just silly.

"Hypothetically, if I were asked to reveal by whom I'd been referred to this website, I'd be compelled by this rule to answer. This could then subject the member(s) who had referred me to undue scrutiny and interrogation".

This would be bad... Why?

Something smells fishy ..... could it be that smoked haddock in my glove compartment or maybe that crab paste I've just smeared across my chest.

huh...niheebaby sounds like krellin in that post

Comparing Nigee to Krellin in that post is like comparing Blankflag to Landowner. Except that it wont get you silenced.

Thankfully the Mods the small issues wrong and are usually good on the bigger issues, silencing Philcore was just a nonsense ........

No, Nigee. philcore made a specific cheating allegation. However, no one before him did, yet we were warned against it anyway, for some reason.

So what, only the Mods care, I don't think anybody was over-concerned or fascinated by what Philcore had to say ..... how would you personally have punished him ??

Don't be so offensive to the mods. They are only humans. They have the right not to like philcore and to show him that.

Dear Jmo,

I'd like to express my indignation at the silencing of philcore for what you refer to as a "cheating accusation". I would also like to remind you that, as a landowner, Landowner should be treated with the utmost respect and peerage that this title allows.

He has been silenced more then fairly. He made cheating acussations. It doesn't matter if a few mod's friends have done the same thing before philcore did it. They deserved warnings only. Nothing new about that,same old practice.

I'm still wondering about what was said BEFORE that that caused the group warning. Waiting patiently for a reply.

"huh...niheebaby sounds like krellin in that post"

I thank you, it takes some people years of practice to sound 'Krellinesque', not me though, I've got the way.....

@jimgov, there were several veiled cheating accusations before the group warning.

@SD, it can't be fun trying to deal with this crap. Having to decide what's over the line versus what isn't. What deserves a warning versus what deserves action. You see bias. I see human fallibility, at the worst, although in this case the actions taken all seem quite reasonable.

@ Alderian - what is the worse that could happen in the world if people just ignored it, would buildings in Dhaka collapse, would it lead to high school shootings or Republicans getting elected, no, everything would still be ok in the world.
I think the Mods need to chill out on some of the petty rules because then we would have a self-moderating forum, I thought that was the original idea.
Nobody like bullying, in whatever form it takes. If we don't like people saying stuff are we not smart enough to let them know our feelings, maybe if we had been able to voice our concerns cheaters like Sargy and Sandy would have been banned long before they actually were, the current CA rules are a Cheaters Charter, are we so desperate to keep the numbers of people up on this site that we are willing to punish the good and protect the bad ...... why is it like this?
p.s GR ??

@Alderian , I'd see human fallibility if this were the only case.But as I saw tones of it, in all my blindness,I only see the corruption now.

Such big words for such a small corner of the interwebs. It seems we are vaing the same (worn) topic in three threads.

Like my old boss used to say, wherever you are in life, you have three options. Love it, change it, or leave it.

Trying to change it Minister :)

Ask Kestas if you can become a mod then. Nothing changes by these forum posts since hardly any comment is constructive.

None of us decide what changes around here. Kestas and the mods do. So if you really want to change something, write up what you think should be the rules and submit them to kestas & mods. Or appeal to kestas if you think there was a wrong decision. Or if youre desperate (as SD seems to be) offer to buy the site from kestas if you think he's corrupt too. But just bashing them sure doesnt help.

Write some code! write some policy! suggest some concrete changes! help the site improve! Everybody loves a person who does unsollilicted contributions to the site. But just pointing out weaknesses does not help change a thing.

Okay here's my first policy: unsilence philcore and post a public apology

Free Philcore now ..... we demand justice

Free jimbozig and rlumley and shut down Guantanamo bay!

I demand just dice

I have a question.
Are you demanding these dice at the same time, or one die at a time without knowing which one, or one at a time after you've determined which one?
As you know, the positional understanding of dice is very important. And I'm almost willing to put up $100 to settle this issue.

rlumley? Funny you bring up someone who switched accounts and had his first one banned so he could continue with his second one. Haven't seen that one in a long time either though.

I'm actually demanding the comedian Andrew Dice Clay.

I presume philcore was muted for this paragraph

''Maybe you created an account to get around a silencing - it's happened before. Or maybe you forgot your password, so you created a new account. Or maybe you recently bought some land, and you think your new name more accurately reflects your position in life rather than "renter", or "tenant"?''

Yes, technically he was making a 'cheating accusation'' by implying landowner disobeyed the rules by creating a new account. But come on... It's obvious to see that this was done lightly in order to make the joke later in the post which was quite clever in my opinion, and rather funny.

I feel like this site is definitely large enough for it to need good, committed forum mods. But I also feel that it is small enough, and with the relatively regular forum community there is, jokes and banter should be given a bit more leeway, and not taken to seriously. It diminishes the fun in the forum when everything is taken so seriously. As some of the people on this site have been up there with the funniest and wittiest people I have met online.

Yes I agree, technically the post warranted a silencing due to the prior warning that was issued, but I think the mods need to lighten up, and laugh about it more. This is a friendly gaming community, not an official news forum or anything serious.

Probably making myself unpopular with the mods saying this, but hey technically I'm not breaking any rules, and I think feedback should be taken into consideration. I'm happy to be completely shot down if you disagree, providing you structure your point of view clearly and rationally :)

Just noticed the other thread specific to this, and was reading through it and agreed with some of the posts made
Fair enough.

Sigh... Why can't everything be in one place.

Ignore my previous post... XD