Where was someone actually called an hypocrite? Can you quote the comment?

Pointing out that something is hypocritical is not the same as calling someone a hypocrite.

I'll add an addendum: People should be allowed to change their mind without being publicly accused even indirectly or harassed for changing their mind.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Telling people that they're hypocrites for ever having done one thing and changing their mind on that thing should be codified as against the rules, because it's rude and frankly inflammatory.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

I'll add an addendum: People should be allowed to change their mind without being publicly accused even indirectly or harassed for changing their mind.

Well if we're going to try adding new rules to prevent rude and inflammatory content towards others, then falsely labeling people "deid" and calling anyone "anti-woke" should also be included. To ensure a fair environment as to prevent the scenario of;

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

"Rules for thee, not for me."

It already is against the rules. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult and therefore bannable.

Originally posted by datCookie:

It already is against the rules. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult and therefore bannable.

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

I'll add an addendum: People should be allowed to change their mind without being publicly accused even indirectly or harassed for changing their mind.

Did you forget the thread title? Make calling someone a hypocrite against the rules

Where was someone actually called an hypocrite? Can you quote the comment?

Pointing out that something is hypocritical is not the same as calling someone a
hypocrite.

For example if someone states the Jester is used to insult, it is correct to point out they gave Jesters and engaged in what they claim.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Originally posted by datCookie:

It already is against the rules. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult and therefore bannable.

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

That's because moderation is highly inconsistent in their enforcement of the rules. But it doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

That's because moderation is highly inconsistent in their enforcement of the rules. But it doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

Well then, guess my suggestion has already been implemented. Just the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Originally posted by datCookie:

It already is against the rules. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult and therefore bannable.

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Originally posted by datCookie:

That's because moderation is highly inconsistent in their enforcement of the rules. But it doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

Well then, guess my suggestion has already been implemented. Just the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it. :lilacstare:

Someone would have had to actually use it, in full context, with ill-intent.
Neither of those was done in the other thread.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Well then, guess my suggestion has already been implemented. Just the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it. :lilacstare:

They obviously do not act on false claims of belonging to a DEID group where the claimant could not produce evidence of belonging to said group and end up avoiding their claim.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Originally posted by datCookie:

That's because moderation is highly inconsistent in their enforcement of the rules.

the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it. :lilacstare:

bingo

Originally posted by datCookie:

It already is against the rules. Calling someone a "hypocrite" is an insult and therefore bannable.

True,. But It must be pointed out that there is a difference between calling someone a hypocrite and calling someone's statement or argument hypocritical.

Honestly I feel that it should be fair game. If hypocrisy can be shown objectively then it's not really an insult.

Originally posted by Psymon²:

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it. :lilacstare:

bingo

No users are favoured over others.

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

That's because moderation is highly inconsistent in their enforcement of the rules. But it doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

"It's actually super secretly against the rules, moderation just doesn't remove it but I know better than them."

As other members of this forum have said, the interpretation is not up to you, you are not moderation.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Really? Because I could've been fooled for sure. Nothing gets done about it.

Originally posted by Amaterasu:

Well then, guess my suggestion has already been implemented. Just the mods don't do anything about it if certain members do it. :lilacstare:

Someone would have had to actually use it, in full context, with ill-intent.
Neither of those was done in the other thread. :smokeybear:

And as stated earlier, the interpretation of what is required to be considered against the rules is not up to you as you are not moderation. Worse, this sort of answer shows limited experience with Valve moderation as those criteria are met in several posts that go without moderator action, and are unmet in posts that have been.

Valve's moderation is quite predictable and consistent, and misinformation about what they do tends to lead people to incorrect conclusions about favoritism when the misinformation inevitably fails to match reality and people try to square the two rather than reexamining the misinformation. It is important to have experience and knowledge about these issues before speaking about them.

Originally posted by William Shakesman:

And as stated earlier, the interpretation of what is required to be considered against the rules is not up to you as you are not moderation.

Odd comment when you have clearly stated:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
This would not impact me at all as I only report posts that are clear rule violations. The rules are obvious and easy to follow after all, so identifying rule violations accurately is quite simple. Sad to see Valve has yet to master it.

Therefore you identify as moderation.

While contradicting yourself with:

Originally posted by William Shakesman:
The bans are designed to be as arbitrary and punishing as possible when the rules themselves are subjective and vague