Jun 21st 2024, 0:10:13
Originally posted by Turtle Crawler:
Originally posted by Primeval:
Originally posted by Turtle Crawler:
Originally posted by Primeval:
Had it been two players that the moderator did not recognize, there could have been a deletion and we would be discussing this through the appeal process.
Galleri don't gaslight.
Originally posted by Turtle Crawler:
Mods should not delete first then investigate later. They should investigate first then delete if they have a confirmed rules violation.
Since that is what happened here, I assumed you were commenting in support rather than objecting to something. Perhaps she thought your comment was phrased as if it was a complaint.
The comment is (rather clearly) pointed to the fact that the mod process as you described it allows deletion first, investigation later. This is improper and should not happen.
Correct on the latter and I agree. The former is not an accurate interpretation of what I meant. My apologies for the confusion.
The only scenario where a country should ever be undeleted is if the deletion was an error. If a) a mod made a mistake in reading the data or b) the mod incorrectly applied policy and acted improperly.
There should not be any case where additional information would merit an undelete because the already existing information was already sufficient and reliable and only an internal review is necessary to overturn that.
There should not be any case where additional information would merit an undelete because the already existing information was already sufficient and reliable and only an internal review is necessary to overturn that.
There are different scenarios where a moderator may restore a country. One of the most important being that a player may be found to have broken a rule but during the appeal, and possibly through direct messaging and assurance the issue wont happen in the future, the moderator may decide to deescalate to warning only and restore the country.
...don't go the other way to delete people first and ask questions later, as has been the visible practice recently.
If it has, I've overlooked the recent trend.
It sounds like we mostly agree here on policy. And given the fact that usual practice was applied here in this case, which did not result in a deletion, the expanded discussion on what-ifs is a bit odd. My apologies for any recent negative experiences you may have had. As always, PM me here or through discord if I need to take a look at something in the future.
Edited By: Primeval on Jun 21st 2024, 0:14:24
