Regarding the Violation System.

Off-topic posts, trolling, and flooding – these are things that definitely don't deserve points, because, frankly, if you look hard enough, you can find trolling and hidden meaning everywhere.

It's wrong to lump off-topic posts, flooding, and trolling together. Trolling, unlike flooding and off-topic posts, is an attempt to incite conflict. A post containing trolling can lead to more serious violations, such as: flaming, using offensive language, and directly insulting users. Are you suggesting that instigators shouldn't be penalized for their actions? No, thank you.

Moreover, these points largely create inequality among users, as some already have 30 points for these violations, while others, who are just as much trolls/flooders, have nothing.

Such statements should be supported by facts.

4.22. - In some cases, such immunity is not a good thing; moderators can also make mistakes or act based on their own emotions.

There is no immunity, and there never has been. That's one. Secondly, this rule covers cases like the following: A user writes an inappropriate post in a thread. A moderator deletes the post. Then, in the same thread, the user starts complaining that their post was deleted, and at best, they simply write something like, "I wrote everything correctly, why was my post deleted?" This is the best-case scenario; in the worst case, there will be insults and attempts to incite other users to take action against the moderator, etc. This point mainly reflects this situation and all its variations. There is a "dialogue with moderators" thread for constructive discussions. The fact that no one really uses it shows that the rule-breakers don't care about order and etiquette; they just want to vent their negativity on the forum. They are like unrecognized heroes of the virtual world.

The first and only appeal was not very successful. It turned out that the vote was attended by people who, due to inactivity, could have been removed from their moderator positions long ago.

What does the frequency of a moderator's presence online have to do with the objectivity of their decision on such a matter? Until they are removed, they are a moderator who, according to the current rules, can participate in the vote. And who should participate in the vote? The rule-breaker's friends?

Of course, talking to moderators, pointing out their mistakes, and so on is useful and will definitely contribute to the development of the forum, but only under one condition: such a discussion should not be an empty argument and should not take place in a thread that is in no way related to moderation.

That's right and fair.