Posts from Regarding the Violation System. Auto-translated

In my opinion, freedom of speech (expression) is more important than a subjective punitive measure. Moderating posts (including offensive ones) is better than restricting opinions through an imaginary threat.

Rules exist to combat inappropriate behavior, not normal people.

I received a huge number of points in 2009, and I can easily be banned permanently for receiving just one point for the same off-topic behavior after three or even four years.

This only encourages people to create clones and many other similar actions. If a person remains interested in the forum, that's actually a good thing.

If necessary, it is enough to block the account for a certain period, that's all.

Well, in my opinion, there's a different problem here, namely, outdated points. It was discussed somehow, but it hasn't led to anything yet.

Hmm, points still become outdated; Reven has 162.5, no matter how you look at it, and that's much more than 100.

I sincerely and wholeheartedly sympathize with the moderation team of the third section, who lost such a saintly person.

Personally, I wouldn't be on the forum if it were, let's say, free for speech, because everyone interprets it in their own way, and I wouldn't want to see tactless and offensive (in any form) communication.

Yes, everything is fair when it comes to you. You need to behave normally, not depending on your mood.

Here's an example of blatant trolling.

I have a solid list of points, but it's completely fabricated because if someone wants to find fault with something, they will go to great lengths and always find something to latch onto. They’ll see trolling, register insults. My point is that the moderator should be free from emotions, but this isn't always the case, and then the penalty items mentioned in the topic can literally bury a user who didn't appeal to someone.

Actually, if you look at the voting results now, you can see that those with an extremely high number of violations are mainly in favor of removing the points, while those who haven't violated any rules are against it.

I see a blackened nickname. This is a great example of bias, where a moderator looks for any excuse to ban an account of a user they dislike.

I didn't vote. If the poll had checkboxes for specific items, then yes, I would have voted, but as it is, it's not representative.

Whose bias?

Whose bias?

That's not entirely true. Or not true at all.

The first 50 points are for registering a clone – this seems to be a proven case, right? (the first one, not the current one)
Then, "For publishing prohibited, libelous, harmful, or infringing materials that violate applicable laws" – everything is fair there too. At least because your words weren't confirmed there.
We'll skip two violations for trolling and signature; in total, it’s only 13 points.
But the next 25 points for insults are also fully deserved.
And the latest case of clone registration is currently being investigated.

In the end, you have only 10 points (it's clearly difficult to interpret the signature violation ambiguously), which, as you put it, were "pulled out of thin air."