This is one of my questions that was posted yesterday. Here, one particular user had posted an answer that was an unprovoked, rude and abusive. I flagged it. I saw that certain moderators ie. high-rep users were actually on the site. I waited, thinking that the one of them would actually step in, and the answer would be atleast downvoted/flagged/deleted. On hindsight, I realize that I was too naive to actually think this, just because a post regarding Narnia I had flagged as rude/abusive got auto-deleted by the system within minutes, and even then I do not have close/open privileges. I just flagged it with limited powers.
Anyway, the opposite happened, the rude/abusive answer got a few upvotes, and that's when I saw red, and retaliated by name-calling. Immediately, within seconds of posting my retaliatory response, this particular user, he swooped down and rebuked me that if I were going to complain about rude/abusive posts,I shouldn't be retaliating with the same kind of posts. But now those comments have been purged. I heard him, I retracted my post, saying that I had been immature to do so. And then again, I waited. After waiting, I called him out on his behaviour. Why did he censure me and not that user? He censured my retaliatory statement, but he failed to censure the other user's. He told me something unexpected. He told me that I had no grounds to complain about bias, because I had no way of knowing whether or not he flagged the offensive post or not. I was expecting him to deny being biased, but the above statement implied that even if he were biased, I couldn't actually do anything about it. But I told him that I can see vote counts on my question, and that he didn't even try to moderate. Then, he just fell silent.
Am I wrong in thinking that that particular user was biased?
High-rep users have powers to moderate, but they don't seem to have the binding policy restrictions that the diamond-mods have.
And it wasn't just him. It was also the other members who closed my question, who were online at that time. If any of them were online, they didn't show it. I had to retract my rude/abusive flag, and raise a mod flag, which is supposed to be the last line of defense. A diamond-mod edited the question to remove the offending part. But was that enough?
The user who posted about Narnia,whose vote was auto deleted as rude/abusive due to flags: His public profile no longer exists on this site! That means he's been deleted/suspended from using this site. And he had just signed up, he hadn't even been a member for a full day.
But that user has been a member of this site, for 3 years and 1 month. What was the penalty awarded to this user, who must have known by now what constitutes as rude/abusive? Now, you might be tempted to mention that I was also involved in name-calling, but I would remind you that I accepted the censure, owned upto it and removed the offending comment. The user's offending answer is still visible when you click on the 'Edited' icon. The person hasn't even admitted the mistake. Is it because of the subtle endorsement by the high-rep users, who seem to have mistaken poor taste for wit?
Isn't it incongruent that a new user gets punished more on his first day, than a user who has spent three years on this site?
Another user has pointed out to me that this is a family oriented website for 13+ ages. In that context, if you're able to access some of the deleted comments, from that post, you might see how I, a 22-yr old, had to argue in order to just establish that the post was offending.
Did you perhaps think that a 13-yr-old would be thrilled to be insulted by @, and censured by high rep mods?
And they don't even have the power to flag posts until they get a 15-rep.
The unofficial policy seems to be: 'Let the noobs(new users) fend for themselves'
I've edited out the other offending user's name in this post. I think this would be better anyway now that I'm leaving this site. I feel now that I don't want this single mistake of the offending user to be immortalized in meta. If you feel this is better, you should do it in the answers too. It would be better if the user's name is anonymized.