Ok, certain recent events have highlighted something that's been bugging me for a while; the way mods go about handling banning people. It seems to me that the mods are very eager to hand out bans based on spamming, as well as being very...enthusiastic...about deleting spam posts. I'm not saying its wrong of them to police spam. Obviously that's part of their job and it helps to keep the forums from degenrating into chaos. However, when some members display behavior that is in other ways reprehensible, it takes much longer to ban them, if they get banned at all. My prime example of this is
this member, who's posts consist almost entirely of racial supremacy, and if he gets banned soon it will probably be because of his repeated spam, rather than his racist comments. At the same time, another member who was spamming his threads has already been banned. It seems to me that the mod's priorities here are a bit messed up. Sure, spam is annoying to deal with, but socially unacceptable behavior is ultimately more harmful and offensive.
I realize there must be difficulties in dealing with this kind of behavior at all, much less promptly. It is much more of a grey area than spam is. Where do you draw the line between behavior that is acceptable and behavior that is not? And I also realize that it's difficult to decide when banning someone due to what they say is trampling on their right to free speech. However, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Also, the mods don't seem to have a problem with the free speech issue when they delete peoples' posts.
So, in all seriousness, I hope there is some way to work on this issue, because it seems like there is an imbalance in priorities and judgement of content, and I think it is a larger problem than it may seem on the surface.
