Current Events > Do you contest moderations or just accept them and move on?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just accept them

I bring this up cause I just got modded and was like Anywho.. *accept*
---

In general, if you feel strongly that something was the wrong call, always dispute.

---

Before the new system I'd just PM a lead mod and have them speak to whoever modded shit wrongly
before there were other boards to use
but I understand that the site is dying and alan is losing money most likely so I just hit accept since I'd rather not be the dude responsible for alan to lose his job

I've never contested anything, even if I don't agree with it I just accept it and move on.

---

Neither. I just leave it sitting there. Can't make me do anything.

---

I generally accept them because I want to grow up to be a GameFAQs moderator.

---

Honesty, even if I didn't agree with the moderation, I just move on, I don't care anymore it's just a post, who cares

Which is a big departure from the past, when I would get way more upset than I should whenever it happens

---

I still contest the ridiculous ones where it's clear the mod didn't even read it or understand what was being responded to, but they're all upheld without comment anyways, without fail.

---

I double down on my violation in the message box.

---

never ever accept

---

I usually accept it to clear my mod history faster, even if it was BS. I can only think of one time it was actually overturned. Even if they do overturn it, you cant even contest it until your suspension/warning/purg is over, which is completely ridiculous.

So, lets say the mod who handles your appeal agrees that the punishment is unfair. Why should you have to not have access to your account for a set amount of time? Why can you not file your appeal while youre suspended? You might get suspended for three months for something thats not a violation of the TOS, so they cant restore your account. Thats one bad feature on this site and anyone here can get suspended on a bogus infraction. Human error exists and mods make mistakes, too.

---

I usually contest or ignore. Rarely accept.

---

Nearly every political post I make is heavily sarcastic, and when they get modded I feel there's no point in saying that. Sometimes I'll put a sarcasm in the post but that kind of defeats the purpose.

always dispute. always.

---

we should have trials omg

---

Eh, it's usually pointless to try to dispute. Whether it's fair or not doesn't matter unless you get lucky.

---

I've only ever disagreed with one, contested it, and got it reversed because it was taken out of context, understandably. Otherwise, I just accept it. If i'm a bit salty about it, I won't accept it and just let it sit til it expires.

---

the point of disputing is not aiming for an overturn. its to waste the mods time.

---

If I understand it I accept.

If it was just some piss baby bitch mod getting mad about a different opinion I ignore it. Don't trust the mods to overturn anything.
---

Revnir posted...

The GameFAQs moderation system is legally an administrative tribunal since it is judiciary in nature and therefore moderations are technically appealed to the Supreme Court. But Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are keeping it from moving forward so we have to wait until Biden can name a few judges to have a chance

It's not an administrative tribunal, it's a civil one; it handles disputes between a private enterprise and its users

---

I accept them. After I tried to dispute a moderation talking about my sex life because somehow it was offensive and it got upheld I gave up on the system tbh.

---

Depends on if i took my medicine or not.


---

I dont even bother checking lmao.
Havent checked in close to 15 years

---

generally just accept them, i've gotten a few that were so batshit crazy though and i couldn't resist contesting them. does no good at all but it lets me vent so whatever.

---

I accepted them until they started getting ridiculous to the point they didnt even offer a way to appeal them -_-

When it's actually warranted -- or seems like it could be warranted -- I accept, but that's something of a rarity.

---

I contest, but I always do it in a belligerent shithead way that wastes their time and gives me little satisfaction.

Frankly I'm surprised they haven't disabled my ability to dispute moderations, nobody involved gets anything of value out of it anyway.

In fact, I want to know if I can *request* to have my ability to dispute permanently removed. Literally the most useless "feature" on the site.
---

I made a thread joking that a man requires written consent before having sex with a woman. It was moderated for being sexist. I dont think they liked me using the word breeding in place of the word sex.




---

I contest. I know they will never admit they're wrong, I just like to remind them of their wage(zero dollars and zero cents per hour)

---

I'll only bother to contest if it's really clear-cut wrong to the point they don't have any kind of plausible deniability whatsoever (other than "it was an accident, overturned"). If they can find a reason to uphold it they will, and once you can't contest anymore they start moderating total bullshit.

---

I've only bothered to contest a moderation once, and it was overturned, but it was also a situation where it was *extremely* obvious it shouldn't have been moderated. (i.e. for censor bypassing the word penis even though it's not an auto-censored word on this site)

In general I get the feeling if there's even the slightest bit of potential gray-area judgment call to be had, the moderators will vote to uphold every time.

---

i've never accepted one

I ignore most of them because they're always pointless/dumb

I've contested a few because they were dumb. Not in the hope they'd be overturned, just to say "fuck you that's a dumb moderation"

like 10 years ago some dumb mod moderated me for saying that flint and volkner from pokemon might be in a gay relationship because it was "inappropriate to suggest". Idiot

---

i can't stand it i know you planned it

---