I find myself in the unfortunate situation where I once again feel it is necessary to file a complaint.
There are 3 key issues I would like to seek a resolution for.
The first is I filed a suggestion: viewtopic.php?f=43&p=551841#p551841
I did my best to keep if formal, respectful, objective and devoid of sarcasm or metaphors. This suggestion was aimed at creating a consensus among mods regarding ENTs repeat offender policy.
In a prior complaint against Merex, ( viewtopic.php?f=31&t=140374 ) @HazarDous explained,
With regards to the time period since the last offense, moderators are are encouraged to take into consideration every factor. Therefore, it was okay for @Merex to slightly consider the ban history.
Following that, we've no statue in our own staff-policy that can illegitimate any prior history from any given time.
For clarification, while the above is technically true, it doesn't mean that you should not also take into consideration the time period wherein the offender has remained "clean". >2 years is a long time for sure and should be taken into account.
This indicates that currently ENT mods are expected to consider prior history when handling repeat offenders, but hazardous clearly states that there is not statue.
Please note that Merex used "Following that, we've no statue in our own staff-policy that can illegitimate any prior history from any given time. " as his defense
Once I posted my suggestion, Merex closed it within an hour and said:
We've a policy on repeated offenders and we do not need you nor owe you any explanation on it.
Overlooking the unwarranted disrespectful nature of his response basically telling me to leave ENT, I find it quite troubling:
1. He closed a discussion down implying his opinion is the only moderator opinion that matters. This is in spite of the fact ENT does not have a standardized policy on the issue which was what I was suggesting. He made no effort to actually address this suggestion or explain why such a policy is not required.
2. He lied, since Hazardous clearly told him "With regards to the time period since the last offense, moderators are are encouraged to take into consideration every factor. Therefore, it was okay for @Merex to slightly consider the ban history. For clarification, while the above is technically true, it doesn't mean that you should not also take into consideration the time period wherein the offender has remained "clean". >2 years is a long time for sure and should be taken into account." Essentially Merex used no statue as his defense in the first complaint but said that ENT has a statue (but wouldn't tell me) in his reason to close the suggestion.
3. He refused to clarify an ENT rule/policy which I am confident is not standard policy for a moderator. Considering the specifics of many ent policies/rules are not posted, mods should be expected to be point of contact for a user's questions. If not, where are user's supposed to get this information to remain in compliance while having the transparency required for appeals?
I would appreciate if the reviewers of this complaint to consider whether the above 3 points are acceptable moderator conduct
The second key issues I have is how Merex handles ban requests.
In this ban he simple says 5th offense and 20 days. I went through great lengths to explain my gameplay. He did not explain his reasoning for disagreeing with my retorts, nor did he include any example instances or timestamps of times he considered bannable. He often does this on many ban requests making it very difficult to appeal. Unless I know what specifically he felt constituted ruining, I can't know whether he is justified or incorrect. I'd say this is a case that especially requires a justification since other commenters on the ban supported my strategy as legitimate including the xSaintx1 who is the #1 ranked player in dota right now.
I would appreciate the reviewing moderators to consider if his handling of ban requests is adequate in terms of providing necessary transparency for the sake of appeals
The last issue I have is Merex is removing posts and closing discussions where is he apart of something controversial. The suggestion I posted is one example, but he also completely removed a post I made in the defense of the ancients section that was informing players of Merex's personally enforced rule regarding an alchemist strategy. I am not sure why he would view this as controversial since we have had discussions like this in the past with radiance syllabear. I invited him to comment on it, but instead he removed the post.
I feel moderators closing or removing controversial posts they are apart of is a slippery slope to the previous days where Agreements was doing the same thing to the point he began deleting his own complaints. Furthermore, Merex is the only moderator I've seen that deletes things in secret. Other moderators resort to removing "offensive" parts kind of like what hazardous did to astros in the previous complaint I made against Merex and leave an explanation in the edit. Other mods like @Unitil offer a PM explanation. I understand hateful posts should be removed quickly, but the posts I am talking about was not written offensively in any way.
I would like the reviewing mods to consider if his censorship of valid discussions is acceptable
Thank you for considering this complaint. I look forward to your responses.