Hey @Erile,
We definitely don't want to have this sort of thing happening. Nor would we want to do anything that would give our users the impression that the moderation team is doing things unjustly, unfairly, or arbitrarily. So we'll definitely get together at some point to address these concerns and make sure everyone is on the same page.
I'm guessing you're talking about some sort of activity or pattern that you've seen in the Disqus game comments. I really don't moderate the game comments like I should, so I can't give any insight into a particular instance you might have seen or been a part of. But I can suggest some things that could be going on that could explain some stuff on the ground without having to refer to moderator bias. I'll just provide a list here.
1) Disqus weirdness
I've noticed this on a number of comments that Disqus will just 'decide' to hold back a comment for moderation. It's an automated process and one that, frankly, I don't understand. I've seen some of the comments that got held back and there is no reason that I can discern that would flag these comments for moderation. Part of this weirdness might be that replying to a flagged comment could somehow 'auto flag' the responding comment for moderation. This might be done to keep things from escalating in an online argument. Or just a feature/bug of the system.
TL;DR Disqus is weird and it sometimes will flag comments for moderation that could be mistaken for an actual moderator doing it.
2) Biased storytelling
A lot of times the 'on the ground' version of events we get has been... filtered. An example that happened not to long ago. A user complained about a ban they received for just 'sharing their opinion'. That opinion, however, was on the inferiority of individuals based on their ethnicity and was laden with hate speech and swearing. So, yes, there's a sense in which it is true that they were merely sharing their opinion. But it's also true that their message violated our site rules in both its content and substance. It could be that the individuals involved are telling a version of events that makes them look good.
TL;DR Everyone is the hero in their own story.
3) Over-the-top response
Sometimes individuals get a little over zealous in their engagement with other people. This sort of ties in with the point above, though, that the person would perhaps omit the part of the story in which they engaged with someone who is, for example, trolling in a way that was just... way over the top. From a moderating point of view, we might see an offensive post and take action. In the immediate aftermath, other posts might not look so bad in comparison to whatever we've just had to deal with.
TL;DR The post that calls out the rule-breaking post is itself violating the rules.
4) Missing information
We have various methods of keeping track of users and their interactions with other people that regular users might not be aware of. If someone, for example, is really harsh in their dealings with other (e.g. name-calling, flaming) we might make a note of that--even if the behaviour in that instance doesn't quite meet the standard that would warrant a ban. What might be happening is that the individuals who decide to engage others have a history of doing so in ways that are inappropriate or that just make issues much worse. In short, users might not have all of the available information that the moderation team does when making decisions about user infractions and punishments.
TL;DR There might be something going on you don't know about.
5) Simple error
Obviously, we're going to make mistakes sometimes. And even the different members of the moderation team can have varying methods of dealing with users. Now, clearly, what we're talking about here is a pattern and that's not something that could be explained away by simple error. But suppose that this sort of thing happened to 5 different users and for each of the reasons listed here. That's enough, I would think, to establish a pattern (humans are very good at spotting patterns, after all) and a simple error in handling a situation might have contributed to the overall perception.
----
As a last thing to note, however, I do take user advocacy very seriously and I appreciate when users look out for and step up for one another. Moderation would ideally be this transparent process. But the fact is, it just can't be. I wouldn't want to violate the privacy of (or embarrass) another user by explaining why they got banned. In fact, I never discuss bans with anyone other than the user in question. So I think it's important that those users who feel they were moderated unfairly use the tools available to them to reach out and seek explanations. For example, when you're banned, there's a link on your profile you can use to contest the ban. If a user feels like they were treated unfairly, it's vital to take advantage of that link. I would feel absolutely terrible if I banned a user unfairly and would take full responsibility for it, doing whatever I could to rectify the situation with that user. And I'm confident that my colleagues feel the same way. There's also the support e-mail that users can use if they feel that they are being treated unfairly.
It's important to note, too, that this position of moderator is a voluntary one. And with that comes the clear acknowledgment that we have no sides to take in any of these issues. Why would we? What would we have to gain by perpetrating a system of unfair and unbalanced moderation that allows for trolls to keep doing what they're doing while people calling them out to get punished? I'm not saying this to dismiss your claim--rather, I just want it to be super clear what would go through a moderator's head when thinking about an issue like this. We do what we do because we love this community. There's a reason I hang around here and not, for example, Kongregate. The community there is absolutely toxic, from what I've seen.
But, like I said, this is definitely something we'll come together and discuss at some point. While I would be amazed (and shocked and mortified, etc.) if there was any intentional wrongdoing of the moderation team, like I said, we don't want to give the impression that would even be the case. Thanks for your comments and feedback, though. I hope this was helpful to see what goes on when dealing with the comments system.
