I'm rather skeptical. Like I said, it seems to be the same, only with a much more loose individual action, which wasn't a major problem anyway since that was usually the case as it was.
Most of them are either combined or condensed, and there's not much added in, except for the clause of back-punishing users.
Which, obviously, I don't like.
The escalation policy was also one that was supposed to be
already in place. It's jsut it was never really used.
So, the only practical change made was that now, people can act completely by their own desire. But, like I said to Val, >>>/pony/957929>". If the argument is that biases won't matter because it balances out, then allowing any mod to act in an individual capacity by their own judgement alone is going to mean a biased individual can act based on that bias without any mediating force."
Add to that, it ensures a much less consistent enforcement of the rules, ala old Ponychan under Orange way back in the day, where nobody really knows what to expect until someone gets banned for something.
It's certainly possible
that this'll mean some of the issues I've had'll be adressed, but, if it is, that'll be because a very small bit of the staff're free to engage those particular issues as they believe necessary. The problem is, other staff who felt these issues were completely without merit or value'll also be able to completely dismiss them. Meaning that, theoretically 20% of the time something to address my issue'd actually happen.
Otherwise, the problem of inconsistency comes to play.
And, to be quite honest, inconsistency is not something I'm okay with, even if it would be to my benefit. It's why I, for example, rather strongly opposed Manley's political ban.
No user should be subjugated to a rule or standard not enforced on the others.