Thank you for analyzing my reasons with AI. The post I sent isn’t about me or my jokes with friends — it’s about a moderator who abuses their powers. This mod shows no sense of fairness and only takes action when someone insults them personally (not when others are insulted). On top of that, they overreact to the smallest things. For example, if someone calls them “passive-aggressive soyboy,” their response is: “Okay, I’ll ban your account!”  

Textual Communication and Intent   Reza argues that his "toxic" words are "mostly jokes or trolling with friends who don't mind." This highlights a key challenge in online gaming: the lack of non-verbal cues. In a face-to-face conversation, you have tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language to convey sarcasm or a friendly jab. Online, all of that is stripped away. What might be a "joke" to him could easily be perceived as a direct insult by the recipient, especially to someone who isn't a close friend. This isn't just a matter of misunderstanding. The responsibility of clear communication falls on the sender. When a message is sent in a public forum/lobby/game, it's not a private conversation. The audience is everyone, and they don't have the context of his friendships. Therefore, what he considers a joke is still toxic behavior in a broader sense because it creates a negative and hostile environment for other players who are not in on the "joke." The recipient cannot be expected to know his intent.   Justification and Responsibility   Reza justifies his toxicity by saying, "Yes I'm toxic when somebody trolls me when I lose a game which is very annoying. anybody would be like that." This is an attempt to rationalize his behavior as a normal and understandable reaction. While it's true that frustration is a common human emotion, the way we express it is a choice. Resorting to insults and slurs is not an inevitable or acceptable response. Many people get frustrated in games but don't lash out at others. Blaming his behavior on the actions of others ("somebody trolls me") is a classic defense mechanism that avoids taking full responsibility for his own words and actions. His statement about muting 90% of players who troll him is a positive step, as it shows an awareness that he needs to manage his own reactions. However, it doesn't erase the impact of his past or present behavior on the community.   Moderation and Consequences   Reza's final points challenge the authority of the moderators and the fairness of the punishment. He argues that moderators should have limitations and that punishment should be based on the "level of toxicity." The analogy of the teacher and the student is flawed. A student failing an exam is an academic outcome, not a behavioral one. A better analogy would be a student disrupting the class, cursing at the teacher, and bullying other students. In that case, the teacher (or school administration) absolutely has the right to remove the student from the classroom or even the school for the well-being of the other students and the learning environment. Similarly, moderators are there to enforce community guidelines and ensure a positive environment for all players. Their opinions are based on the observable evidence of his communication, which you have provided in your report. The punishment is not arbitrary; it's a response to a documented pattern of behavior that disrupts the community. His behavior, as you've detailed, includes a high percentage of insults, slurs, and aggressive language, which makes it a high-level infraction that warrants disciplinary action. Ultimately, while Reza's response sheds light on his perspective and feelings, it doesn't negate the fact that his actions constitute toxic behavior. His words, regardless of his intent, have a negative impact on the community, and that is what moderators are tasked with addressing.

Ur obsarvation is based on words. Thouse words mostly are jokes or trolling with friends who dont mind with my jokes. Yes im toxic when somebody trolls me when i lose a game which is vey annoying. anybody would be like that. anyway i muted 90% of players who troll me. Then i am less toxic compared to past years. Moreover even if im toxic it doesnt mean a mod have right to do whatever he wants and punish based on his oponions. There should be limitations for moderators as well. Also the punishment should be based on level of toxicity. If you are a teacher and a student fail in an exam you would fire him for ever from your class?

For me we should mute only people speak or act bad in lobby general, the rest is NO RULES. Moderators must have the trust of the team to act as they see fit regarding harmful actions on the general lobby. In reasonable proportions (no permanent or long bans), the community is too small and it is better that the bad player uses the same account.  I don't mind being around toxic people, as long as they play fair (don't surrender without reason, for example). If it annoy you, you can use the mute feature.    

"My observation is that 'reza' tends to be toxic. I believe 'MarcAurel' is fair and should continue to moderate in that way. A report from someone who has been punished and is often aggressive may not be considered credible."   Summary "Reza-math" exhibits highly toxic behavior, characterized by aggressive, repetitive insults that dominate 70% of interactions. The  data reveals a pattern of frustration-fueled toxicity: neutral strategy calls (30%) give way to profanity and blame after setbacks (e.g., losses trigger 2–3x more slurs). Common themes include skill-shaming ("noob" in 16% of messages) and personal jabs, with sexist/homophobic slurs amplifying harm. Repetition (e.g., 26% looped phrases) suggests trolling or emotional dysregulation. Overall, this player's communication erodes community positivity, potentially violating game ToS on harassment. Positive notes: Rare acknowledgments like "wp" (well played) appear in wins, but they're outnumbered 15:1 by negatives. Full report to moderators on request only...

@Stan` I would like to raise some concerns about the way moderation is handled by MarcAurel in 0 A.D. I feel his decisions are sometimes inconsistent and too personal, which can negatively affect the community. For example, when someone insults him directly, he reacts strongly. In one case, I was muted for an entire week because I used the word “retard” against him. Similarly, DoctorOrgans was banned for calling him “passive aggressive soyboy.” While I understand that moderators should act against offensive language, the punishment lengths are not clearly defined in 0 A.D., and it seems that harsher actions are taken only when the insult is directed at him personally. At the same time, other players such as Atric frequently insult me and DoctorOrgans (often because we accuse him of cheating), yet no moderation action is taken against them. This gives the impression that MarcAurel enforces rules selectively, protecting his friends while punishing his critics. Another issue is that cultural differences are not taken into account. What is considered offensive in one culture may not necessarily be so in another. For example, calling someone “passive aggressive soyboy” may sound like an insult to him, but in my view it is more of a description of behavior or lifestyle than an insult. A moderator should be aware that players come from many different cultures and apply rules fairly, not based on personal feelings. Overall, I believe moderation should be impartial and consistent, applied equally to all players regardless of personal relationships. While previous moderators like Nortse_Harlod also had their flaws, I still found them more balanced compared to MarcAurel. My hope is that moderation in 0 A.D. can become more transparent, fair, and community-focused.  

What about expanding the Reforms tech to unlock a champion skirmisher though? Currently you get the legionary swordsmen and skirmisher, but only the first cohort swordsmen, it seems like a first cohort skirmisher would complete the roster as then you can either have a complete first cohort force or a regular one. Centurions I was thinking it would be great if they could swap between javelin and sword so they could lead either unit type without getting left behind by the skirmishers when they do so.