Wtf is "Holdoing"? Also, I thought we weren't supposed to assume anyone's gender, or does that only apply when it won't benefit them? Like I will be nicer to chicks, but it's bad to be nicer to chicks unless they are getting free drinks, even though I'm a terrible person for assuming they want a free drink or that they're female, but I had better buy them that drink lest I be an asshole.
And then modern Western women wonder why they're dying alone with their cats...
It's doing a heckin' sexism by criticising TBP moderator Qweens (:pray:) because something, something, toxic masculinity means those who're identified as women receive more 'blowback on moderator decisions'.
The term probably refers to when people were critical of Holdo in The Last Jedi, but the pushback against that from the Usual Suspects came in the form of "you just can't tolerate a Strong Woman(tm) in a position of authority!" rather than because both her leadership strategy and actions were genuinely terrible.
This, pretty much. What surprises me is that they opted to call it 'Holdo-ing' since the character in question really wasn't particularly competent (I've heard comparisons to the infamous Steiner 'social generals' from Battletech. Fairly apt, in my opinion).
But yeah, they consider any criticism of their oh-so-fragile fem moderators as 'Holdo-ing'. How dare you! (spoken in snotty Swedish accent)
The only way you can question a mod call is to email their general gmail account... which may get read, eventually. No guarantees they'll get back to you.
EDIT: Because I didn't want to double-post, but check this out.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/how-does-an-appeal-work.877744/My favorite: "Each user page has a Warnings tab that is visible only to that user and to the mods. A lot of our posters fret about this, and worry that it is some kind of "permanent record," or that past a certain point our bar for moderating or banning a poster gets lower.
But that is emphatically not true, and I advise you not to think of it that way. It's not a "scoreboard" (to use your term); it only provides context. Generally speaking, we weigh recent history much more heavily than the past, and most of all we look for patterns to inform our moderation."
This seems weirdly contradictory. Or is it just me?