I think mods should be empowered to give timeouts of up to a day without a community referendum. Holding a referendum open for longer than the proposed punishment seems absurd, and I can’t imagine most people really being arsed to vote in something like that.
19 Likes
Yeah, otherwise there’s really no point in having mods.
5 Likes
In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any mods - in the real world they should only exist here to mop up spam and enact the wishes of the community, though I’m not opposed to an exception for very short bans if accompanied by a post here describing what happened.
1 Like
And, I suppose the corollary to this is that, in instances where one up to 24 hr timeout is insufficient to get someone acting out back in line, then it’s likely that a community conversation is going to be more productive than the crude cudgel of escalating ban times, so longer and/or additional actions should be discussed.
How do you even shove a forum account up one’s ass?
Real lyfe lol
You write the account name and password on some teeth then shove those teeth up someone’s ass.
1 Like
Well played sir.
I didn’t propose a vote. Just logging the action. If it pisses someone off they can make a fuss. If it pisses no one off, no fuss. But people should have the opportunity to see it.
1 Like
As far as I’m concerned, our current mandate covers such timeouts already.
We’ve legitimately delegated our mods the responsibility and powers to moderate our site. That’s what community moderated means… that it is a delegation, and it’s from the community to the mods (as opposed to 2+2 where the mods serve at the pleasure of the owners). Community moderation doesn’t mean voting on everything all the time.
As far as I’m concerned, such timeouts are well within the ordinary powers a mod would necessarily need to be delegated to effectively moderate our site. So as far as I’m concerned, our mods already have the power to issue timeouts.
Parscale drama seems spread across several threads. Any mod interested in consolidating everything so we can kick a man while he’s down in one thread?
Seems like a disproportionate amount of effort for what figures to be a pretty short lived story
That wasn’t the issue. We certainly didn’t agree to not have the community informed or have the opportunity to challenge moderation.
I know, and I agree with your point.
I was responding only to @ MrWookie’s aside regarding timeouts. Sorry for the confusion.
Sure. He was going off topic though and I wanted to annoyingly keep at it because I feel like all the likes his post got are like…everything is fine shut up and leave the mods alone… which does not sit well with me.
2 Likes
Not voting on simple 24 hour time outs, but logging them, seems like the reasonable middle ground. All the mods here clearly have the ability to make fair decisions on something as minor as a 24 hour time out.
My opinion only, but I’m right: the best system is the mods can do whatever and post about it. If someone doesn’t like it, they can complain and put up a poll. If a mod decision is overturned, they can undo it and that should not be a big deal for anyone. That allows community decisions when necessary without obstructing easy and routine actions.
7 Likes
So you would be okay with silencing a poster at 2am for twelve hours as an executive decision, but you’d also like whatever moderator takes such an action to log it in public?
Just clarifying your position, no attack embedded.
1 Like