I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm for implementing my plan of increased transparency, increased documentation, and openness to feedback:
I wouldn’t allow personal attacks or namecalling towards anyone but me. If two or more people were squabbling incessantly in inappropriate and disruptive ways I would deal with it, first by talking to them, then probably confining it to its own thread, then banning them if it came to that. People would be free to question any and all decisions I make without limit, I just can’t see that bothering me. They would also be free to question any decision I don’t make.
I wouldn’t allow personal attacks or namecalling towards anyone but me. If two or more people were squabbling incessantly in inappropriate and disruptive ways I would deal with it, first by talking to them, then probably confining it to its own thread, then banning them if it came to that. People would be free to question any and all decisions I make without limit, I just can’t see that bothering me. They would also be free to question any decision I don’t make.
I would handle the lack of rules not by trying to get a bunch of rules passed, but by acting within the guidelines I and PC have laid out. Then documenting every decision in the mod decisions thread, and probably highlighting a few of the decisions and offending posts in another pinned thread. So, two locked pinned threads: a log of the decisions and then a list of specific examples that tend to illustrate the ad hoc rules that have been developed so far.
If the community objects to any of these actions, they can override the moderators’ decision and the moderators should update their moderation to reflect the consensus.
However, given that this moderation approach is diametrically opposed to the moderation standard that Wookie wants, this poll might be premature as I don’t see how the two approaches could coexist.
3 Likes