BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
So then how does the lay user tell the difference between good moderation and insufficient moderation?
So then how does the lay user tell the difference between good moderation and insufficient moderation?
That's the reason some people here have given for not accepting invitations to join staff. They don't want to limit their participation in various threads.Oda Nobunaga said:That kind of moderation, though, require a level of dedication that is a lot to ask for from unpaid volunteers. You're not only saddling them with work without giving them anymore than than fancy font on their username, you're basically telling them they have to stop enjoying the site in order to moderate.
It just isn't a practical, or even very reasonable standard.
I guess I'm glad you're not a moderator then, because I wouldn't want to take part in a forum where such a meaningless comment would lead to an infraction.Were I a moderator, this is the type of post I would infract since it serves no purpose other than to antagonize the person it is directed against, which is a clear violation of the forum rules.
I guess I'm glad you're not a moderator then, because I wouldn't want to take part in a forum where such a meaningless comment would lead to an infraction.
I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made that such a post could "deserve" an infraction, I'm just saying that I wouldn't want it to get an infraction.This depends on what your standards are, and the context of the conversation.
(Once upon a time....) we had long discussions about what can when be trolling/flaming/whatever, and the problem is that thinks can be seen differently, depending on context and reader.
Means he's not wrong on that, but...it depends.
Yes, that I agree with. If these posts were made in a random thread a warning would obviously be reasonable, but given that mods are actively taking part in this "meta" thread this exchange of opinions seems to be completely within the realm of what is okay. The unofficial contract being that it's fine to discuss these matters here, for now at least. And that makes sense to me, after all, with no conversations taking place at all, how would mods know if they really moderate in a way that the users are happy with?EDIT: Additionally to that, in the right circumstances even his answer, your answer, and my answer could be warned, because it's in general better not to bicker about such things in public, because it will just lead to a longer spiral of bickering, will not help with the situation, and ultimatively the moderators should handle the situation, and not the users, because that's why we have them .
EDIT: Additionally to that, in the right circumstances even his answer, your answer, and my answer could be warned, because it's in general better not to bicker about such things in public, because it will just lead to a longer spiral of bickering, will not help with the situation, and ultimatively the moderators should handle the situation, and not the users, because that's why we have them .
Note that I was there, and Dale was actually good at it - he made a pile of mistakes, cooth and diplomacy not being his greatest gift - but it was a mountain of things he did right, staying on the job, putting a -friendly, almost always- face on management and visibly being on top of technical issues and whatever else arose. He provided the members with leadership and set the tone of the culture far more than any other single person - and the forum in question wasn't in trouble until it had to soldier on without him.Note that I make a bad moderator.