The demogame takes a bit more personal angle, in my opinion, and with the mods participating in the game, I think there needs to be some rules. (personally, I'm not in favor of having active players (holding a posistion during the current, or prior term) be immediately made a mod. Just look at the Shaitan-Donsig example. ). Just to prevent this from happening again (as this game can get personal on some issues), this is what I propose:
Point 1:
1. Mods should act as referees of the game only.
2. All disputes should be taken to email/pm as if both parties were normal users of the forums. Any sense of modship should be dropped in pm, and if disputes continues, the mod and/or user can inform TF.
3. Any action should be agreed upon by all 3 mods. Hopefully, this will stem any personal issues anyone has.
4. Any permenate actions should be discussed between the mods, TF, and the users of this forum. Thus, the PIs.
5. Demogame Mods must also follow the game rules, which means no permenant moderator actions unless a PI finds one is nessecary.
Point 2:
1. Any disputes that have gotten out of hand (needs to defrentiate between heated debate and chaos, though) should be handled by the closure of the forum, with a message to all parties involved. Banning/deleting/editing of posts should not even be considered.
2. If the mod is allowed to participate in the game, all modship powers stop at that posistion, and does not continue. Say a mod was having a dispute in their thread with another user. They can not go editing the posts, but must allow another mod to do so. Editing/deleting posts would show partiallity. (even closing the thread/banning the user). This goes along with the mods only enforcing the rules of the forum, and not the rules of the game.
Just to clarify why I don't like active players (within the last two turns) as mods is that it will provide a cool-down period for any prior disputes. Like Duke said, mods should just enforce forum rules, not game rules. There's another point to consider. The title of this game, afterall, is Game of Democracy. There's going to be arguments, tempers will flair. The last thing we want is a trigger-happy mod.
Point 1:
1. Mods should act as referees of the game only.
2. All disputes should be taken to email/pm as if both parties were normal users of the forums. Any sense of modship should be dropped in pm, and if disputes continues, the mod and/or user can inform TF.
3. Any action should be agreed upon by all 3 mods. Hopefully, this will stem any personal issues anyone has.
4. Any permenate actions should be discussed between the mods, TF, and the users of this forum. Thus, the PIs.
5. Demogame Mods must also follow the game rules, which means no permenant moderator actions unless a PI finds one is nessecary.
Point 2:
1. Any disputes that have gotten out of hand (needs to defrentiate between heated debate and chaos, though) should be handled by the closure of the forum, with a message to all parties involved. Banning/deleting/editing of posts should not even be considered.
2. If the mod is allowed to participate in the game, all modship powers stop at that posistion, and does not continue. Say a mod was having a dispute in their thread with another user. They can not go editing the posts, but must allow another mod to do so. Editing/deleting posts would show partiallity. (even closing the thread/banning the user). This goes along with the mods only enforcing the rules of the forum, and not the rules of the game.
Just to clarify why I don't like active players (within the last two turns) as mods is that it will provide a cool-down period for any prior disputes. Like Duke said, mods should just enforce forum rules, not game rules. There's another point to consider. The title of this game, afterall, is Game of Democracy. There's going to be arguments, tempers will flair. The last thing we want is a trigger-happy mod.