I generally agree with GB that moderation is not working as well as it should on the site and that is is too lenient.
Some suggestions in regards to moderation :
- Create a mod guide with specific examples that, besides usual business, gives clear cut answers how to deal with "grey areas". [Ex. Member X has borderline trolled for weeks. Suggested solution : 2 weeks temp ban. Should member resume bad behaviour after returning, suggested solution : Perm ban.] The goal is to have faster and more consistent and efficient moderation. It should also make it easier to mod, particularly for those new in the job.
- In the future, be less comprimising with moderation. Don't negotiate moderation with members. Don't share your insecurities regarding modship. Act with decisiveness and confidence.
- Edit members posts so that they adhere to the rules, f.ex by removing insults. Leave notice in red stating why the post was edited and perhaps a reminder that people should behave. This shows the community that moderation is taking place and it is an excellent way of demonstrating where the lines are drawn.
edit :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
There is no official moderator policy when it comes to handling matters. It's a very fluid, very relaxed, very inconsistent thing that depends on who is doing the moderating more than it depends on what is being penalized, who is being penalized, or what group consensus is. Whether or not this is effective is I think a matter for the community to decide upon. Those who see it working positively remain moderators and continue to function under this system, and those who don't have departed.
I do think that this is constructive criticism, whether or not those to whom it applies agree or are interested in hearing it, so I would hate for this to be taken the wrong way and to be used to detract from yet another thread addressing problems deeply rooted in this forum's structure.
|
I agree with this.