Thanks for your feedback. Can poll text be that long?
I think some options can be formulated better. For example;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FD
The rule against short nonsense posts should be strictly adhered to, irrelevant of context
|
The "strictly adhered to, irrelevant of context" might cause confusion. If a member thinks that there should be safe zones from strict rules, then they might vote no for this because they thought the option says short posts rule should be enforced regardless, even in safe zones.
There are other wordings I have some issues with, but commentingon all is a bit much. I'll just give my set of suggestions and then perhaps add some comments. Also, I like the way you number your options, but how about if each number represents one question or issue? You'll read what I mean below.
Bolstering the mod team
1. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods
1. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional mods
I'm thinking we don't need to poll about recruitment policies and qualifications at this time, rather crossing that river when/if we get to it. Actually, bringing up this whole bolstering issue might be redundant as I assume a decision to take on more mods is and should be based more on actual need more than answers in this poll.
Short nonsense posts
2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should allow for short, nonsense posts (ex. one-word posts are okay)
2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts (ex. you can get away with a few, but not many)
2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should prohibit short, nonsense posts (ex. one-word posts are not allowed)
It occurred to me that it may be smarter to ask people what they want the environment to be like rather than specifically what they think should be done with a rule.
Equality
3. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. no favoritism, mods and users generally treated the same)
3. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods are generally more lenient with long time members and mods than others)
I've removed the word context from the options as context is not really going away and would be used in both scenarios.
Mod Reaction Policy
4. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken (ex. the mods react the first time and every other time a user breaks a rule)
4. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken (ex. allows for mods to first react to rule breaking when member does it repeatedly)
Punishment policy
5. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions (enough infractions result in a ban)
5. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / temp bans and permabans
5. There should be no general policy for how punishment is carried out
Safe zones
6. Rules should apply equally to all forums
6. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. The Lounge forum less strict or other designated "safe zones")
Trial run
7. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)
7. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately)
Transparency policy
8. Details of rule enforcement is ultimately between a mod and a user (ex. Mod-user PMs can remain secret)
8. Details of rule enforcement can ulimately be subject to other mods scrutiny (ex. Mod-user PMs are visible to other mods or can be made available)
8. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny (Mod-user PMs can be made available to all)
Other
9. Some of my concerns are not listed in the individual items, but I will voice them in a reply.
Thoughts?