My votes:
1B. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods more lenient with regulars)
As I mentioned previously, I don’t think this issue is expressed well in the poll so I guess this is the option I’m forced to choose. What I support is fair moderation, which I think has always been what we go for here. I honestly don’t even know what it would mean to apply the rules equally to all members regardless of post count since the rules themselves clearly differentiate between new members and longer term members (e.g. our rules about who can have what in their signature, our rule about who can have a journal, our rule that you need 15 non-lounge posts before you can create links, etc.). I don’t think these rules are unfair or unreasonable, and I think it’s a fairly common human expectation in all kinds of communities that long-term participants have earned a bit more leeway within the group.
2B. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. "Safe Zones" less strict)
We already run things this way (e.g. the music sections are a little stricter than the lounge, the journals are more heavily moderated than anything else) and it seems pretty reasonable so no reason to change it.
3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts
For the record, I think we should also discourage long nonsense posts. It’s really the nonsense part that’s the issue, not the length. And of course the way this should be enforced is very context dependent.
4B. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken
I think context and judgement are the reason that we have human moderators instead of bots so I’m in favor of applying rules judiciously rather than automatically.
5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny
I think they can be, but within reason. Members should be expected to recognize things that are over the line (e.g. repeatedly questioning a moderator about something long after the fact, questioning the moderation in a situation where the rule enforcement was clearly directed at a spammer) and people’s privacy should be respected.
6B. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / bans
This is how we currently operate and I think it strikes the best balance between having some kind of structure and not being too cumbersome.
7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts
I don’t really see the point of using an anonymous account.
8A. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)
I really think this depends on what kind of policy it is, for example if it’s something driven by Google, having a trial run doesn’t really make sense. But sure, as a general guideline I think having trial runs could be a good idea.
9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods.
Sure. The ranks have gotten a little thin so a new mod or mods could be a good idea, if we have the right candidates.
|