How satisfied are you with the way members are moderated?
Some have complained about the way the site is moderated. Predictably, some of the complainers are people who have been moderated, but this is not always the case. Of course we moderators delete spam and ban spammers, but this is not about that job, it's about how we moderate regular members.
Right now, there's a reasonable amount of freedom in the way we moderators work. We are expected to be fair and do things for good reason, but just how we go about that is very much up to us. The most common scenario is that moderators PM members and ask them to improve and failing to do so, they might get a warning in the shape of a formal warning or infraction and if they still fail to improve their behaviour, they are banned - either temporarily or permanently.
What do you think? Should there be a stricter framework for how we do things? Are we too nice? Are we too strict? Are the rules silly? What's the best way to moderate members who break rules? Let us know what you think and if you have suggestions for improvement, fire away.
edit :
Those who are not completely satisfied, please elaborate.
|