Community Feedback Poll [read clarifications in OP before voting!] - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > Announcements, Suggestions, & Feedback
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Select each option that you agree with
Moderators SHOULD use personal judgment in moderating decisions. 20 66.67%
Moderators SHOULD NOT use personal judgment in moderating decisions, and refer to strict rules only. 5 16.67%
Members SHOULD be allowed to break rules, provided they are not habitually doing so. 16 53.33%
Members SHOULD NOT be allowed to break any rules, at any time. 10 33.33%
Moderators SHOULD take history and frequency into account, when infracting. 24 80.00%
Moderators SHOULD NOT take history and frequency into account, when infracting. 3 10.00%
Moderators SHOULD publically post a member's infraction and/or ban information. 13 43.33%
Moderators SHOULD NOT publically post a member's infraction and/or ban information. 12 40.00%
Members SHOULD PM a moderator for questions regarding such information. 19 63.33%
Members SHOULD NOT PM a moderator for that information, but ask publicly. 6 20.00%
Moderators should have to justify ALL of their decisions. 14 46.67%
Moderators should have to justify SOME of their decisions. 12 40.00%
Moderators should not have to justify ANY of their decisions. 2 6.67%
Members should be given a LIMITED number of chances to cease disruptive activity. 28 93.33%
Members should be given UNLIMITED chances to cease disruptive activity. 1 3.33%
Moderators SHOULD be allowed to decide what constitutes disruption. 22 73.33%
Moderators SHOULD NOT be allowed to decide what constitutes disruption. 2 6.67%
The "Why Someone Is Banned" thread should be CLOSED. 10 33.33%
The "Why Someone Is Banned" thread should remain OPEN. 17 56.67%
Actions going against rules SHOULD be allowed in specific threads designed for these activities. 20 66.67%
Actions going against rules SHOULD NOT be allowed in specific threads designed for these activities. 4 13.33%
Complaints against moderation should be taken up in PM 17 56.67%
Complaints against moderation should be posted PUBLICLY. 13 43.33%
In order for everyone to be treated equally, moderation must be black & white. 3 10.00%
Black & white moderation will lead to an unhappy community afraid of expressing themselves. 19 63.33%
Community majority opinion on these matters SHOULD dictate future activities. 22 73.33%
Community majority opinion on these matters SHOULD NOT dictate future activities 3 10.00%
Moderator majority opinion on these matters should dictate future activity. 10 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 06-16-2011, 11:53 AM   #21 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Necromancer View Post
You should be considered as one of the next potential moderators RVCA. Ive always thought that was the case not long after you became a member here at MB.
Oh, thank you! But I don't know if I could handle it

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre View Post
If history means nothing and strict adherence to the rules is everything, then doesn't that mean someone could insult someone, recieve a temp ban, return off that temp ban, insult the same person again, and continue the pattern indefinitely providing none of the insults were severe enough to warrant a permaban in and of themselves?
I meant "history means nothing" in the sense that someone who has been a member for 5 years should receive no more leniency than someone who has been a member for 5 days. To think that one would gain exception or preference simply because they have longevity on their side is the symbol of a fundamentally flawed system of law. Of course I didn't mean that someone could repeatedly break a rule while the mods disregard their past offenses, so perhaps I misunderstood the question.

Quote:
And, on the same token, doesn't that mean that if a respected member had a bad day, got drunk and said a few things they would later regret, that member could be permabanned regardless of the positive contribution they otherwise make to the community at all other times?
Sorry, but even if David Bowie got drunk and murdered another person, I'd still want the same punishment for him as I would for some lowlife scumbag who has never contributed anything positive to society.

Quote:
Moderators being able to justify their actions - No problems here. I don't think we currently even HAVE a problem with this.

Community Majority Opinion means nothing - Sorry, not with you on this one. The amount of time devoted to trying to please the community should be limited to avoid moderators getting distracted by the more...insistent...complainers, and often I think there are people who bitch about modding decisions for the sake of bitching about mod decisions, but the potential exists for genuine errors to be brought up by the community and resolved and that should be given weight.
That's perfectly fine, and I agree that mods should listen to to and consider the majority community opinion, but I absolutely disagree with the notion that the "majority opinion" determines what's right. If there's anything I've learned from American politics, it's that the judiciary system is designed not to uphold majority views, but to protect the minority (when they are in the right) from those majority views.

Last edited by RVCA; 06-16-2011 at 12:17 PM.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.