I like the people here, but I don't much appreciate some of the apsects of the culture. I definitely think it can improve.

Because of the way forums work, drama between two or a few users can pretty much overshadow most else that goes on. It is extremely visible and so is bad culture in general.

By the way, how is punishing someone who flames or trolls the same as punishing everyone?

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Possibly it won't. As I wrote to Jans, perhaps the short post rule should go. But whatever rules you have, it's better with consistent, predictable rule enforcement.

edit :

It's also good that other mods can see rule enforcement and that there are permanent records.

Another question. Why do you think mods will be inclined to handout infractions? Most mods still don't want to punish their friends, while they don't mind so much newbies and people they don't like.

I'm on my way to work so I'll reply to your longer post above a little later, but I'd just like to point out that we already have permanent records regardless of whether we use your infraction system so that's not really a workable argument in favor of it.

Aaaight, cool and thanks for the heads up!

Being a moderator is not (or shouldn't be) just a privilege. It's a job and a mod's job is basically to be forum police and keep law and order. Using the in-built infractions system in a consistent way is the best way to do that (imo) and so it should really be part of the job description.

Making unpopular decisions is also part of the job and when there's no clear precedent, unpopular decisions are always on you. For a recent example of this, see how Urban was recently called out for how he handled the Spill Your Guts Thread.

My suggestion makes the job simple by establishing precedent and consistency. If user breaks the rule by doing X, there's a clear precedent for how to deal with X. When the system of moderation is bigger than any one mod, it actually protects moderators by taking responsibility away from them ("sorry, but that's the job"), enabling them to enforce what would otherwise be tough decisions.

Mods would be motivated, I hope, by a realization that this way actually works and because they believe that keeping "law and order" is good for musicbanter.

So, mods will be motivated to hand out infractions because they will realize that handing out infractions works when the imaginary mods do it first?

I don't understand where you're going with this and I'm not going to speculate on why each and every mod do what they do.

But generally speaking, they may be motivated because they believe people get less burnt if it hurts every time they put their hand in the fire rather than if it hurts just sometimes.

First of all, it's very rare for there to be drama that actually bleeds into other threads. And it's even more rare for drama to enter into the music forums. Almost all of it is kept contained in the Lounge, where only people looking for off-topic discussion and letting off steam go. Like I said, these new enforcement policies would force everyone to jump through hoops, all to prevent something that is not that common, doesn't affect the main music forums, and is killed very quickly if it starts to spread.

I'll try to rephrase my point. There are only a few members who start fights, and those fights are kept in the Lounge and watched by the moderators, who step in if things get too personal. It doesn't affect most of the members, who are too busy having fun with the music forums to care, and it doesn't "overshadow" any content on Music Banter since it's carefully contained in The Lounge. People who insult others outside of the Lounge are not tolerated for very long (for example, take the recent case of GrtWhtGrvty).

This system works just fine. 90% of Music Banter is just as good as it ever was, and it remains that way no matter what happens in The Lounge. Forcing everyone to have to deal with more restrictions than ever before is not fair to them. It's not fair to them since they shouldn't be kept on a leash because of the actions of just two or three members, and it's not fair to them because the feedback you've received so far has shown that these restrictions you're proposing are neither wanted nor needed.

:laughing:

I mostly agree with Ori. In my experience, the kind of moderation you are talking about only exists on very large forums. I belong to a few, such as the Minecraft forums, where you can hardly even curse, and anything inflammatory/off topic can get you a warning. I don't mind having tight restrictions, but this forum is far to small and personal to have such a rule set.