Quote:
Originally Posted by Maru
If moderating to the letter is going to be too difficult (which it sounds like it will be), I think stick to public warnings and thread locks.
When you're deleting threads and posts for simple rule breaks like being off-topic, you're leaving things open to interpretation.
I think just a simple warning to tell people that that is not considered on-topic and to get back to the OP's post will suffice. The people who would be annoyed would be satisfied to see this public warning posted and well--if the thread crashes... then thread lock.
The OP should have the most control I think. They should be able to say, this is the discussion I want to have--within these parameters... I don't want to discuss XYZ, I want to discuss this issue and the merits/non-merits of it. This creates an equal environment since people who are right-leaning can have as many threads as they'd like about conservative topics and so can left-leaning folk with social justice topics... everyone is happy, as long as they keep to the OP.
|
So basically, more transparent moderating but leave things as it is? That could work. Like, when stuff gets deleted, post that there has been a deletion and why? Stuff like that?
The issue here would be that then the person who has been deleted will argue back that their post should not have been removed, and then we have to either delete that comment, or explain further and then the thread would turn into 'the modding is unfair' arguments
Honestly, this whole thing has made me really think I should just step back from moderating for a while. I really feel we are in a 'cant win' situation where half the forum agree with the deletions and stuff and half disagree
