[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

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.

[jet]

I hit I Agree as I think Vicky's OP is a good step forward. I haven't read all the comments yet though, but basically I'm just for even - handedness and fairness all round really.

[Ammi]

....hmmm, I’m not sure about the discussions having to be ‘more thought out with reasons given’ type thing...because sometimes a simple question could apply to the discussion...or a simple short statement, which would stare a view...also its 13+yrs forum age, so
maybe younger members might want to take part in discussions, but don’t feel yet, that they could give reasons...they might just think..’oh, I think that’s wrong’, but not really have gathered thoughts enough to post to expand on that...more an instinctive opinion they have...?...anyways, making too stead fast rules of post content, may achieve an opposite of putting of as well...it also could feel a little exclusive, maybe..

[Ammi]

...I actually like that some people might say...oh he’s rubbish or whatever and that’s that of that...and then others expand more and expand the debates...it makes for a great mix, I think...because we all are individuals, not only in our thoughts but how we convey them in type as well..

[Vicky.]

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

[Ammi]

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.

..I think the only thing with locked threads, Maru...from my forum experience anyway...is that the thread becomes locked, so silliness can’t continue or whatever reason it has been...but that can then spill into other threads more/ a new thread...because people still want to say.....but the locking didn’t allow them....