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

[Paedantic Basterd]

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Yea, it's not an issue. Just seeing the name in both opposing votes is enough.

Essentially it shows that my opinion is a bit of a split, which is true enough.

[Freebase Dali]

All's well then.
I hope the clarifications help for others, though, because based on what I had in mind when writing the options, some people's votes were pretty self-contradictory.

[Sparky]

geez this is the most professional group of mods i think we have had. This is just some little internet community half these rules i didn't even know existed.

[Burning Down]

Crap I think I voted wrong on one or two things. Probably because I couldn't read them. I'm getting new glasses tomorrow, thankfully.

[crash_override]

First of all, this is a great idea. I would like to see at least one option added.

MODERATORS should deliberate action, and refer to precedent in past actions when making judgement.


I don't agree with mods flying off the cuff on a case by case basis, that would only breed favoritism and bring personal feelings into the mix. I also don't agree with a member getting an infraction everytime they use the word "stupid" in a post. (see oojay's recent post's for reference)

Needless to say I don't subcribe to the "black & white" theory, or the idea of moderators going around banning people because they've had a bad day and don't feel like dealing with things the proper way (not directing this at anyone or saying this has ever happened before, calm down).

The way I think it should go down is something like this:

1. Actions of offending party are brought to attention to the mod team by prosecuting moderator, after at least 2, but no more than 5 warnings have been administered to member for the same or similar instances of offending behavior. A notice will be given to the member on their final warning that states it is as such, via PM.

2. Mod team will deliberate, based on past and agreeable precedent, establishing some sort of continuity in enforcement over time, and determine the length of ban to be applied. A majority (i.e. 5/8) moderators votes should be required to take recommended action. This will decrease disagreements between mods as well as ignorance amongst mods who would then be question as to reason. A more informed mod team is a better mod team.

3. The prosecuting moderator (the mod that brings the case before the team) will be responsible for justifying and adequetely explaining action to the public in a forum setting, as well as the offending party via PM. Explanations should include details to include: the prosecuting moderator (who should be the originator of the explanation post) ,time and date of offenses, a summary of offending actions, and time and dates of previous warnings leading to disciplinary action. Details that it should not include should be: quotations or re-posting of posts or parts of posts that contain direct, detailed, and concise verbage that could still remain extremely offensive to other members or take away from the professional atmosphere of the forum. (i.e. "crash_override, your mother is a fat whore, you are a waste of space not suited for life in a dumpster. also, you are cross-eyed, semi-retarded ****bag, you cock sucking, dick cock ****bird looking mother****er.")

Instead, summize: "crash_override was attacked on 13 Jun 2011 at approximately 08:40am EST by Banned_Guy71. Offenses include: attacks to crash_override's mother's sexual activity and moral fortitude, his intelligence, and lifestyle. Numerous curse words and personal attacks were included in the offending post, Banned_Guy71 has had three previous warnings for previous offenses (state dates of offenses), and has now been banned from MB (state length of ban)."

Stipulation #1: Actions deemed as extremely severe in disregard to the rules, or threatening impending doom of the community can be dealt with on a no warning basis, but should be justified publically and require a greater majority of mod support. A precedent for these types of actions should be set.

Stipulation #2: These rules should apply to established members only, trolls and spammers should be dealt with under a seperate set of guidelines.

That's a rough overview of how things would and should go in a perfect world, by my account anyway. Take that however you will. But I will refrain from voting in the poll as I feel it limits my options and promotes taking sides, rather than searching for a fair middle ground.

Feedback is welcome and encouraged.

[The Virgin]

I'm done with mine. and i would like to give you some sort of brief explanation as to why i voted on the following:

Moderators SHOULD NOT use personal judgment in moderating decisions, and refer to strict rules only.

personal judgment is sometimes mixed by favouritism and current temperament of a mod. i believe it's much easier, both to the members and mods to rely strictly on the rules.

Members SHOULD NOT be allowed to break any rules, at any time.

given that it is explicitely implied on the rules

Moderators SHOULD take history and frequency into account, when infracting.

i believe Conan explained before that this has been practiced and i pretty much agree on this point. it's a very fair thing to do.

Moderators SHOULD publically post a member's infraction and/or ban information.

to avoid the mods to explain one by one to all thousands of members here thru pm the whats and whys which may differ from a day to day basis depending on the mods memory capability

Members SHOULD NOT PM a moderator for that information, but ask publicly.

something tells me that if the members will pm a mod for any information, the volume alone will be a task for them to reply to each and everyone.

Moderators should have to justify ALL of their decisions

for transparency of course

Members should be given a LIMITED number of chances to cease disruptive activity.

given that they're not breaking any rules along the process

Moderators SHOULD be allowed to decide what constitutes disruption.

because moderators, out of anyone here, know the rules better

The "Why Someone Is Banned" thread should remain OPEN.

i don't see any good reason why this should be close other than trying to avoid giving explanations about why someone was banned.

Complaints against moderation should be posted PUBLICLY.

i think that is kind of a cumpolsory word to use, "CAN" may be more appropriate.

In order for everyone to be treated equally, moderation must be black & white

i'm not sure what black & white here really means but if it meant transparency of moderation to all members, i'm up for it.

Community majority opinion on these matters SHOULD dictate future activities.

more than 1,000 heads are better than less than 1,000 heads.

again, this is just my opinion.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by crash_override

I also don't agree with a member getting an infraction everytime they use the word "stupid" in a post. (see oojay's recent post's for reference)

Me neither. Fortunately for both of us that hasn't happened.

[Howard the Duck]

i did get an infraction for a pretty colorful insult, though

[RVCA]

No personal judgement in moderating, strict adherence to rules please

Post count and history mean nothing

Moderators must be able to justify all of their moderating decisions

and most importantly, community majority opinion means nothing. Mods are here to protect the minority and objectively enforce rules, no matter who is breaking them.

[Necromancer]

Originally Posted by RVCA

No personal judgment in moderating, strict adherence to rules please

Post count and history mean nothing

Moderators must be able to justify all of their moderating decisions

and most importantly, community majority opinion means nothing. Mods are here to protect the minority and objectively enforce rules, no matter who is breaking them.

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.