VEGANGELICA

I agree that creating a new, multiple choice poll is a very good idea. I also agree that it should have a 2 week time limit and that any new moderation policy should have a trial run first.

I recommend keeping the current, simpler poll open for a total of 2 weeks, since it provides *some* data on what the community, including mods, feels.

I have three suggestions about a multiple choice poll format:

(1) I recommend that the multiple choice poll give people a chance to vote either YES or NO on each suggestion. While this does make a longer poll, it also makes understanding the results much easier and faster.

For example, let's say 100 people in total vote in the poll, but we get only 20 votes for "the mod team should be bolstered with additional mods."

Does that mean the other 80 oppose having more mods, or don't really feel it is necessary but don't really care one way or the other?

By providing the NO option, this allows us to tell how many people feel strongly that the suggested change is bad. If only 10 people vote NO, then presumably (of the people who care), the vote would be 20 YES : 10 NO, and so the conclusion would be that having additional mods would be a change that could be made without bothering a majority of the voters.

ALTERNATIVELY, you could explain that each measure would need votes from more than half the voters to be considered as a change to be made at Musicbanter (assuming we want a simple majority to be necessary for a measure to pass).

(2) I would very explicity ask people to post in the new poll's thread to elaborate on their opinions about each proposal and to suggest any additional changes they might want to see at Musicbanter.

One option in particular ("3. The rules should be revised") could be worded to ask voters to expain how they want the rules to be revised if they vote Yes. For example, the option could state: "The rules should be revised [Please post your suggested rule changes in the thread]."

(3) I recommend that the fourth option read, "4. When enforcing rules, mods should strive to treat all members, including moderators, equally" to emphasize that moderators are not exempt from the rules.

I also feel it would be good, in the new poll's original post, for information to be given about how the built-in infractions system works, so you would probably want to link to your thread that explains it.

Thank you for continuing to work on this, Tore, and a thanks to all the members/mods who are sharing their opinions because they care about the Musicbanter community.

__________________

Guybrush

^You got me convinced, Erica

The only thing I'm entirely convinced of is whether this poll & thread should be allowed to live. If this thread is discredited by the way the poll was made, wouldn't it be better to just shut it down and possibly move it to the graveyard?

Furthermore, I thought the question regarding the rules could need a little tweaking. There's only one rule which people seem divided about and it's the short nonsense posts rule. This is generally not enforced today, but would be under the suggested new policy, if it were allowed to stay. I've narrowed down the question so that it asks whether this rule should be kept or not (a new policy would require some fine-tuning of the rules either way, regardless of how people answered the old question, making the old question redundant).

So, here's an updated suggestion. I've baked in some suggested changes and added some of my own :


Poll : Which of these statements do you agree with? (not anonymous)

Options (multiple choice) :

1. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods
2. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional mods
3. The rule against short nonsense posts should be kept
4. The rule against short nonsense posts should NOT be kept
5. The rules should apply equally to all, including moderators
6. The rules should NOT apply equally to all
7. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken
8. General mod policy should NOT be to react to every instance where a rule is broken
9. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use infractions
10. For punishment, there should NOT be a general policy to use infractions
11. Rules should apply equally to all forums
12. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. The Lounge forum less strict)
13. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)
14. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first

Duration : 2 weeks

So .. did I forget anything?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Freebase Dali

@Tore: Looks better. Here's how I would have written it in my own perspective of reality in an internet forum. Just my take.
(the .5 ones are just what I added later without wanting to re-number everything)

1. The mod team should be bolstered with additional qualified mods

2. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional qualified mods and is fine as-is

2.5 The mod team should be bolstered with whoever most people like, irrelevant of personality or temper

3. The rule against short, nonsense posts should be kept, in a context where a user habitually offers nothing more than short, nonsense posts

4. The rule against short nonsense posts should NOT be kept, and everyone should be allowed to habitually make short, nonsense posts regardless of history or context

4.5 The rule against short nonsense posts should be strictly adhered to, irrelevant of context.

5. The rules should apply equally to all, including moderators, no matter the context

6. The rules should NOT apply equally to all, contingent on context and standard, reasonable judgement

7. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken

8. General mod policy should NOT be to react to every instance where a rule is broken

9. General mod policy should be to judge every potential instance where a rule is broken and make a decision congruent with context

10. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use infractions

11. For punishment, there should NOT be a general policy to use infractions

11.5 For punishment, there should be a graduating approach that begins with a warning, followed by a set number of infractions, followed by a set number of temp bans, followed by a permaban

12. Rules should apply equally to all forums

13. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. The Lounge forum less strict or other designated "safe zones")

14. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)

15. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first and should be implemented immediately

Alternate votes:

16. I don't think anything is wrong, and have no need to vote on individual items

17. I think something is wrong, but my concerns are not listed in the individual items, and I will voice them in my reply to this thread

__________________

Guybrush

Thanks for your feedback. Can poll text be that long?

I think some options can be formulated better. For example;

The "strictly adhered to, irrelevant of context" might cause confusion. If a member thinks that there should be safe zones from strict rules, then they might vote no for this because they thought the option says short posts rule should be enforced regardless, even in safe zones.

There are other wordings I have some issues with, but commentingon all is a bit much. I'll just give my set of suggestions and then perhaps add some comments. Also, I like the way you number your options, but how about if each number represents one question or issue? You'll read what I mean below.

Bolstering the mod team

1. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods

1. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional mods

I'm thinking we don't need to poll about recruitment policies and qualifications at this time, rather crossing that river when/if we get to it. Actually, bringing up this whole bolstering issue might be redundant as I assume a decision to take on more mods is and should be based more on actual need more than answers in this poll.

Short nonsense posts

2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should allow for short, nonsense posts (ex. one-word posts are okay)

2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts (ex. you can get away with a few, but not many)

2. Outside safe zones, mod policy should prohibit short, nonsense posts (ex. one-word posts are not allowed)

It occurred to me that it may be smarter to ask people what they want the environment to be like rather than specifically what they think should be done with a rule.

Equality

3. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. no favoritism, mods and users generally treated the same)

3. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods are generally more lenient with long time members and mods than others)

I've removed the word context from the options as context is not really going away and would be used in both scenarios.

Mod Reaction Policy

4. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken (ex. the mods react the first time and every other time a user breaks a rule)

4. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken (ex. allows for mods to first react to rule breaking when member does it repeatedly)

Punishment policy

5. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions (enough infractions result in a ban)

5. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / temp bans and permabans

5. There should be no general policy for how punishment is carried out

Safe zones

6. Rules should apply equally to all forums

6. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. The Lounge forum less strict or other designated "safe zones")

Trial run

7. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)

7. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately)

Transparency policy

8. Details of rule enforcement is ultimately between a mod and a user (ex. Mod-user PMs can remain secret)

8. Details of rule enforcement can ulimately be subject to other mods scrutiny (ex. Mod-user PMs are visible to other mods or can be made available)

8. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny (Mod-user PMs can be made available to all)

Other

9. Some of my concerns are not listed in the individual items, but I will voice them in a reply.

Thoughts?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Trollheart

I'm going to, insofar as I can and certainly with respect to these suggestions, refrain from posting/replying here, as I feel my posts will just be seen (rightly or wrongly) as a "my system is better than yours" sort of idea, which I do not want to happen. If I disagree with or comment on anything here it's inevitably going to include "in my system this happens..." so best I don't respond. This does not mean I'm not watching and reading, and if anyone asks me something directly or posts something slightly off-topic but still relevant, I will probably post. But for now, think of me as a sort of ghost haunting this thread. Anything I have to say will be posted in my own thread.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Freebase Dali

@Tore, I think that's a nice cleanup and a good compromise between the original and mine.

__________________

DwnWthVwls

So I don't know if this has been asked but are the mods willing to uphold any changes the community is in favor of or will you continue to run things how the mod team as a whole sees fit? Some of these changes will inevitably demand more time and effort if we expect to see any sort of consistency and I'm sure many of you either don't have it or just don't feel the need/desire to put in the extra effort (which is totally understandable).

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Freebase Dali

Personally, I wouldn't have spent all the time I've put into commenting about this whole thing if I wasn't going to advocate for whatever the community wanted. But that doesn't mean I'm going to quit my job in order to mod MB more often in order to fulfill the extra obligation. Which is why I support getting more mods, assuming there are candidates out there that wouldn't just make this all a waste of time to begin with.

__________________

right-track

Lots of discussions about reforms etc.
Whatever happened to a cup if tea, a calm head and bags of common sense?
Has MB changed that much to warrant the way its moderated.
Genuinly curious...

Frownland

I've not been on as long as Janzsoon or tore, but I can safely say that MB is still quite similar to how it was when I joined. It's just that there are different members ergo somewhat different standards of what is acceptable.

I don't like the system because context can play an immense part in the literal content of what people are saying.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.