In the case of option 5A, noone. In the case of option 5B, moderators. In the case of option 5C (which is the one we discussed), the public.

My votes:

1B. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods more lenient with regulars)
As I mentioned previously, I don’t think this issue is expressed well in the poll so I guess this is the option I’m forced to choose. What I support is fair moderation, which I think has always been what we go for here. I honestly don’t even know what it would mean to apply the rules equally to all members regardless of post count since the rules themselves clearly differentiate between new members and longer term members (e.g. our rules about who can have what in their signature, our rule about who can have a journal, our rule that you need 15 non-lounge posts before you can create links, etc.). I don’t think these rules are unfair or unreasonable, and I think it’s a fairly common human expectation in all kinds of communities that long-term participants have earned a bit more leeway within the group.

2B. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. "Safe Zones" less strict)
We already run things this way (e.g. the music sections are a little stricter than the lounge, the journals are more heavily moderated than anything else) and it seems pretty reasonable so no reason to change it.

3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts
For the record, I think we should also discourage long nonsense posts. It’s really the nonsense part that’s the issue, not the length. And of course the way this should be enforced is very context dependent.

4B. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken
I think context and judgement are the reason that we have human moderators instead of bots so I’m in favor of applying rules judiciously rather than automatically.

5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny
I think they can be, but within reason. Members should be expected to recognize things that are over the line (e.g. repeatedly questioning a moderator about something long after the fact, questioning the moderation in a situation where the rule enforcement was clearly directed at a spammer) and people’s privacy should be respected.

6B. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / bans
This is how we currently operate and I think it strikes the best balance between having some kind of structure and not being too cumbersome.

7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts
I don’t really see the point of using an anonymous account.

8A. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months)
I really think this depends on what kind of policy it is, for example if it’s something driven by Google, having a trial run doesn’t really make sense. But sure, as a general guideline I think having trial runs could be a good idea.

9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods.
Sure. The ranks have gotten a little thin so a new mod or mods could be a good idea, if we have the right candidates.

is it cool if i just vote or do i really have to go through each one and explain my reasoning?

What are you talking about? Are you saying La Rox is not allowed her privacy? I'm saying it's her choice not to have her transgressions aired publicly, and her opinion that it would be a bad idea. What does that have to do with what you wrote? Are you high again or suffering tobacco withdrawal?
You don't get to vote. You shot the president.

All joking aside, this is something of a serious point I have to make, which will probably annoy tore. It's not meant to: I did like tore (note the tense here) but the way he's conducted himself throughout this whole enterprise, essentially trying to push something on the community that a majority said they did not want (see Exo's incisive analogy) has forced me to rethink how I feel about him. Sad I know, but there it is.

Anyway, the thing is, I feel I would have given this whole proposal more attention, importance and significance if it had come from someone who's here all the time, be they mod or not. Someone I was used to talking to, or seeing talking, making threads, making jokes, doing reviews, joining in conversations. But for a long time now tore has been, to quote his usertitle (or his one up to a very short time ago) an "absent friend". He hasn't been involved with the community and I can't help but remember the last significant contribution he made, that I can recall, was when a little while back he invited anyone who wanted to to leave MB and join him in setting up a new forum. That didn't happen, and then a while later we get this.

So to my mind (whether right or wrong) it's like tore didn't get his new forum, so now he's trying to mould, bend and force this one into a shape he is comfortable with, while sadly tending to ignore the fact that so many people don't want that. This is the main reason why I don't agree with his proposal. It's like someone has been away for years and then comes home and says "I know how this place can be better." The initial reaction would be "Who the hell are you? You haven't been here for years." I know tore was/is a respected member and ex-mod, but to me this is just a little suspect, and it may be coincidence but I'm willing to bet it's not.

And I personally don't want (and again, I hope no offence is taken) someone who has not been here for years to come back and tell me how the place should be run, change it all up and then, by his own admission, perhaps leave and not even be part of it once it's been changed. I'm happy with MB as it is, which is why I will continue to oppose any attempts to significantly change it.

I would also like to know: is tore's proposal still alive because he said this poll was "something different". So what is it? I think I certainly at least, am still labouring to connect the two, and definitely feel the one is the product of the other. To put it in terms you Americans will be familiar with, it feels like it's a sneaky rider being attached to a bill?

It could have been worded better. By the basic intention of the option, the rules you mention are not regarded unequal, or at least not the kind of unequal that was intended to bring up. Rather, those rules are circumstantial which is similar, but importantly different. You'd probably agree that people who are blind should not drive cars. Hypothetically, it is applied equally because if you yourself become blind, you are not allowed to drive and the same goes for the president of the US. It doesn't matter who you are, it only matters whether or not you are blind and blindness is important in this case because it makes you less able to drive safely.

If you are blind and allowed to drive a car, then you're treated differently.

Likewise, all these circumstantial rules that affect newbies would also affect us if we were newbs (thus applying equally to all in that circumstance) and newb is an unspecific term that doesn't differentiate on things like the colour your skin or gender - rather like the no-driving-rule for blind people.

It's hard to get all this into one 100 characters option, though.

I think only two of us have explained our votes so far. It's up to you, but if you do, I'll read it.

lolwut

@tore

i mean my basic reasoning overall is that i want the rules to be as loose as possible

so just apply that principle to each question and you can probably fill in the blanks

I don't give a **** what her opinion is or is not. If she wants her privacy, then that's fine (I think she's being goofy in this case, but whatevs), but just because she has an opinion doesn't mean it should automatically be respected (No offense, Roxy, I'm just talking about the respecting of opinions as a general principle.) The whole point of this exercise is to debate opinions, so when you voice an opinion here, it becomes free game to be dissected, studied, and then cast into the biohazard disposal thingy when it fails to hold up to scrutiny.

Wow, Briks and I agreed on every single choice.

Same. It's my same approach toward gun rights as well (let's not have that derail BTW): whether or not some things about gun rights/forum culture might be good or bad, I'd rather there be an atmosphere of relatively hands off permissiveness, than one micromanaged by heartless logic and statistics.