How Should MB Be Moderated? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > Announcements, Suggestions, & Feedback
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Which statements do you agree the most with? (public poll)
1A. The rules should be applied equally to all members (ex. rules apply equally to mods and users) 15 60.00%
1B. The rules should NOT be applied equally to all members (ex. mods more lenient with regualrs) 8 32.00%
2A. Rules should apply equally to all forums 7 28.00%
2B. Rules should NOT apply equally to all forums (ex. "Safe Zones" less strict) 18 72.00%
3A. Outside safe zones, mod policy should allow for short, nonsense posts 10 40.00%
3B. Outside safe zones, mod policy should discourage short, nonsense posts 13 52.00%
3C. Outside safe zones, mod policy should prohibit short, nonsense posts 2 8.00%
4A. General mod policy should be to react to every instance where a rule is broken 10 40.00%
4B. General mod policy should allow for mods NOT to react to an instance where a rule is broken 15 60.00%
5A. Details of rule enforcement is ultimately between a mod and a user 7 28.00%
5B. Details of rule enforcement can ulimately be subject to other mods scrutiny 4 16.00%
5C. Details of rule enforcement can be subject to public scrutiny 16 64.00%
6A. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use temporary infractions 5 20.00%
6B. For punishment, there should be a general policy to use warnings, infractions / bans 16 64.00%
6C. There should be no general policy for how punishment is carried out 7 28.00%
7A. For rule enforcement, moderators should use a joint, anonymous account 4 16.00%
7B. For rule enforcement, moderators should use their personal accounts 21 84.00%
8A. A new moderation policy should have a trial run first (ex. 1 - 2 months) 18 72.00%
8B. A new moderation policy should NOT have a trial run first (implemented immediately) 5 20.00%
9A. The mod team should be bolstered with additional mods. 13 52.00%
9B. The mod team should NOT be bolstered with additional mods. 6 24.00%
9C. The current mod team should be retained. 17 68.00%
9D. Some or all of the current moderators should be replaced. 6 24.00%
10. Some of my concerns are not listed in the individual items, but I will voice them in a reply. 5 20.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-11-2015, 01:53 PM   #1 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth View Post
is it cool if i just vote or do i really have to go through each one and explain my reasoning?
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.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.