Sitswithamouse
I look Time Lord
- Mar 6, 2005
- 3,870
- 478
- 54
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Thank you Meh and Synger for your help and support on this matter.
Upvote
0
Are those the only two factors that will be taken into account?
What makes one violation more severe than another?
We do not have a specific scale for the severity of rules violations. That would not work in a site as large as this one, which includes everything from forums for light games or fellowship to forums that encourage pretty heavy discussion and debate.
The moderation process we use relies upon the team moderators reviewing each report in light of their understanding of the site-wide rules and the guidelines specific to their forums. They must find agreement among themselves as to whether a reported post is a violation, and then how severe it is. Within the spectrum of actions available to them, they have some flexibility in how to respond to the member.
The moderation process we use relies upon the team moderators reviewing each report in light of their understanding of the site-wide rules and the guidelines specific to their forums. They must find agreement among themselves as to whether a reported post is a violation, and then how severe it is. Within the spectrum of actions available to them, they have some flexibility in how to respond to the member.
And the bolded portion is and has been the biggest problem in moderation on this board because staff iterprets something one way in one forum and another way in another and then you have likeminded staff cliques on certain teams who also moderate in different ways and then when joe blow leaves the area they normally post in and post in another area they are suddenly hit with lots of staff actions and honestly dont know why.
The problem is the lack of consistancy. All staff should understand what the rules are and all should agree that understanding and moderate accordingly and this will elminate probable bias as well as confused members who dont know what the guidelines are since they remain at the whims of different people who dont agree.
Good Point...
You did not answer my first question, nor has anyone ventured even a guess at how long it would take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle.
This is an egregious off topic violation. You get the max punishment.
If an advisor can step in at any time and ban someone on their own, what's the point in even bothering with consensus rules? What's the point if they can be unilaterally overridden?
If there are specific situations in which an advisor can take this action on their own, why not spell that out to the members so they are aware?
Yeah? Yeah?
Well . . . you ain't got no consensus! So there! Hah!
And Rock smashes Scissors.
I also think that a single mod should not have the power or authority to give a warning or infraction. Too many times in the past, myself and others have been warned or had a post edited/deleted because of a difference of opinion or just plain spite because the mod didn't get along for whatever reason between people involved and a them instead of it being an actual issue.
Instead, I would like to see a specialized unbiased group put together who's purpose is to review issues that mods flag with discussion where the mod themselves can not take part in the final decision made by this group regarding posts.
And not one Catholic or Orthodox member of the Advisory team. Surprise surprise.Maybe someone should explain further this fiasco-in-waiting:
__________________
Guess it's tied in with all the changes being talked about here
If an advisor can step in at any time and ban someone on their own, what's the point in even bothering with consensus rules? What's the point if they can be unilaterally overridden?
If there are specific situations in which an advisor can take this action on their own, why not spell that out to the members so they are aware?