You don’t view warnings to other members for a particular behavior as applying to you as well? Warning Frink many times for snark didn’t make you think doing the same would be a problem?
There is a possibility he did not see those warnings. They were not addressed to him, and I don’t think we should expect every member to read every new post of every thread to see them. Again, this is mostly a communication issue. If a mod addresses a member specifically to disengage with a certain behavior, then it is logical to assume it is addressed to that member specifically. If a mod wishes to address the entire forum, they should make a general announcement.
And you don’t see warnings as having a cumulative effect over time? Because we definitely keep track (more or less, not like an official tally, but more of a “this member has definitely been warned multiple times for this” sort of thing).
I suppose the warning system could be a bit more formal. Other forums have a sort of “health bar” that indicates how you’re doing in regards to warnings. If an exchange gets heated, and a mod warns a member to disengage, that member may think it is in response to that specific exchange. If in a completely unrelated exchange a few months later, if a member does something they consider different, but the mod does not, that member could be banned as the mod has justified it with the previous warning. Again, this is a communication issue. It could be resolved by making the warning system a bit more explicit, as for right now, it’s a bit vague to me, and I’m sure to others as well. A small remark that receives a warning could be better tracked and made clearer as to how long they follow you.
Anyway, I came here to address the post you replied to me with:
Generally speaking, yes. In the context of a political debate, I don’t agree.
I think if this is the stance you take, then it is probably for the best that politics are no longer allowed, as this is where most of the conflict seems to stem from.
What do you propose I do? Genuine question. Here are the options I see, but I welcome your input.
I continue as I have been, participating like any other member. I speak at the same level as others, including when things get snippy, and in exchange we have an experience that is as close to unmoderated as possible while still maintaining rules to keep things on the rails. Warnings are relatively few and far between (as they have been, even though some of you probably feel otherwise), and occasionally someone gets banned because they don’t know when to quit.
I up my game and avoid escalating confrontations. I stay polite when presented with hostility. However, because I’m expected to be a model member and mod, I can never truly engage and must respond to provocations with appropriate warnings per the rules. And not an endless stream of warnings; multiple warnings result in a ban.
I think there can be a balance struck here. You can continue to engage like any other member, but avoid escalating confrontations when presented with hostility. That’s the key word: escalating. But this still leaves the issue of role ambiguity as to where the “just another member” hat merges into the admin hat. That’s where the next option comes in:
- I strip myself of mod powers. You guys trust the mods to moderate (I do) and not play favorites. We’d need another mod for sure, and the existing mods would have to agree to it.
I think this is also a required option if you choose to engage like a normal member. That is, to not use your mod powers in discussions you are in a heated exchange in. I think that is where a lot of the fallout with the locking of the political threads started. You were in a heated exchange, and were upset by dahmage’s snark, which only contributed to whatever feeling the political exchange created. I think the key is that if you want to engage like any other member, you can’t use your mod powers in those discussions. This does not mean you must strip yourself of them completely. If you are not personally involved in a discussion, then it’s fair play. But if a mod is acting like anybody else, and they get in an argument, they should defer to another mod to see if action is warranted.
It’s a bit tough, but the way it goes now, everything is a bit vague and that can leave an uneasy feeling with members.
I regret not writing something up to announce the changes and providing a thread to discuss them in an organized fashion. Major failure on my part.
I appreciate your recognition here. Really, when it comes to moderating, I think over-explaining something to the point of boredom (that is, why actions are being taken when they are being taken, not the three-day retrospective we have now, ha!) is the safer option over possibly not explaining enough, even if they might fall on deaf ears. At least there was an attempt, and the actions are justified then-and-there. Again, that rests on communication. I remember telling oojason something similar at one point. Explain, explain, explain. Sounds tiring, but I think it would probably diffuse a lot of conflict.
Anyway, that’s what I think in regards to the posed questions. A more structured, formal system of moderation that doesn’t allow for any ambiguity, essentially. How feasible all of this is given how few mods are here, I’m not sure, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a model to strive towards.