What kind of moderation would YOU like to see on Prydwen.net?

[Xest]

Please read descriptions in my second post in this thread before deciding a vote.

There's been a lot of complaints over the last few months over moderation on prydwen.net however, it seems no matter what type of rules and moderation are imposed, people still complain, so to get a better idea of what people expect from the forums I'm making this poll. Note that it doesn't necessarily mean we'll act on this poll - I'm doing this off my own back and not as a result of discussion with other mods however the results maybe good material for me to open a discussion with other mods.

[Xest]

Just to clarify somewhat:

First option: This is essentially what we have now, the rules are clearly defined in the CoC and must be adhered to equally by everyone and anyone.

Second option: Ignoring personal feelings about whether a moderator may or may not make a biased decision (this is a different issue), this option allows moderators to make their own mind up much more flexibly as to whether someone needs to be warned/thread banned/banned/moderated out.

Third option: This would be close to no moderation, only blatant violations would be dealt with, for example obvious personal attacks, light flaming would however be tolerated as this can be expected somewhat from heated discussion.

Fourth option: Don't take this too literally, some moderation would still exist but only things like moving threads to correct forums and such, no censoring of people's posts would exist.

Fifth option: Same as above but including censorship of swearing and some (all?) insults.

Sixth option: As it says!

[Lieva]

ive personally voted CoC moderation
weve tried the others before and just get moaned at
we get moaned at with the coc moderation also but least we have the coc to fall back on :/

[Gamblor]

tbh i've had no problem whatsoever with the way the modding has been done so far, so i don't have a problem , keep it as it is imo.

[Satyn]

I actually wanted to vote on the top two. But then I picked the second one, while I do mean the first one aswell tho. Sometimes you have to use your personal opinion to mod on something if the coc isnt clear enough.

[Mojo]

I am generally happy with the modding, some decisions have been over zealous IMO but nothing major, i would prefer threads being locked rather than posts deleted and as twisted as it might be those threads entertain us so dont mess with them em unless things get extremely out of hand.

Any mod who acts out of personel interest shud not be a mod, i am not overly happy with some of the mods TBH i just dont think they are experienced or neutral enough, but thats just my liberal opinion

[Kallima]

The CoC seems fine to me, and we need some moderation, but inevitably there is some personal judgement in how you apply rules. There are times when someone has to decide yes or no.

In my opinion there are less problems when the person moderating something doesn't publicly state their own opinions. I can't help imagining a referee at a football match disallowing a goal. Some people will agree with the decision, some disagree, but basically the idea is you accept the referee's decision as being neutral and unbiased. It is a lot easier to do that if the referee isn't publicly cheering for one side or the other.

So if you wish to cheer for one side or the other in a discussion thread, maybe someone else does the moderating of that thread. Is it possible for people to only moderate threads where they aren't posting?

[Lieva]

thats actually a good idea kallima - that way the ground can stay neutral in regards to moderation

[Ovi]

I voted for option 3 as it is the closest I would like to see.

I personally believe in freedom of speech as much as possible. Moderation should be a last resort. Moving threads is acceptable, as that in itself only affects the organisation of the forum, and doesn't stifle freedom of speech.

I don't think "No Moderation" could ever be considered, since that is an open invitation for people to abuse the situation.

Another reason I prefer as little moderation as possible is that it is easier for people to self-moderate, than it is for them to "un-moderate". If there is a thread I don't like I can choose to not read, or even make my own views heard. If that thread is "moderated" I then lose the choice to read it, and don't get the chance to express my views.

Moderation has a large effect on the way people view forums, if they don't like the moderation they will stop using the forum. The main thing therefore is to be consistent, since if you keep changing the moderation over time you will alienate almost everyone.

[Satyn]

The CoC seems fine to me, and we need some moderation, but inevitably there is some personal judgement in how you apply rules. There are times when someone has to decide yes or no.

In my opinion there are less problems when the person moderating something doesn't publicly state their own opinions. I can't help imagining a referee at a football match disallowing a goal. Some people will agree with the decision, some disagree, but basically the idea is you accept the referee's decision as being neutral and unbiased. It is a lot easier to do that if the referee isn't publicly cheering for one side or the other.

So if you wish to cheer for one side or the other in a discussion thread, maybe someone else does the moderating of that thread. Is it possible for people to only moderate threads where they aren't posting?

yes it is a good idea but think that is how i always thought the mods handled this. I might be wrong tho. The only thing you get then is if another mod steps in to move/lock or whatever the thread then they get bitched at for getting inbetween a good discussion like i recently had to hear.

We'll never be able to do good for everyone.