|
1. It is very frustrating to see someone violate the rules, and instead of applying them, the mods proceed to ask the user questions and give them control of the thread for several pages. Every single time this happens, the only effect is to draw out the harm to discussion that the rule is supposed to prevent, and the original violator either a) gets probated anyway or b) they don't, and all people looking to poo poo up discussion get an object lesson in forms of discussion-making GBS threads that the mods will facilitate. When you do this, you are making moderation harder for yourselves in the future, and making the subforum less useable for everyone else. 2. It is not helpful to have an enumerated set of rules if mod actions then don't align with those rules. When non-joke probes or other actions don't make clear what rules they're violating it provides justification for the users complaining that moderation is inconsistent. 2a. Similarly, when it arises that mod action is needed that doesn't fall under the enumerated rules, the reason should say that this is the case, and the mods should explicitly confer (not necessarily publicly) about whether and how the rules can be revised to address that situation. 2b. Moderation policies and their rationale should be stated publicly in one place, and should not be announced ad hoc in the middle of arguments with users, in D&D or elsewhere. This also contributes to both the perception and the reality of inconsistent moderation. Koos Group posted:Yes, generally speaking based on the feedback, the day to day thread quality, and the behind the scenes metric of reports, D&D seems to be doing better than it was. You should not use the number of reports as a metric of quality; Campbell's law applies. There are reasons for the report number to decline that don't have to do with things getting better. Users leaving, activity shrinking, and users being taught that reports will do nothing, will also cause the number of reports to drop. You need to start with what you believe the forum is supposed to be, and directly tie it to your evaluation of "quality," preferably with more explicit terms, and with prior identification of carveouts. For example, if you believe that the subforum should be educational, then people asking more factual questions that get answered can be a sign of healthy discourse, and that standard can be explicitly exclusive of people asking rhetorical questions intended to derail discussion. I could give a big rant about functional form here, but unless you think that "quality of the subforum" is inherently a number, you should treat numeric measures with skepticism- you'll tend to overvalue them. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 29, 2022 |
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
It is an issue that there's less current events being discussed in the USCE thread, because plenty's happening. The current practice of encouraging trolls to frame and dominate an issue for several pages has a depressing effect on other participation, and doesn't foster discussion of news sources in context. I'm planning to start adding content to the media literacy thread again in the next week or so; maybe I can rework some of it to help with that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
While I think that some of CZS's actions are a bit heavyhanded (for example, some of the derail posts they highlight are providing direct sourcing and context that serves to explain why the US Reps letter is irrelevant), it's infinitely better than choosing to not enforce the rules, or entertain users who come to the forum seeking a reaction they can then take back to a group socialized around opposing the forum's purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 21:30
|
|